Renationalisation would be a response to us having the most expensive train-fares in Europe and ridiculously high energy bills. Nationalisation is only ideological when you're talking about renationalising things that work better when privatised. Privatised utilities and transport infrastructure doesn't work, which is why it's overwhelmingly popular to bring them back into public hands. On the trains specifically, even 42% of Tory voters were in favour of renationalisation. If we're talking ideological, let's talk about the Tories who took publically owned, profitable East Coast Rail, which had the highest consumer satisfaction rates in the country if I remember correctly, and sold it to Virgin.
edit - sorry I forgot to answer the first bit of this, will find a link
Sorry if I came off as condescending, I didn't mean to. My response was because the only immediate thing you mentioned being worried about is inflation, which is why I spoke on that subject.
Whatever one's feelings on Corbyn, it's inaccurate to imply that inflation will inevitably be affected any more by Corbyn's QE than it was by Brown's (or indeed, Cameron's). The comparison to the American QE isn't a direct one but, as you'll know, the mechanism by which the printing of money occurs and its effects on investment remain unchanged regardless of where the money goes afterwards. As with anything in economics, the issue is with perception rather than anything else. It's true that Corbyn's QE could potentially cause inflation, but the same was true of Brown's QE in 2009 and Cameron's QE circa 2012. The only difference is that, for obvious reasons, banks were far less likely to raise a stink about the consequences of printing money when it was being printed to go straight into their pockets.
Would you honestly consider leaving the UK if your taxes went to 50% though? Even Kendall wanted to bring in a 50% tax at least until the deficit was cut down. Given that there are polls which suggest that a majority of the public are supportive of a 75% top rate of tax, 50% from a 'hard-left' candidate seems incredibly fair. Having said that, I do have some sympathy with folks like yourselves who've worked to build small businesses and end up paying the same (or less, in practice) tax as those who are earning in the hundreds of thousands or millions. Personally when you get to that level I think most voters would have no problem whatsoever with a 55% - 60% rate, which is turn could mean lower rates for people around the 150,000 mark.
Last edited:
