The Daily Express is wrong to say that Labour is proposing a Land Value Tax “based on 3% of the value of each property”.
This figure seems to come from a report hosted on the website of Labour Land, a campaign group which supports the idea of a Land Value Tax.
One of the report's authors told us that the estimates and the strategy explored in it weren’t endorsed by either Labour Land or the Labour Party. The report had been published in 2015 with the header “DRAFT Please do not quote without permission”.
3% would be the wrong figure to quote from it anyway, given that we’re discussing the potential impact on homeowners.
Its authors estimated that councils would initially have to set an average rate of 0.85% for owner-occupiers and 3% for industrial and commercial property. It suggested that different councils would set different rates, so that they collected the same revenue as they had through business rates and council tax.
The idea will probably be on the table at some point, whichever party comes to power
The business rate and council tax system have been widely criticised for being unfair and inefficient, and Land Value Tax is an idea that’s been around for over 150 years.
The idea has also been promoted by economists across the political spectrum, including the free-market Adam Smith Institute, the left-leaning Centre for Labour and Social Studies, the non-aligned Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Economist, a liberal magazine.
International organisations like the IMF and the OECD are also fans, as was the economist Milton Friedman, whose ideas underpinned Margaret Thatcher’s economic policies.
The Conservatives have also promised a review into the business rates system. So it seems likely that the idea will be considered in a review at some point, whichever party comes to power.
The idea is also put up for consideration in the Liberal Democrat manifesto and the Green party suggests a trial of the tax.
If anyone wants to know why we cannot afford, as a whole, to give ourselves large pay rises while other nations can might I suggest they look at Table 3 on the download here. You can of course redistribute between people in one direction or another - but the cake has hardly grown as a whole since the crash.
The interesting thing about that for me is that three countries which score higher are France, Germany and the US, and of course all three have significantly higher CIT rates than the 26% Labour want to raise it to. I agree with a lot of what you say, and certainly am not sure the current Labour front bench knows how to make the UK economy better (for everyone), but I equally don't get this common aversion to having a CIT rate in line with countries in our "peer group". Low CIT is only really justifiable for countries still building their infrastructure from which companies can benefit. It was never justifiable for Ireland, who took all that EU money and then undercut everybody. I have nothing but contempt for the Irish approach.
But of course, speaking of Ireland, more important than the CIT rate is actually collecting it, especially from the Irish "based" fairy-tale spinners.
I agree the Corporation Tax rate isn't that relevant - what is perhaps more important is how the system is used to encourage investment. Raising the rate on its own would clearly have a damaging impact on business investment - but applying a higher rate to those companies that don't invest, and using the tax system to encourage investment through capital allowances/grants etc. might. I think the Germans and French do a lot more of this - it also is probably a better way of directing investment than through a National Investment Bank. The thought of John McDonnell doing the direction and defining what is high tech and what isn't is something I find genuinely terrifying - what are his credentials for making investment decisions? Of course all of this might improve business investment - but it will not immediately produce a lot in the way of additional tax for pet projects and redistribution.
If you wish to increase investment and productivity this will mean a period of national belt tightening as a whole before you can start enjoying the benefits.
No they have talked about other mechanisms such as government bonds and quantitative easing for their pet projects. The line about belt tightening has been pushed for the last seven years and it has spectacularly failed. Productivity and wages have stagnated, the national debt has almost doubled, the balance of trade awful and an economy that is still over-reliant on a false housing market and the service industry.
I think you talk a lot of sense and we agree more than not. You clearly don't trust McDonnell but you haven't suggested an alternative. Firms are far too short sighted on immediate returns for investors and I agree about different tax structures to encourage investment. I imagine the final policy would be a mixture of both, but the bank would be more aimed at a programmed rebalancing the economy in terms of make up and location. Labour seemed to do quite well in setting up the independence of the Bank of England, no reason they couldn't do the same a second time.
If anyone wants to know why we cannot afford, as a whole, to give ourselves large pay rises while other nations can might I suggest they look at Table 3 on the download here. You can of course redistribute between people in one direction or another - but the cake has hardly grown as a whole since the crash.
The interesting thing about that for me is that three countries which score higher are France, Germany and the US, and of course all three have significantly higher CIT rates than the 26% Labour want to raise it to. I agree with a lot of what you say, and certainly am not sure the current Labour front bench knows how to make the UK economy better (for everyone), but I equally don't get this common aversion to having a CIT rate in line with countries in our "peer group". Low CIT is only really justifiable for countries still building their infrastructure from which companies can benefit. It was never justifiable for Ireland, who took all that EU money and then undercut everybody. I have nothing but contempt for the Irish approach.
But of course, speaking of Ireland, more important than the CIT rate is actually collecting it, especially from the Irish "based" fairy-tale spinners.
I agree the Corporation Tax rate isn't that relevant - what is perhaps more important is how the system is used to encourage investment. Raising the rate on its own would clearly have a damaging impact on business investment - but applying a higher rate to those companies that don't invest, and using the tax system to encourage investment through capital allowances/grants etc. might. I think the Germans and French do a lot more of this - it also is probably a better way of directing investment than through a National Investment Bank. The thought of John McDonnell doing the direction and defining what is high tech and what isn't is something I find genuinely terrifying - what are his credentials for making investment decisions? Of course all of this might improve business investment - but it will not immediately produce a lot in the way of additional tax for pet projects and redistribution.
If you wish to increase investment and productivity this will mean a period of national belt tightening as a whole before you can start enjoying the benefits.
No they have talked about other mechanisms such as government bonds and quantitative easing for their pet projects. The line about belt tightening has been pushed for the last seven years and it has spectacularly failed. Productivity and wages have stagnated, the national debt has almost doubled, the balance of trade awful and an economy that is still over-reliant on a false housing market and the service industry.
I think you talk a lot of sense and we agree more than not. You clearly don't trust McDonnell but you haven't suggested an alternative. Firms are far too short sighted on immediate returns for investors and I agree about different tax structures to encourage investment. I imagine the final policy would be a mixture of both, but the bank would be more aimed at a programmed rebalancing the economy in terms of make up and location. Labour seemed to do quite well in setting up the independence of the Bank of England, no reason they couldn't do the same a second time.
You make the mistake of thinking that I agree with what the Tories/Lib Dems have done - I don't. But increasing CT from 19% to 26% would have a disastrous effect on business investment and that is what is being proposed by Labour at the present with precious little else being offered to compensate. We have to push more into business investment by whatever means - otherwise the belt is going to stay very tight. Greater payments to public sector workers and benefit claimants are not going to do the trick.
The idea will probably be on the table at some point, whichever party comes to power
The business rate and council tax system have been widely criticised for being unfair and inefficient, and Land Value Tax is an idea that’s been around for over 150 years.
The idea has also been promoted by economists across the political spectrum, including the free-market Adam Smith Institute, the left-leaning Centre for Labour and Social Studies, the non-aligned Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Economist, a liberal magazine.
International organisations like the IMF and the OECD are also fans, as was the economist Milton Friedman, whose ideas underpinned Margaret Thatcher’s economic policies.
The Conservatives have also promised a review into the business rates system. So it seems likely that the idea will be considered in a review at some point, whichever party comes to power.
The idea is also put up for consideration in the Liberal Democrat manifesto and the Green party suggests a trial of the tax.
You miss out that the Labour Land Campaign website labels the report as final in the internet address
and that its authors "Dr Jerry Jones and Ms Carol Wilcox" are, respectively, the Chair and Secretary of the Labour Land Campaign.
The fact that the idea is also promoted by the Adam Smith Institute, Milton Friedman and the Lib Dems and Greens are arguments against rather than for in my book.
If anyone wants to know why we cannot afford, as a whole, to give ourselves large pay rises while other nations can might I suggest they look at Table 3 on the download here. You can of course redistribute between people in one direction or another - but the cake has hardly grown as a whole since the crash.
The interesting thing about that for me is that three countries which score higher are France, Germany and the US, and of course all three have significantly higher CIT rates than the 26% Labour want to raise it to. I agree with a lot of what you say, and certainly am not sure the current Labour front bench knows how to make the UK economy better (for everyone), but I equally don't get this common aversion to having a CIT rate in line with countries in our "peer group". Low CIT is only really justifiable for countries still building their infrastructure from which companies can benefit. It was never justifiable for Ireland, who took all that EU money and then undercut everybody. I have nothing but contempt for the Irish approach.
But of course, speaking of Ireland, more important than the CIT rate is actually collecting it, especially from the Irish "based" fairy-tale spinners.
I agree the Corporation Tax rate isn't that relevant - what is perhaps more important is how the system is used to encourage investment. Raising the rate on its own would clearly have a damaging impact on business investment - but applying a higher rate to those companies that don't invest, and using the tax system to encourage investment through capital allowances/grants etc. might. I think the Germans and French do a lot more of this - it also is probably a better way of directing investment than through a National Investment Bank. The thought of John McDonnell doing the direction and defining what is high tech and what isn't is something I find genuinely terrifying - what are his credentials for making investment decisions? Of course all of this might improve business investment - but it will not immediately produce a lot in the way of additional tax for pet projects and redistribution.
If you wish to increase investment and productivity this will mean a period of national belt tightening as a whole before you can start enjoying the benefits.
No they have talked about other mechanisms such as government bonds and quantitative easing for their pet projects. The line about belt tightening has been pushed for the last seven years and it has spectacularly failed. Productivity and wages have stagnated, the national debt has almost doubled, the balance of trade awful and an economy that is still over-reliant on a false housing market and the service industry.
I think you talk a lot of sense and we agree more than not. You clearly don't trust McDonnell but you haven't suggested an alternative. Firms are far too short sighted on immediate returns for investors and I agree about different tax structures to encourage investment. I imagine the final policy would be a mixture of both, but the bank would be more aimed at a programmed rebalancing the economy in terms of make up and location. Labour seemed to do quite well in setting up the independence of the Bank of England, no reason they couldn't do the same a second time.
I think you will find that McDonnell isn't too keen on the independence of the Bank of England so my educated guess is that he would want to interfere in a National Investment Bank as well.
If anyone wants to know why we cannot afford, as a whole, to give ourselves large pay rises while other nations can might I suggest they look at Table 3 on the download here. You can of course redistribute between people in one direction or another - but the cake has hardly grown as a whole since the crash.
The interesting thing about that for me is that three countries which score higher are France, Germany and the US, and of course all three have significantly higher CIT rates than the 26% Labour want to raise it to. I agree with a lot of what you say, and certainly am not sure the current Labour front bench knows how to make the UK economy better (for everyone), but I equally don't get this common aversion to having a CIT rate in line with countries in our "peer group". Low CIT is only really justifiable for countries still building their infrastructure from which companies can benefit. It was never justifiable for Ireland, who took all that EU money and then undercut everybody. I have nothing but contempt for the Irish approach.
But of course, speaking of Ireland, more important than the CIT rate is actually collecting it, especially from the Irish "based" fairy-tale spinners.
I agree the Corporation Tax rate isn't that relevant - what is perhaps more important is how the system is used to encourage investment. Raising the rate on its own would clearly have a damaging impact on business investment - but applying a higher rate to those companies that don't invest, and using the tax system to encourage investment through capital allowances/grants etc. might. I think the Germans and French do a lot more of this - it also is probably a better way of directing investment than through a National Investment Bank. The thought of John McDonnell doing the direction and defining what is high tech and what isn't is something I find genuinely terrifying - what are his credentials for making investment decisions? Of course all of this might improve business investment - but it will not immediately produce a lot in the way of additional tax for pet projects and redistribution.
If you wish to increase investment and productivity this will mean a period of national belt tightening as a whole before you can start enjoying the benefits.
No they have talked about other mechanisms such as government bonds and quantitative easing for their pet projects. The line about belt tightening has been pushed for the last seven years and it has spectacularly failed. Productivity and wages have stagnated, the national debt has almost doubled, the balance of trade awful and an economy that is still over-reliant on a false housing market and the service industry.
I think you talk a lot of sense and we agree more than not. You clearly don't trust McDonnell but you haven't suggested an alternative. Firms are far too short sighted on immediate returns for investors and I agree about different tax structures to encourage investment. I imagine the final policy would be a mixture of both, but the bank would be more aimed at a programmed rebalancing the economy in terms of make up and location. Labour seemed to do quite well in setting up the independence of the Bank of England, no reason they couldn't do the same a second time.
You make the mistake of thinking that I agree with what the Tories/Lib Dems have done - I don't. But increasing CT from 19% to 26% would have a disastrous effect on business investment and that is what is being proposed by Labour at the present with precious little else being offered to compensate. We have to push more into business investment by whatever means - otherwise the belt is going to stay very tight. Greater payments to public sector workers and benefit claimants are not going to do the trick.
I don't think Labour are suggesting the two things a mutually exclusive, just the conservatives. Why would it be so disastrous if it isn't in other countries? I keep asking but, who is currently offering any alternative plans on how to grow our economy? I don't know if you agree with the Tories/Lib Dems because you aren't advocating anyone.
I agree the Corporation Tax rate isn't that relevant - what is perhaps more important is how the system is used to encourage investment. Raising the rate on its own would clearly have a damaging impact on business investment - but applying a higher rate to those companies that don't invest, and using the tax system to encourage investment through capital allowances/grants etc. might. I think the Germans and French do a lot more of this - it also is probably a better way of directing investment than through a National Investment Bank. The thought of John McDonnell doing the direction and defining what is high tech and what isn't is something I find genuinely terrifying - what are his credentials for making investment decisions? Of course all of this might improve business investment - but it will not immediately produce a lot in the way of additional tax for pet projects and redistribution.
If you wish to increase investment and productivity this will mean a period of national belt tightening as a whole before you can start enjoying the benefits.
No they have talked about other mechanisms such as government bonds and quantitative easing for their pet projects. The line about belt tightening has been pushed for the last seven years and it has spectacularly failed. Productivity and wages have stagnated, the national debt has almost doubled, the balance of trade awful and an economy that is still over-reliant on a false housing market and the service industry.
I think you talk a lot of sense and we agree more than not. You clearly don't trust McDonnell but you haven't suggested an alternative. Firms are far too short sighted on immediate returns for investors and I agree about different tax structures to encourage investment. I imagine the final policy would be a mixture of both, but the bank would be more aimed at a programmed rebalancing the economy in terms of make up and location. Labour seemed to do quite well in setting up the independence of the Bank of England, no reason they couldn't do the same a second time.
I think you will find that McDonnell isn't too keen on the independence of the Bank of England so my educated guess is that he would want to interfere in a National Investment Bank as well.
That quote was from 2012, here's one from 2016 of McDonnell saying the independence of the Bank of England is "sacrosanct" and May suggesting that independence could be under review in the FT:
Keynes suggests that you should try to grow the economy rather than shrink it. It isn't just this country, but a number of countries that seem intent on shrinking it. The only people who benefit from this are corporations who can utilise cheap labour, especially as austerity doesn't apply to them.
Keynes suggests that you should try to grow the economy rather than shrink it. It isn't just this country, but a number of countries that seem intent on shrinking it. The only people who benefit from this are corporations who can utilise cheap labour, especially as austerity doesn't apply to them.
