Haven't seen the full statement but, I dont accept Labour's maths on this anyway.
There isn't a UK tax paying company that wont look for ways to mitigate ANY increased tax burden, which will inevitably lead to a shortfall in receipts.
At this stage it's irrelevant as we wont be seeing a Labour government for some little while.

I'll try and find time to read the full report though and we await with interest what the Tories have to offer.

Interesting that he is one of many "independent" economists who say neither of the main parties plans for Tax are sustainable. A great number of these independent economists to however agree that Brexit is a fiscal disaster waiting to happen.


Oooh...look at the Keyboard Warrior



IR80. What are your thoughts on the reasoning behind the PM for not releasing the findings of the independent investigation into Russian interference in Brexit as well as ties to the Leave leaders, many of whom are now in senior political roles in the Tory Party. Remember now, you're the one who claimed you'd be able to destroy people on the hustings, so let's debate this one topic and see if you can earn your spurs.

To prove a point yesterday we were informed that poverty was not the fault of the government, that the initial increase in NI stated by Johnson would save the majority of workers £500 which was disputed by the conservatives and when pointed out to the PM he still insisted that the £500 was correct. We have another doctored clip and a fake site set up by the conservatives indicating it was a Labour site relating to their manifesto. They even paid Google to make sure it was the site that came up for anyone searching Labour or manifesto.
I also note that the great debater Johnson has pulled out of a second televised debated against Corbyn on 4. I guess he fears more bouts of laughter from the audience.

Or maybe Johnson just feels that Labours manifesto launch no longer requires him to justify his policies?

He even refused to debate local MP Ali Milani, who is contesting his Uxbridge seat. I guess his repetition of "get Brexit done" didn't hit home in the way they hoped, so they've changed tack and chickened out of live debates.

On the manifesto - I quite like all the big adjectives that are being used; yes it is extraordinary, vast, colossal and all that jazz - because it's transformative, and you don't transform anything by being timid and tinkering at the edges.

Genuine question here Bren.
What response to you expect from the big businesses (employing over 250 staff) that will see their corporation tax bill increase and having to "chip in" 1% pa (rising to 10%) into a new pot to "share among the workforce" ?
The one absolute certainty is that they wont shrug their shoulders and say "oh, alright then".
Just as they do now, they will look for ways to mitigate the additional "cost" - whether this is "right" of "fair" wont come into it.
Similarly, anyone with heaps of personal wealth will "hide" their cash somewhere else to keep it away from the Chancellor and people dont tend to have that much wealth without employing very effective "accountants".

I find it amazing how I hear how it would be worse under Labour, all I say is how do they know because after 9 years of the conservatives the country is not exactly thriving and at peace with itself. We are here because Cameron was so desperate to fight off UKIP and stay in power he promised a referendum which I believe was not mandatory.
I see human beings who are actually in work unable to rent a property or buy food for their families and have to live on the streets and go to the only booming industry food banks. Then there are schools asking parents for funds to buy equipment. In Wakefield the schools were run by an Academy who decided to remove themselves requiring the Council to take over.

Nobody can argue with any of that and Cameron certainly has plenty to answer for.
The worst part of all this is that, when we do finally leave, the millions of people who voted "leave" are expecting the sunlight to come flooding in and everything to be wonderful and it's at this point that reality will really hit home.
We will be left as Trump's lap dogs, begging for treats.
Corbyn and co just haven't realised that it's not their own voters who need to be on board with his plan, Labour need to entice a huge chunk of Libdem and Tory voters to join their revolution and I'm sorry but, it's just not going to happen and all those who followed Farage's "dream" are going to be very, very disappointed and will actually be shat on even more by a Tory Party with an overall majority.
Depressing doesn't even begin to cover how things are unfolding.

Ali Milani isn't an MP. What he is though, is antisemitic.

But I digress. Not debating is a sensible decision. There's every chance the 'tolerant' left in the room would spend their time heckling and booing, which obviously wouldn't look great.

Anyway the live leader 'debates' are utterly pointless. I've said it since the first (was it 2010?). They're just the same soundbites trotted out in Parliament and in campaign speeches. Nothing is proven and virtually nobody changes their mind. All they sometimes show is who can perform best on TV and who might get flustered.

I am one of those businesses - and like any prudent operator, we've looked at the potential impact of that eventuality; it will ultimately mean lower dividends for the shareholders, of which I am one, but will mean a significant increase in the engagement and productivity of a workforce who will have a much greater stake in the success of the business - and there are plenty of case studies to demonstrate that employee ownership has really positive impacts on a business, such as reduced staff t/o, lower rates of sickness absence and higher productivity. We've also looked at potential opportunities for new ventures, based on the infrastructure and green technology investment that Labour are promising.

This stuff is not easy - and it will require a shift in attitude amongst those people who have previously made hay as a result of unfettered capitalism and an obsession with growth in absolute terms; but for me, the country is in such a parlous state, with record numbers of homeless, people experiencing in-work poverty, children going to school hungry, schools begging for basic resources and the NHS falling apart before our eyes - that only a radical solution will have any impact.

And lets not forget, that for all the panic about Labour's spending plans, they really only take us to parity with many other very successful European economies.

For someone who gets so exercised about the playing of the racist card, you've pulled that one out with surprising alacrity!

I'm satisfied that his remarks as a 17 year old student were based on an over-enthusiastic and naïve interpretation of the BDS movement; he's apologised sincerely and unreservedly, and has demonstrated that he's learnt from that mistake.

Btw - criticism of Israel is not antisemitic; unless you're conflating Israel as representative of all Jews, which is in itself, by the EHRC definition, antisemitic?

This Paul Johnson [urlhttps://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8305[/url ?

I think that they call that Ying and Yang

Well, I'm glad you're satisfied, that settles it.

I've viewed his tweets and a number of interviews and you'll have to try harder to convince me of he suddenly changed his views...until it was necessary to further his political career of course...a bit like his leader in fact.

Yes, you know and I know that Israel does not necessarily equal Jewish. But meanwhile in the real world of anti-Israel hatred and rhetoric, that's precisely what goes on. Not uncommon amongst student leaders and indeed the Labour party, as I'm sure you're well aware.

Yes. Why?

I believe that despite rubbishing Labours spending plans, he also said that Brexit was a financial disaster

If he's right on both, we ALL have a problem.

I think we've all acknowledged on here, possibly around 7,000 times, that Brexit would mean an economic hit, certainly short-term. I don't see much wrong with his article, thought the scale and duration of that economic hit is unknown.

And yes Labour's spending plans are quite rightly rubbished. They've been rubbished from pillar to post. If you have some irrational reason to disregard the views of the IFS, look elsewhere. The FT have done a good analysis for example.

BTW Paul Johnson's Twitter makes for fascinating reading.

lease define anti-semetic. I ask, because there's a huge difference between holacaust denial and calling out illegal. Iccupation in the west bank.
But I digress. Not debating is a sensible decision. There's every chance the 'tolerant' left in the room would spend their time heckling and booing, which obviously wouldn't look great.


Bull. Bojo led the debating society at eton.... Hes scared of facts, thats why hes run from the debate...... Factcheck that if you like

I don't really understand what you mean; being against Israel's illegal apartheid regime does not make one antisemitic - because Israel self-evidently isn't representative of all Jews.

I'm sure some people do conflate the two - in either direction - and say things that are unacceptable; but the vast majority of what is conveniently labelled antisemitism in the Labour party, is just criticism of Israel's crimes against the Palestinian people - and by the EHRC definition - that cannot be anti-Semitic.

Antisemitism is a vile and egregious smear that has devalued the genuine struggle of many Jews, and de-legitimised those Jews who also happen to be anti-Zionist, of which there are many.

