Labour policies unrealistic

[puds11]

I’ve just been reading through the 12 main policies (according to BBC) and can’t help but think pretty much all of them sound unrealistic and like they will result in national debt.

Does anyone else think this? Or can anyone explain how it won’t?

FinallyHere I was thinking that too - apparently it couldn't possibly work, yet 70+ years later, here we are ... And it wasn't just the NHS, that Labour government made huge changes to the infrastructure and social systems of this country, all of which the Tories insisted would be expensive and unworkable.

Labour left the Tories a gigantic deficit of well over 100 billion pounds a year, cried and screamed about every Tory attempt to reduce it (“austerity”), and now the increased debt is being held against the Tories? What a joke!

Would you have liked the deficit eliminated in just a couple of years? That would have meant 50 billion + worth of cuts per year, and that would have been real austerity!

Meanwhile, here’s the IFS analysis of Labour’s new tax and spend spree:

www.ifs.org.uk/election/2019/article/labour-manifesto-an-initial-reaction-from-ifs-researchers

The Labour Party manifesto offers a very substantial increase in the role of the state, one that is even larger than the big increase offered in their last manifesto. They estimate that their measures would push up day-to-day spending by £80 billion in 2023–24, which would be an almost 10% increase on what is currently planned. They estimate that their tax raising measures would bring in a similar sum, which if delivered would push the tax burden well above levels sustained in the UK since the Second World War.

I work with the elderly and some of them live in dickensian conditions. No heating, no light in one house I went to. These are people who have paid taxes all their life. And where has their money gone ??? The Tories haven't sorted out anything. 9 years and people are still struggling. No opportunities to change their circumstances.

I do hope they’re not all going to be voting Conservative .

Fedup I wonder if they will though because of Brexit.

Privatisation of the NHS scares the shit out of me.

Is there actually an easy decision here? I take my vote very seriously and decide based on it being the swaying vote (I know that’s unlikely but that’s how I decide).

CendrillonSings

Isnt the key in that article that the increase in taxes will pay for that 10% increase in day-to-day spending?

Why is Government providing services paid for by tax a bad thing? Increasing taxes on the wealthy to ensure public services are better for all is surely a positive thing for all in society?

1. theyve provided a fully costed manifesto to illustrate how they're affording the policies and
2. who disagrees with more funding for schools, or the NHS or police if it's properly funded (which is explained in the manifesto)?

Here’s more from the IFS - the real problems with Labour’s plans:

There are risks with both the proposed spending increases and the proposed tax rises.

It will be extremely hard simply to deliver anything like this scale of increase in capital spending, at least in the near-term, certainly in an efficient and cost effective way. If the intention really is to scrap Universal Credit and replace it with an entirely new benefit system then, as the last decade has shown, this would come with the risk of huge administrative complexity and costs. A particularly expensive commitment is on the state pension age. Rather than allowing it to rise as longevity increases, Labour wants to keep it at age 66, a very expensive pledge in the face of demographic change. This would add a projected £24 billion a year to spending by the 2050s. The commitment to abolish university tuition fees remains an expensive giveaway to the highest earning graduates and has the potential to make it difficult to maintain a system without a cap on student numbers.

On the tax side the proposals in the Labour manifesto represent an enormous increase in the amounts they want to raise from corporation tax. If their proposals did raise the sums they suggest then we would be raising more in corporation tax, as a fraction of national income, than any other country in the G7, and more than almost anywhere else in the OECD. This would clearly come with substantial risks. The truth is of course that in the end corporation tax is paid by workers, customers or shareholders so would affect many in the population. In the end, it is unlikely that one could raise the sums suggested by Labour from the tax policies they set out. If you want to transform the scale and scope of the state then you need to be clear that the tax increases required to do that will need to be widely shared rather than pretending that everything can be paid for by companies and the rich.”

@getmeacupoftea many of them will leave or just give up so that magical 10% won’t be forthcoming. We’ll shit down the business (a few people will loose their jobs) and look to move abroad within a year. It’s not worth it for us. Pretty much everyone we know who is a high earner or a business owner is considering their options. Business owners in particular have said they’ll just close down because their policies will obliterate any profit so there’s no point in taking the risk and working the long hours. Their policies haven’t been properly priced.

@Tatty101 if you look at their workers rights policies it’s pretty fucking clear that there will be terribly job losses. The majority of employment is provided by SMEs, they’re not going to be able to withstand these kinds of reforms. The people who run them will seek to take their skills and capital where it’s appreciated and the rest will be out of a job. If it was just a bit of extra tax it wouldn’t be so bad. But labour has piled on policy after policy which are anti wealth. It’s inevitable that wealth will decline as a result.