I am with Keynes on growing the economy - but when he suggested digging up holes and filling them in it was not a policy prescription. He was more than aware that you have to do sensible things on the supply side as well as managing effective demand.
If anyone wants to know why we cannot afford, as a whole, to give ourselves large pay rises while other nations can might I suggest they look at Table 3 on the download here. You can of course redistribute between people in one direction or another - but the cake has hardly grown as a whole since the crash.
The interesting thing about that for me is that three countries which score higher are France, Germany and the US, and of course all three have significantly higher CIT rates than the 26% Labour want to raise it to. I agree with a lot of what you say, and certainly am not sure the current Labour front bench knows how to make the UK economy better (for everyone), but I equally don't get this common aversion to having a CIT rate in line with countries in our "peer group". Low CIT is only really justifiable for countries still building their infrastructure from which companies can benefit. It was never justifiable for Ireland, who took all that EU money and then undercut everybody. I have nothing but contempt for the Irish approach.
But of course, speaking of Ireland, more important than the CIT rate is actually collecting it, especially from the Irish "based" fairy-tale spinners.
I agree the Corporation Tax rate isn't that relevant - what is perhaps more important is how the system is used to encourage investment. Raising the rate on its own would clearly have a damaging impact on business investment - but applying a higher rate to those companies that don't invest, and using the tax system to encourage investment through capital allowances/grants etc. might. I think the Germans and French do a lot more of this - it also is probably a better way of directing investment than through a National Investment Bank. The thought of John McDonnell doing the direction and defining what is high tech and what isn't is something I find genuinely terrifying - what are his credentials for making investment decisions? Of course all of this might improve business investment - but it will not immediately produce a lot in the way of additional tax for pet projects and redistribution.
If you wish to increase investment and productivity this will mean a period of national belt tightening as a whole before you can start enjoying the benefits.
No they have talked about other mechanisms such as government bonds and quantitative easing for their pet projects. The line about belt tightening has been pushed for the last seven years and it has spectacularly failed. Productivity and wages have stagnated, the national debt has almost doubled, the balance of trade awful and an economy that is still over-reliant on a false housing market and the service industry.
I think you talk a lot of sense and we agree more than not. You clearly don't trust McDonnell but you haven't suggested an alternative. Firms are far too short sighted on immediate returns for investors and I agree about different tax structures to encourage investment. I imagine the final policy would be a mixture of both, but the bank would be more aimed at a programmed rebalancing the economy in terms of make up and location. Labour seemed to do quite well in setting up the independence of the Bank of England, no reason they couldn't do the same a second time.
You make the mistake of thinking that I agree with what the Tories/Lib Dems have done - I don't. But increasing CT from 19% to 26% would have a disastrous effect on business investment and that is what is being proposed by Labour at the present with precious little else being offered to compensate. We have to push more into business investment by whatever means - otherwise the belt is going to stay very tight. Greater payments to public sector workers and benefit claimants are not going to do the trick.
I don't think Labour are suggesting the two things a mutually exclusive, just the conservatives. Why would it be so disastrous if it isn't in other countries? I keep asking but, who is currently offering any alternative plans on how to grow our economy? I don't know if you agree with the Tories/Lib Dems because you aren't advocating anyone.
I agree the Corporation Tax rate isn't that relevant - what is perhaps more important is how the system is used to encourage investment. Raising the rate on its own would clearly have a damaging impact on business investment - but applying a higher rate to those companies that don't invest, and using the tax system to encourage investment through capital allowances/grants etc. might. I think the Germans and French do a lot more of this - it also is probably a better way of directing investment than through a National Investment Bank. The thought of John McDonnell doing the direction and defining what is high tech and what isn't is something I find genuinely terrifying - what are his credentials for making investment decisions? Of course all of this might improve business investment - but it will not immediately produce a lot in the way of additional tax for pet projects and redistribution.
