53% can see the Conservative austerity for what it is - ideological war on the poor, with tax cuts for the rich.
47% cant.
http://news.sky.com/story/1561050/sky-pulse-53-percent-can-imagine-corbyn-as-next-pm
Wednesday 30 September 2015
53%
British Chambers of Commerce director general John Longworth on Corbyn speech 29/09/2015
British Chambers of Commerce director general John Longworth on Corbyn speech 29/09/2015
Business will not like the thought of an interventionist state propping up failing companies, renationalising utilities, dismantling parts of our defence industries, entrenching welfare dependency, or reforming education without tackling the real issue: preparing young people to make their way in the world of work.
failing companies << The current government does this when it bails out rail companies, pays fees to private companies when they fail to carry out their contract but still re-employs them for other tasks, and the previous Labour government, with crossparty support, bailed out the banks. Corbyn did not mention doing it at all.
renationalising utilities
Why would businesses, except rail businesses (who are going to renationalised in light of failing to do their job in a way which is good for their customers..)worry about it? In fact it may save them money with employees making it into work on time more often and free up disposable income if fares rise, allowing their products to be in more demand, so on, so forth.
dismantling parts of our defence industries -- Corbyn said only if they are making sure to replace the jobs with other high end engineering jobs.
entrenching welfare dependency -- Don't remember that.. think it's called filling in the gaps, giving people money - again to pay for the companies' products. Or giving them a better standard of life - which should improve productivity and happiness of the workforce.
education - should be about what is taught in the classrooms - didn't hear anything about that, but he wasn't attacking it at all either...
I would bet they're all more worried about how much money they might have to pay in tax.. Think of this - when you see someone in an expensive car.. the money paid for that could sustain a life of someone who 'lives within their means' in some places. Cut the bullshit.
Business will not like the thought of an interventionist state propping up failing companies, renationalising utilities, dismantling parts of our defence industries, entrenching welfare dependency, or reforming education without tackling the real issue: preparing young people to make their way in the world of work.
failing companies << The current government does this when it bails out rail companies, pays fees to private companies when they fail to carry out their contract but still re-employs them for other tasks, and the previous Labour government, with crossparty support, bailed out the banks. Corbyn did not mention doing it at all.
renationalising utilities
Why would businesses, except rail businesses (who are going to renationalised in light of failing to do their job in a way which is good for their customers..)worry about it? In fact it may save them money with employees making it into work on time more often and free up disposable income if fares rise, allowing their products to be in more demand, so on, so forth.
dismantling parts of our defence industries -- Corbyn said only if they are making sure to replace the jobs with other high end engineering jobs.
entrenching welfare dependency -- Don't remember that.. think it's called filling in the gaps, giving people money - again to pay for the companies' products. Or giving them a better standard of life - which should improve productivity and happiness of the workforce.
education - should be about what is taught in the classrooms - didn't hear anything about that, but he wasn't attacking it at all either...
I would bet they're all more worried about how much money they might have to pay in tax.. Think of this - when you see someone in an expensive car.. the money paid for that could sustain a life of someone who 'lives within their means' in some places. Cut the bullshit.
Tuesday 29 September 2015
Why J McDonnell's plan excites me.
Why tax breaks being cut for buy to let landlords would be great news.
Where oh where does my rent go? Lining the landlord's pocket. Paying for their holidays. And they get a tax cut on top? That is ridiculous. Call me envious but... its not really, its more from a belief that people earning money should be doing something to deserve it. Taxes, great - at least they get returned into public services. But the rest of my rent that doesnt pay for the building maintenance etc...
It should be that the government (who is supposed to help manage society) encourages the next generation of homeowners, if they really do want people to be homeowners as they pledge. If they actually conversely encourage buy to let landlords, dont control rents, but simply give them a tax break for doing it, they clearly dont want to encourage home ownership. They are pushing an agenda of age and class division. Encouraging and helping the haves whilst reducing the have nots to vehicles through whom the haves get richer.