I have no wish to trawl through his twitter feed and as you say, the size of the "hit" and it's longevity are unknown.
However, when the most ardent "leavers" are "happy" to now accept there will be a hit, it doesn't look great in the short and medium term and after that, who the hell knows -Trump and Boris may both become trigger happy in response to being "tested" by one of our many world enemies.
However, with stagnant growth and an agreed hit to come, it must all seem really worthwhile.
Chuck in a level of borrowing that the Tories have previously ridiculed the opposition over and we have all of the ingredients for something rather unpleasant and with legitimatised racism and xenophobia (from the top down), the UK (or what's left of it) should be a joy to live in.

The magic money tree that did not exist but found one billion pounds to pay off the DUP or the coalition of chaos with the same party.
They say that we would have to endure austerity so that they could write off the debt and return to surplus within four years but we would never lose our AAA rating how did those promises turn out.
It was Labour who suggested borrowing to fund various programmes whilst the rates were at record low levels. This was ridiculed by the Conservatives however surprise surprise it is now a good idea.

So You blame Thatcher for selling off the housing stock and not releasing funds for building new one and yet Labour were in power for 13 year 1997 to 2010 and their record was far worse. Here's a few facts for you to digest.....
Margaret Thatcher's government had built more council flats and houses in a single year than New Labour's managed in its entire period in office.
The official data shows that the Blair and Brown governments built 7,870 council houses (local authority tenure) over the course of 13 years. (If we don't include 2010 - the year when David Cameron became PM - this number drops to 6,510 contrast this figure with Thatcher's government, which never built fewer than 17,710 homes in a year and you can see the significant difference.
Between 1997 and 2010, of the 2.61 million homes constructed, only 0.3% were local authority tenure. Mrs Thatcher's government supervised the building of a similar number of houses (2.63 million), but 18.9% were LA or 'council' properties.
To look at it another way, New Labour built an average of 562 council houses per year. And Mrs Thatcher's Conservatives? 41,343. That said, it's also true that the number of council houses under construction declined steadily during Mrs Thatcher's era. In a nutshell, Corbyn and labour in power would be an absolute disaster for this country, of that I have absolutely no doubt. Their policies are economically insane, they would reduce this county to an economic wasteland within 3 years, destroying businesses and subsequently putting millions out of work.

Their policies are economically insane, they would reduce this county to an economic wasteland within 3 years, destroying businesses and subsequently putting millions out of work.'"

Quote ="wrencat1873"I have no wish to trawl through his twitter feed'" You should, it's not politically biased, it picks everyone apart, and beyond the GE stuff there are some interesting stats. I know the left don't really care about balancing the numbers, but still... https://twitter.com/pjtheeconomist?lang=en Quote and as you say, the size of the "hit" and it's longevity are unknown. However, when the most ardent "leavers" are "happy" to now accept there will be a hit, it doesn't look great in the short and medium term and after that, who the hell knows -Trump and Boris may both become trigger happy in response to being "tested" by one of our many world enemies. However, with stagnant growth and an agreed hit to come, it must all seem really worthwhile. Chuck in a level of borrowing that the Tories have previously ridiculed the opposition over and we have all of the ingredients for something rather unpleasant and with legitimatised racism and xenophobia (from the top down), the UK (or what's left of it) should be a joy to live in.'" Yep, for the squillionth time, it's all about the long term. Extricating ourselves from the federalist long-term goals and ideology of the EU will pay off in the long term. We were supposed to be in economic armageddon simply for voting out. Didn't happen. I won't deny there is a rollercoaster ahead but it will pass.