If you wish to increase investment and productivity this will mean a period of national belt tightening as a whole before you can start enjoying the benefits.
No they have talked about other mechanisms such as government bonds and quantitative easing for their pet projects. The line about belt tightening has been pushed for the last seven years and it has spectacularly failed. Productivity and wages have stagnated, the national debt has almost doubled, the balance of trade awful and an economy that is still over-reliant on a false housing market and the service industry.
I think you talk a lot of sense and we agree more than not. You clearly don't trust McDonnell but you haven't suggested an alternative. Firms are far too short sighted on immediate returns for investors and I agree about different tax structures to encourage investment. I imagine the final policy would be a mixture of both, but the bank would be more aimed at a programmed rebalancing the economy in terms of make up and location. Labour seemed to do quite well in setting up the independence of the Bank of England, no reason they couldn't do the same a second time.
I think you will find that McDonnell isn't too keen on the independence of the Bank of England so my educated guess is that he would want to interfere in a National Investment Bank as well.
That quote was from 2012, here's one from 2016 of McDonnell saying the independence of the Bank of England is "sacrosanct" and May suggesting that independence could be under review in the FT:
Many people just can't get it out of their heads that you cant spend what you don't have. But America has been in deficit since before the 1860s, 60m dollars in 1860 and around 440 bn today. Not having a deficit is intuitive and logical as it mainly applies to household finances. But it does not apply to government spending. America is far richer today then it was in 1860. The argument that you can't spend what you don't have says this can't be.
To simplify try to imagine a world in which there is no government and no foreign countries. All economic activity would take place domestically and be carried out by our private sector firms and households. As a group, they would earn what they spent. If all firms and households spent £1000, then–because one of them was standing on the other side of the till for each of these transactions– firms and households would earn £1000. It is logically impossible for them, as a group (though not as individuals), to spend more or less than what they earned–the values must be identical because it’s really double-entry bookkeeping. Every transaction that takes place is both spending (for the person buying something) and income (for the person selling something).
Now let's create a government. It is only at this point that it becomes possible for one sector (private or government) to spend more than they earned or earn more than they spent. For example, say over its first year in existence, the government takes in £100 in tax revenues but doesn’t spend any of it. You might have something like this:
Government Budget Surplus and Private Sector Deficit Private Government Total Income £1000 £100 £1100 Spending £1100 £0 £1100 Balance -£100 +£100 £0
In this case, the private sector spent £1000 on the goods and services it created (which is what created the £1000 in income for them), plus they spent £100 for taxes. The government, meanwhile, earned £100 in income (via taxes), but spent nothing. The government budget is thus surplus, while the private sector has gone into debt–by the exact same amount, of course. It is impossible for it to work out any other way. The balances must add to zero because, as the last column indicates, total spending must equal total income in a closed system. And with the government in surplus, the private sector goes into debt.
On the other hand, look at what happens when the government spends in deficit:
Government Budget Deficit and Private Sector Surplus Private Government Total Income £1100 £0 £1100 Spending £1000 £100 £1100 Balance +£100 -£100 £0
Now it is the private sector that gets the surplus! In this scenario, the government has collected no taxes, but spent £100 on goods and services produced by the private sector. This creates enough income for the private sector for them to actually save money rather than go into debt.
What the above means is this: government deficits create private sector wealth, while government surpluses drain it. This is the clear maths not trickery. When the government spends in deficit, it does so by putting financial assets, usually in the form of Treasury bills, in the hands of the public; when it spends in surplus, the net quantity of Treasury bills held by the public declines. Thus, government deficits create the extra demand necessary.
This is not an example to show why governments should not collect taxes - of course they should, but rather why increasing the deficit in the right way is not the issue some politicians would have you believe.