Don't even get me started on absentee landlordism (for me this is someone who spends almost all their time or is entirely based abroad). Does the government realise that the money these landlords make won't be even spent in the UK?
In fact, labour's plan to stimulate growth in the UK is great, and this could be a way of helping to do it fairly. If rents were controlled and lowered, disposable incomes of many would rise, which would be spent more in the UK and the subsequent growth in jobs and consumption would help the recovery. If the better off are getting more, they are more likely to save it - or spend it on luxury (most of which is outflows of money from the UK - to abroad). OK, if the government then invested with this saved money through borrowing, then they might see more growth. However it isn't a core recovery and the savings of larger firms aren't necessarily going to be reinvested in the UK. The government won't tax highest incomes more to invest, it wont borrow to invest. It does enjoy transferring investment in people from itself to the people themselves and shelving its own debt onto them, whilst taking from those who can least afford to take it.
Anyway, enough of that.. one most important point though. Oinky Cameron's government say that they want to stop paying high housing benefits to subsidise the landlords... but instead of cutting the housing benefits and hoping, they should limit the rents and then they wont have to pay as much anyway. I think their way in theory could work too, but it is putting too much hope in landlords to appreciate the people they enjoy trampling on to help pay for their holidays and yachts. (not all but some, especially in the South East of England).
Introducing the Real living wage
This helps with some of the points above, increasing disposable income which will be spent usefully, helping the immediate economy.
Clearly this is missing where this wage isnt being paid.
Businesses will fret about it, saying they can't handle the extra costs. However, much was made of the introduction of the minimum wage, and there wasn't a huge loss of jobs. Really, if the wage rises encourage spending and increase the market base of companies, then they will find increased sales. Competition should help defend against price hikes in response to the demand growth.
Clearly this is missing where this wage isnt being paid.
Businesses will fret about it, saying they can't handle the extra costs. However, much was made of the introduction of the minimum wage, and there wasn't a huge loss of jobs. Really, if the wage rises encourage spending and increase the market base of companies, then they will find increased sales. Competition should help defend against price hikes in response to the demand growth.
In the end the reasoning is similar to why Ford allegedly wanted weekends for his workers - so they would have a need to buy his cars to get out and about.
Tackling the gender pay gap and building more homes
Not many people would argue with these I hope. This will help close the inequality in home ownership across class and age hopefully.
Restoring and extending trade union rights
This is important to keep the worker's wages on track. Hopefully going to be addressed is also how the recent strikes are being demonised by the current government... a politics of envy here would actually be appropriate (not the type you usually hear about though)! People should see strong unions and envy the workers their ability to negotiate wages and working conditions, then join and make their union effective too! Complaining about unions not representing you but not voting or taking an interest is a bit like not voting and complaining about the government you didnt vote against. Greater rights to electronic ballot could see unions more effective and with better turnouts. If they can help with this the current government would go some way to getting more agreement from the unions themselves perhaps..
Aggressively tackling tax avoidance and evasion
However much they can claw back on this the better. It is a constant game of cat and mouse, but if it was my job to catch evaders/avoiders and recoup money, yet gave up and told my boss it was too tough, Id be in trouble... at least moved to a new department. Giving in on this is failing and so it is welcome the labour party want to be much more vigorous than the Conservatives (probably cosying up to their rich donors).
Asking ex-civil servant Lord Kerslake to review how the Treasury works
Reviewing the Bank of England's inflation mandate and the work of Revenue and Customs:
Reviewing the Bank of England's inflation mandate and the work of Revenue and Customs:
Precedent in the US fed. Could be said Carney has been somewhat already putting other things before the inflation target without being accountable. At least this may bring about more accountability.
What isnt addressed: How labour and business will be effected, possibly rewritten, by increased use of computers and robotics. How this actually calls for a scaling up of government, not down. The expanded leisure time and increased productivity will leave some workers with less hours or no hours. The government needs to help prepare people for the new jobs which will come out of this, or otherwise/whilst ensuring that some of the extra productivity brought about feeds money into a welfare system to help people live without jobs, if they are not required.
Sunday 27 September 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)