Quote ="wrencat1873"I have no wish to trawl through his twitter feed'" You should, it's not politically biased, it picks everyone apart, and beyond the GE stuff there are some interesting stats. I know the left don't really care about balancing the numbers, but still... https://twitter.com/pjtheeconomist?lang=en Quote and as you say, the size of the "hit" and it's longevity are unknown. However, when the most ardent "leavers" are "happy" to now accept there will be a hit, it doesn't look great in the short and medium term and after that, who the hell knows -Trump and Boris may both become trigger happy in response to being "tested" by one of our many world enemies. However, with stagnant growth and an agreed hit to come, it must all seem really worthwhile. Chuck in a level of borrowing that the Tories have previously ridiculed the opposition over and we have all of the ingredients for something rather unpleasant and with legitimatised racism and xenophobia (from the top down), the UK (or what's left of it) should be a joy to live in.'" Yep, for the squillionth time, it's all about the long term. Extricating ourselves from the federalist long-term goals and ideology of the EU will pay off in the long term. We were supposed to be in economic armageddon simply for voting out. Didn't happen. I won't deny there is a rollercoaster ahead but it will pass.

Quote ="Seventies red"So You blame Thatcher for selling off the housing stock and not releasing funds for building new one and yet Labour were in power for 13 year 1997 to 2010 and their record was far worse. Here's a few facts for you to digest..... Margaret Thatcher's government had built more council flats and houses in a single year than New Labour's managed in its entire period in office. The official data shows that the Blair and Brown governments built 7,870 council houses (local authority tenure) over the course of 13 years. (If we don't include 2010 - the year when David Cameron became PM - this number drops to 6,510 contrast this figure with Thatcher's government, which never built fewer than 17,710 homes in a year and you can see the significant difference. Between 1997 and 2010, of the 2.61 million homes constructed, only 0.3% were local authority tenure. Mrs Thatcher's government supervised the building of a similar number of houses (2.63 million), but 18.9% were LA or 'council' properties. To look at it another way, New Labour built an average of 562 council houses per year. And Mrs Thatcher's Conservatives? 41,343. That said, it's also true that the number of council houses under construction declined steadily during Mrs Thatcher's era..'" Jesus Christ you're about as hard to outwit as IR35. If you'd included a full link with context I suppose it wouldn't have helped your "case" though - here's the accompanying graph - notice when it declines and flatlines: And the link, which concludes, "Between 1997 and 2010, some 350,000 housing association dwellings were built. If we look at both housing association homes and council houses, Labour built more affordable properties in 2009 than the Conservatives did in each year between 1987 and 1990." https://fullfact.org/economy/who-built- ... ew-labour/

Quote ="Seventies red"So You blame Thatcher for selling off the housing stock and not releasing funds for building new one and yet Labour were in power for 13 year 1997 to 2010 and their record was far worse. Here's a few facts for you to digest..... Margaret Thatcher's government had built more council flats and houses in a single year than New Labour's managed in its entire period in office. The official data shows that the Blair and Brown governments built 7,870 council houses (local authority tenure) over the course of 13 years. (If we don't include 2010 - the year when David Cameron became PM - this number drops to 6,510 contrast this figure with Thatcher's government, which never built fewer than 17,710 homes in a year and you can see the significant difference. Between 1997 and 2010, of the 2.61 million homes constructed, only 0.3% were local authority tenure. Mrs Thatcher's government supervised the building of a similar number of houses (2.63 million), but 18.9% were LA or 'council' properties. To look at it another way, New Labour built an average of 562 council houses per year. And Mrs Thatcher's Conservatives? 41,343. That said, it's also true that the number of council houses under construction declined steadily during Mrs Thatcher's era..'" Jesus Christ you're about as hard to outwit as IR35. If you'd included a full link with context I suppose it wouldn't have helped your "case" though - here's the accompanying graph - notice when it declines and flatlines: And the link, which concludes, "Between 1997 and 2010, some 350,000 housing association dwellings were built. If we look at both housing association homes and council houses, Labour built more affordable properties in 2009 than the Conservatives did in each year between 1987 and 1990." https://fullfact.org/economy/who-built- ... ew-labour/