The problem is, despite this simplification, it is still a bit long and more complicated than you can't spend what you don't have - it takes less than 10 seconds to say that and makes you feel smart because a lot of supposedly clever people including the top economists in the world, don't get it! How can anybody explain this when you are only ever allowed 30 seconds to answer questions as is the case in our election contests - better to trip politicians up for not knowing the price of milk!
I think Keynes was making this point when he explained about digging holes and filling them in, but of course it is better to spend money on things that benefit us, and Keynes would have said that too.
Any sort of land tax would really hurt pensioners, particularly in the south. Even 1% on a semi would be over £5000. What would they do if a pensioner only has their state pension plus maybe a small private pension, it would be crippling.
That said I can see it as another way of taxing people who own more than one property which most parties seem to want to do.
I think going back to the 80s is wrong full stop. How many of us believe exactly the same things as we did in the 80s? Let us have adult debate on the policies of 2017.
Any sort of land tax would really hurt pensioners, particularly in the south. Even 1% on a semi would be over £5000. What would they do if a pensioner only has their state pension plus maybe a small private pension, it would be crippling.
That said I can see it as another way of taxing people who own more than one property which most parties seem to want to do.
But isn't it something they would have looked at rather than policy - it would be surprising if the Tories hadn't considered it also. As you say, it is a way of bringing in tax revenues and what do you think chancellors of all colours do when they need money? They consider ways of bringing it in. It only becomes a story if it is policy to do so.
He's been quoted saying he would sanction shoot to kill, when he has very clearly always opposed this. He now says he doesn't want to scrap trident when he's always said that he wanted to.
Only fair to say the same about him if people say it about May?
All governments and prospective governments look at raising money through taxation of different kinds. It is only a U-turn when it becomes a stated policy.
He's been quoted saying he would sanction shoot to kill, when he has very clearly always opposed this. He now says he doesn't want to scrap trident when he's always said that he wanted to.
Only fair to say the same about him if people say it about May?
The actual question Kuenssberg had asked during the interview was: "If you were prime minister, would you be happy to order people - police or military - to shoot to kill on Britain's streets?"
The previous question in the interview, in a section that was not used on the News At Six, he had been asked specifically about his response to a Paris-style attack if he was prime minister and whether he would "order security services onto the street to stop people being killed".
In answer to that question, Mr Corbyn had replied: "Of course you'd bring people onto the streets to prevent and ensure there is safety within our society."
He's been quoted saying he would sanction shoot to kill, when he has very clearly always opposed this. He now says he doesn't want to scrap trident when he's always said that he wanted to.
Only fair to say the same about him if people say it about May?
That doesn't say anything though does it? To me it doesn't say that he would use it in a terrorist instance, He still said that he opposes shoot to kill and feel it's counter productive, which is fine if that's what he feels but why u turn now?
I think he has said in a speech tonight - quoted above - that his government woud give police 'full authority to use whatever force is necessary to protect and save life as they did last night'. That seems pretty clear to me.
LK: "If you were prime minister, would you be happy to order people - police or military - to shoot to kill on Britain's streets?"
JC: "I am not happy with a shoot to kill policy in general. I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often be counter-productive."
LK: "If you were the resident here at Number 10, would you be happy for British officers to pull the trigger in the event of a Paris-style attack?"
JC: "Of course you'd bring people onto the streets to prevent and ensure there is safety within our society."
That bottom answer evades the question in my opinion. Is there a video? Maybe I need to hear it to properly digest how he's saying it, maybe I'm reading it wrong as such.
LK: "If you were prime minister, would you be happy to order people - police or military - to shoot to kill on Britain's streets?"
JC: "I am not happy with a shoot to kill policy in general. I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often be counter-productive."
LK: "If you were the resident here at Number 10, would you be happy for British officers to pull the trigger in the event of a Paris-style attack?"
JC: "Of course you'd bring people onto the streets to prevent and ensure there is safety within our society."
That bottom answer evades the question in my opinion. Is there a video? Maybe I need to hear it to properly digest how he's saying it, maybe I'm reading it wrong as such.