@OhWhatAPalaver just wait until the economy crashes and your family is starving to death. While it’s a shame that you’re dependant on the state you will only suffer if you vote to destroy the economy because you will be the ones that will be stuck when the shit hits the fan. Forget healthcare, you’ll be worried about food in the event of a Corbynite government. I don’t know how to warn you better than to advise you look to history to see what destruction far left economics causes. Don’t vote yourself into a death sentence.

Labour's policies are considered standard in most Scandinavian countries

Many of his state aid policies would be illegal under EU competition rules so they would not be standard in most Scandinavian countries.

Most Scandinavian countries and Germany have far higher rates of income tax starting well below the £80000 threshold Labour mentions.

Given that for practically every child in the uk who attends school or are home educated and every student in further education, the bulk of their homework/course work is done online as a necessity. Parents are kept updated online. Most office/tech jobs/jobs in general do not end at the close of the business day but carry on in to home life (teachers for example).

Equalising poorer families accessibility to this improves opportunities for the more vulnerable members of our society.

(Not even including those that must manage job searches and benefits online).

It’s definitely the tax rates for the rich that are a worry. They’ll bugger off leaving no one who the rates apply too then all the policies dependent on tax collapse leaving us in a shitstorm.

Have they addressed the possibility of this happening and their plan for this scenario?

And yet would bring the uk inline with the majority of other European countries in terms of tax @CendrillonSings. Where are all the flocks of businesses leaving en mass due to paying their fair share of tax?

Labour want to bring the UK in line with European countries in terms of public spending / taxation in proportion to GDP, and so will probably be able to find the money if they get a majority. The Tories want to turn the UK into a low tax haven to ‘compete’ for business with Europe, and so don’t want to spend or find any money.

In actuality Labour policies are more realistic and could potentially provide us with better trade deals with European countries as our institutions / infrastructure will be on a par with them. Remember one of the reasons why Germany is so much more productive than the UK is because they have far better internet infrastructure.

I would also point out that the way Labour has framed it’s policies as good for the nation means big companies that need the UK market can’t leave without it severely impacting their reputation.

I would also point out that the way Labour has framed it’s policies as good for the nation means big companies that need the UK market can’t leave without it severely impacting their reputation.

Much like Labour’s inability to cost its nationalisations, the level of gullibility necessary to believe their “framing” is unquantifiable, but it’s massive

The IFS has longstanding links to the Conservative Party, so I would be wary about anything they said against Labour. Their points re: SJ’s costing were cursory at best to appear impartial. But in reality they were being used as a mouthpiece by the Tory Party.

I'm happy to live in a country where a lot of services are nationalised and they all work well. The teachers are respected and paid well, kids get free school meals - all of them - and education for university students is free. Education is thought of as important and there are loads of adult education courses available for really small amounts. Benefits system works well and stops poverty from becoming a real issue. Taxes are high, but no one minds too much as things just work, streets are clean, services are really good and everyone benefits from all these things.

Ah yes - if you can’t attack the facts, attack the messenger. Classic.

NoNews is that the reality though? That’s what’s being sold, but will the reality come close?

Nonews which country do you live in, if you don’t mind answering?

My favourite is the house building, I've said many times such a programme would be a huge boost to the country in many ways.

Overall I like all the proposed plans,

As for the ridiculous perpetuation of the MYTH that tories are better for the economy and had to implement austerity the spreading of that MYTH needs to stop!

It's been disproven numerous times it is complete nonsense!

Even IF there were a desperate need to claw in money it's completely disgraceful taking it from the very poorest in society rather than from those who can well afford it and benefit most from a well run country.

Even IF there were a desperate need to claw in money it's completely disgraceful taking it from the very poorest in society rather than from those who can well afford it and benefit most from a well run country.

The well-off already pay the majority of the cost of the welfare state under the current system. HTH

Having everyone get broadband for free through?? Really? That £30 per month will just be raised through taxes another way.

I don't pay £30 per month for high speed broadband, I pay £20. The actual amount paid to openreach to run the lines is a fraction of that and openreach make a good profit as well. Some people pay much more than £30 per month for the same service as me. All that profit does not go back to the government which subsidised the cables in the first place.

I don't know if Corbyn can do it, but economic theory would say that a government can provide a collective good, in a natural monopoly, with high capital costs, more efficiently than a private company.

His plan may be ambitious but it's far from silly.