[Closed] Should I forgive the Labour Party?

The motivation if Uber rich people to earn money results in research, development, innovation and technological advances.

You mean the billionaires funding medical research, space exploration, the LHC, university research etc? Who are they then? I was under the impression that the vast majority of funding for these are paid for by governments.

And don't forget the law which states that the "uber rich" never have quite enough money and always need more.

Not to mention the law that states "if we tax the uber rich they'll leave the country and we won't have anyone left who's competent to run a bank (*) "

(*) yes - I know it's hard to type that with a straight face

Not to mention the law that states "if we tax the uber rich they'll leave the country and we won't have anyone left who's competent to run a bank (*) "

If that's true why aren't they all already living in Monaco or Luxembourg?

You mean the billionaires funding medical research, space exploration, the LHC, university research etc? Who are they then? I was under the impression that the vast majority of funding for these are paid for by governments.

Funded by governments with hardware supplied by private companies. Think outside the box a little bit.

@binners I think those are legitimate concerns but unless someone has been convicted of a crime how do you decide if someone is "dodgy" ?

Same way you've decided all Greeks are "dodgy", for pages and pages and pages?

You mean the billionaires funding medical research, space exploration, the LHC, university research etc? Who are they then? I was under the impression that the vast majority of funding for these are paid for by governments.

Are you not eternily grateful for the research that Russian oligarchs, and their ilk, are funding... into owning football clubs, massive yachts, diamond encrused Bentleys, enormous cinemas underneath their Nightsbridge mansions, and gaudy tasteless watches?

Because I bloody well am!!

*doffs cap*

hardware supplied by private companies

But you said the Uber rich fund R&D, not private companies. Most of the biggest private companies are owned by pubic shareholders, not by the 'uber rich'. Some, like the one I work for are owned by the staff, and operate without any 'uber rich' people at the top. It's perfectly possible for the private sector to operate and be successful without there needing to be some rich people at the top creaming off all the profits, so making the uber rich pay more tax would have negligable effect on the success of these companies, and certainly wouldn't have any impact on R&D or innovation.

Just imagine if anyone in Britain had jobs making football stadiums/luxury yachts/bentleys/cinemas/watches?

Oh yeah... 'trickle down economics'? The more yachts Roman Abromivich buys, the better off we all are a society? And we should be thankful for his benevolant largesse?

He could alwys just pay some tax instead?

Just a thought....

Well, he's made his money abroad, and he's going to buy the yacht anyway - would you rather it was a yacht designed, built, crewed and maintained in the UK, or somewhere else (like Germany)?

Some, like the one I work for are owned by the staff, and operate without any 'uber rich' people at the top. It's perfectly possible for the private sector to operate and be successful without there needing to be some rich people at the top creaming off all the profits

I agree.

The Company i work for is privately owned. The MD is extremely wealthy with his own plane and yacht collection.

The two situations described above can and are allowed to exist together.

I don't actually know who builds his yachts ninfan? Do you?

Edit: A quick Google says it was Blohm Voss Shipyards in Hamburg. So thanks for that £1.5 billion 'contribution' from Mr Abramovich that will all be trickling down into our economy, to us grateful minions.... apparently.......somehow ... it benefits us in the country where he lives, but doesn't pay any tax

though to be honest I'm not quite sure how thats going to work....

I'm not very bright though. Otherwise I'd be rich, obviously. Living in this great meritocracy, as I do.

Perhaps you could run through it for me Ninfan...?

Please don't use big words though. I had a state education 😉

I can't believe people are still peddling the utter bollocks of trickle-down economics. It's been thoroughly debunked years ago as a complete myth. The idea that we should be grateful to sociopaths like Abramovich is absolutely laughable. A man who made his fortune by not paying wages for months in a town where everyone was employed in the plant he controlled, then buying up all the shares issued to the workers for peanuts because people were starving. These are the 'wealth creators' we should be bending over backwards to come over here and buy mansions in Kensington. FFS.

stumpyjon - Member
Ukip are crashing out because the election is imminent, they are swivel eyed loons, they are making loads of mistakes and their previous success was purely by election protest vote.

stumpyjon - Member
As for Labour, they should be storming into power on tbe back of the last 5 years of Conservative non governance. They should be genuinely embarrased they are where they are in the polls.

[quote=digga said]All but the most staunch, die-hard Labourites know full what what sort of an economic shambles they created last time round

Ooo, you've done it now 🙂

[img] [/img]

Oh look, yet another idiot who thinks that Labour caused a global financial crisis, and that the Tories failing to meet all of their own targets on deficit reduction somehow displays economic competence.

Just mention something about Gordon sold off all our gold for the full compliment of Daily Mail-informed BS bingo.

WTF is trickle down economics anyway apart from a gross simplification/distortion of the circular flow of income/multiplier effects and marginal propensities to consume/invest/save???

The non dom issue is a side show and a historical anachronism. Scrap it yes and then we can deal with the bigger issues. But let's not make the UK an unattractive place to invest in the meantime.

The £ is already have a slight wobble. Better buy the holiday €s now I think....

Oh look, yet another idiot who thinks that Labour caused a global financial crisis,

'No more boom and bust'

Out of interest Grum, who did cause it?

But let's not make the UK an unattractive place to invest in the meantime.

Buying Chelsea mansions is not 'Investing in the UK'

Just as an artificially inflated housing boom in the South East is not an econoimc recovery

Here you go THM -

IMF.ORG "https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2010/wp10265.pdf"

I've had a quick read but I can't see where it says 'it's all the Labour party's fault because someone wrote a note saying 'there's no money left''.

True, but firms and the people they employ may be dependent on investors/providers of capital and funding who have moved offshore. The same people may consider re-locating parts of these firms offshore too if the UK becomes less attractive for them. Not the same as non doms, but the principle of keeping UK attractive remains the same.

On housing yes and no. But the wealth effect had an important impact on consumption which is the largest driver of UK aggregate demand (sadly!!)

stumpyjon - Member
As for Labour, they should be storming into power on tbe back of the last 5 years of Conservative non governance. They should be genuinely embarrased they are where they are in the polls.

This is comical! The only argue labour have is on the NHS, because employment is up, the defecit is reduced by half, the economy is growing.

At least labour and the Conservatives agree on one economic policy, and that is to Keep charismatic character and charmer that is Ed Balls in his role.

ninfan - Member

Oh look, yet another idiot who thinks that Labour caused a global financial crisis,

'No more boom and bust

Meanwhile, some interesting revelations of how the people's party play with power and influence: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11526188/Ed-Miliband-was-dating-senior-BBC-economics-journalist-Stephanie-Flanders-when-he-was-at-the-Treasury.html

1. How impartial could Stephanie Flanders have been as an "economics" correspondent for the BBC having been in relationships with both Balls and Milliband? (Certainly Paxman has plenty to say on the subject of not socialising with politicians.)
2. How nice to see the revolving doors from BBC/politics into big business are still nicely oiled? (She's now with J P Morgan)

'No more boom and bust'

Yes it was a stupid thing to say - can you please explain how it proves that Labour caused a global financial crisis though. Because to me it just sounds like a soundbite that people can latch onto when they don't have an argument.

I thought it was mainly due to a lack of banking regulation?

Glad you have that article Grum, it's a good one.

LOL making it personal is doing ed no harm at all, and may well help him into downing street

2. How nice to see the revolving doors from BBC/politics into big business are still nicely oiled? (She's now with J P Morgan)

So you are concerned by conflicts of interest and the close relationship between ministers and business, especially the one's they are in charge of regulating? And yet this is the issue you've chose to pick up on? Interesting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11264425/Stephen-Dorrell-MP-faces-calls-to-resign-over-conflict-of-interest.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/2529667/Tory-MP-Tim-Yeo-in-conflict-of-interest-row-over-car-tax-report.html

In total 76 MPs have recent past or present financial links to companies or individuals involved in private healthcare. Of them, 61 are Conservative MPs, 8 are Labour MPs, and 4 are Liberal Democrats, leaving 1 other from the Bishops. This means, 81% of MPs with these links are Conservative.

http://socialinvestigations.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/over-60-mps-connected-to-companies.html

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/10/01/questions-over-mps-conflicts-of-interests-raised/

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/1billion-nhs-sell-off-scandal-tory-4724959

binners - Member
Buying Chelsea mansions is not 'Investing in the UK'

Just as an artificially inflated housing boom in the South East is not an econoimc recovery

No, house prices being elevated - in the vicinity of foreign investment and, by radiation, elsewhere - beyond the reach of the indigenous workers is not ideal.

Certainly the problem is not unique to the UK or London - New York being just another example and somewhere where they are looking specifically at the issue of 'investment' property that is never (or almost never) used as being subject to some kind of legislation and taxation.

However, it's an ill wind and all that; right now Putin would give his right bollock to have this sort of inward investment in Russian property and, by extension their currency. There is no doubt that this foreign investment and demand therefore for sterling will have helped to keep interest rates slightly lower than they might have been.

Same way you've decided all Greeks are "dodgy", for pages and pages and pages?

@kimbers, I think, for example, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and Johnny Ive made a contribution technology and innovation wise.

@grum you cannot judge all billionaires based on Abramovich (yes I too am aware of the history). As an aside it would be interesting to see the total in tax and national insurance paid by CFC since he bought the club. Clearly a big part would have been paid anyway but it's clear his involvement has had a big positive impact on the club financially. Lots more revenue to HMRC.

I have worked in finance for 30 years, I have benefited from trickle down be that from large companies or wealthy individuals. A large part of what I do is to manage money for wealthly people (and pension funds). I have worked in IT for a small company founded and run by an entrepreneur. My good fortune has benefited HMRC and thus the country. So I believe in trickle down.

I have worked in finance for 30 years, I have benefited from trickle down

😆

Isn't the theory meant to be that the wealth trickles down to everyone, not just from the very rich to the moderately rich?

The world's super-rich have taken advantage of lax tax rules to siphon off at least $21 trillion, and possibly as much as $32tn, from their home countries and hide it abroad – a sum larger than the entire American economy.

James Henry, a former chief economist at consultancy McKinsey and an expert on tax havens, has conducted groundbreaking new research for the Tax Justice Network campaign group – sifting through data from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and private sector analysts to construct an alarming picture that shows capital flooding out of countries across the world and disappearing into the cracks in the financial system.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/21/offshore-wealth-global-economy-tax-havens

Labour didn't cause the financial crisis.

Labour put the Country in such a position that when the financial crisis arose, we were hid hard by it.

Nice one labour. Nice one Balls.

[i]"With Bank of England independence, tough decisions on inflation, new fiscal rules, and hard public spending controls, we today in our country have economic stability not boom and bust, the lowest inflation in Europe, and long term interest rates - essential for businesses planning to borrow and invest - lower than for thirty five years. So [u]while many have claimed Britain was worst placed of any to withstand the global slowdown,[/u] the OECD and IMF have both shown that Britain last year had the highest growth of any of the G7 countries. So nothing we do will put at risk the fundamental stability on which manufacturing depends. There will be no return to the short-term lurches in policy that would put long-term stability at risk. No relaxing our fiscal disciplines as some would like."[/i]

Warnings as far back as 2002 that we were badly placed for the inevitable crash

This was the inevitable Nemesis to the Hubris of believing they had ended boom and bust!

Labour put the Country in such a position that when the financial crisis arose, we were hid hard by it.

It's very clever of you to be able to imagine alternate realities with such certainty, like what would have happened had we had a different government.

Or is it just one of those things that 'everyone knows' because they read it in the Sun/Daily Mail?

As mentioned above, I believe one of the main factors involved was a failure of banking regulation - the Tories are known for their love of regulation generally, and particularly when it comes to the banking industry, so no doubt everything would have been hunky-dory on their watch.

Or is it just one of those things that 'everyone knows'

As detailed above, Gordon himself stated that people were warning of this as far back as 2002

That would be during the longest period of uninterrupted growth for 200 years. Thanks Labour.

Oh sorry, I forgot - when the economy does well under a Labour government it's thanks to global economic conditions, when it fails it's because of Labour policies - when the economy does well under a Tory government it's thanks to Tory economic polices, and when it fails it's still because of Labour.

This is genuinely the narrative that's promoted in the Tory-dominated press we have in this country, and lots of you seem to be falling for it hook, line and sinker.

Buying Chelsea mansions is not 'Investing in the UK'

Just as an artificially inflated housing boom in the South East is not an econoimc recovery

London property is strong is that's where the employment is being generated plus it attracts most of the foreign investment. I don't see what is artificial about the rise. IMO some of the regional authorities should look and see why that is and what they could do to get some of that. As an aside with GBP having fallen 30% since 2007 vs Asian currencies UK property looks pretty cheap vs their domestic markets and London is a city they can see them/their kids living in especially if there are political issues in China/Hong Kong etc.

Of course it was the longest period of uninterrupted growth, they had ended boom and bust remember...

It's like saying 'that was the best and biggest drunken payday weekend blowout ever' and then wondering why you've got the worst hangover ever and no money in the bank

jambalaya - I struggle to think that you actually believe some of the stuff you come out with. Even the Spectator thinks this housing bubble is ludicrous and unsustainable.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8915781/osbornes-bubble/

ninfan - come back when you've actually got an argument rather than just trolling please.

As mentioned above, I believe one of the main factors involved was a failure of banking regulation - the Tories are known for their love of regulation generally, and particularly when it comes to the banking industry, so no doubt everything would have been hunky-dory on their watch.

That would be during the longest period of uninterrupted growth for 200 years. Thanks Labour.

The country did well under Labour, I do believe they should have done more to reduce the deficit, ie "fix the roof when the sun was shining". The UK government like those all around the world of all left/right persuasions ignored the spiralling debt levels (personal, corporate/bank and state), this included the governments themselves, eg Greece. State owned German banks were some of the largest buyers of US Sub Prime. Its notable to me that the most spectacular failures in the UK where of regional "wannabe's" Northern Rock, Halifax-Bank of Scotland, RBS, Bradford and Bingley, Alliance and Leicester. Our core major banks like Barclays, Lloyds and HSBC weathered the storm pretty well, Lloyds of course talked into buying the failed HBOS which turned out to be a disaster for them.

You cannot say Labour caused the crash but they did nothing to prevent it, high levels of personal debt and consumption suited them well politically.

@grum, I think you do appreciate I post what I believe. London property will be materially higher than it is now in 5 and 10 years. If you look at property prices now vs 2006 and adjust for inflation they are not so unreasonable. Plus we have very low interest rates (with longer term fixed rates available), we have a supply/demand imbalance, we have a growing and ageing population with employment (especially well paid) focused in London/South East.

I have been reading and hearing about too high property prices for the last 30 years, we've had a few corrections from time to time but in the medium term the trend has always been up. London isn't so expensive vs some other major foreign cities.

It's very clever of you to be able to imagine alternate realities with such certainty, like what would have happened had we had a different government.

Grum this doesn't dimininsh responsiblilty. Labour were in power. They broke the Country.

@grum - on the Spectator article. Since it was written in 2013 its been shown very clearly that help-to-buy has been used quite little in London and South East. Also comparing house prices to average wages is a big mistake, aside from being statistically meaningless (average wages include many part timers) the calculation makes no account for the level of interest rates for example nor rtrends in population aging and immigration. Also one side effect of the crises is that people are buying even more property as they see that as a much sounder asset than financial products, as an extreme example if you put your money with Bernie Maddoff you lost 100% - done dusted game over, its hard to imagine losing more than 25% in property and even if you do you can keep renting it out and wait for a recovery.