Comments
The Daily Express is wrong to say that Labour is proposing a Land Value Tax “based on 3% of the value of each property”.
This figure seems to come from a report hosted on the website of Labour Land, a campaign group which supports the idea of a Land Value Tax.
One of the report's authors told us that the estimates and the strategy explored in it weren’t endorsed by either Labour Land or the Labour Party. The report had been published in 2015 with the header “DRAFT Please do not quote without permission”.
3% would be the wrong figure to quote from it anyway, given that we’re discussing the potential impact on homeowners.
Its authors estimated that councils would initially have to set an average rate of 0.85% for owner-occupiers and 3% for industrial and commercial property. It suggested that different councils would set different rates, so that they collected the same revenue as they had through business rates and council tax.
The idea will probably be on the table at some point, whichever party comes to power
The business rate and council tax system have been widely criticised for being unfair and inefficient, and Land Value Tax is an idea that’s been around for over 150 years.
The idea has also been promoted by economists across the political spectrum, including the free-market Adam Smith Institute, the left-leaning Centre for Labour and Social Studies, the non-aligned Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Economist, a liberal magazine.
International organisations like the IMF and the OECD are also fans, as was the economist Milton Friedman, whose ideas underpinned Margaret Thatcher’s economic policies.
The Conservatives have also promised a review into the business rates system. So it seems likely that the idea will be considered in a review at some point, whichever party comes to power.
The idea is also put up for consideration in the Liberal Democrat manifesto and the Green party suggests a trial of the tax.
I think you talk a lot of sense and we agree more than not. You clearly don't trust McDonnell but you haven't suggested an alternative. Firms are far too short sighted on immediate returns for investors and I agree about different tax structures to encourage investment. I imagine the final policy would be a mixture of both, but the bank would be more aimed at a programmed rebalancing the economy in terms of make up and location. Labour seemed to do quite well in setting up the independence of the Bank of England, no reason they couldn't do the same a second time.
http://www.labourland.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/JonesWilcoxLVTpaperFinal-V2.pdf
and that its authors "Dr Jerry Jones and Ms Carol Wilcox" are, respectively, the Chair and Secretary of the Labour Land Campaign.
The fact that the idea is also promoted by the Adam Smith Institute, Milton Friedman and the Lib Dems and Greens are arguments against rather than for in my book.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/bank-of-england/11863780/John-McDonnells-plan-to-scrap-Bank-of-England-independence-would-turn-back-clock-economists-warn.html
edit: That quote was from 2012, here's one from 2016 of McDonnell saying the independence of the Bank of England is "sacrosanct" and May suggesting that independence could be under review in the FT:
https://ft.com/content/21e369e2-9b99-11e6-8f9b-70e3cabccfae
To simplify try to imagine a world in which there is no government and no foreign countries. All economic activity would take place domestically and be carried out by our private sector firms and households. As a group, they would earn what they spent. If all firms and households spent £1000, then–because one of them was standing on the other side of the till for each of these transactions– firms and households would earn £1000. It is logically impossible for them, as a group (though not as individuals), to spend more or less than what they earned–the values must be identical because it’s really double-entry bookkeeping. Every transaction that takes place is both spending (for the person buying something) and income (for the person selling something).
Now let's create a government. It is only at this point that it becomes possible for one sector (private or government) to spend more than they earned or earn more than they spent. For example, say over its first year in existence, the government takes in £100 in tax revenues but doesn’t spend any of it. You might have something like this:
Government Budget Surplus and Private Sector Deficit
Private Government Total
Income £1000 £100 £1100
Spending £1100 £0 £1100
Balance -£100 +£100 £0
In this case, the private sector spent £1000 on the goods and services it created (which is what created the £1000 in income for them), plus they spent £100 for taxes. The government, meanwhile, earned £100 in income (via taxes), but spent nothing. The government budget is thus surplus, while the private sector has gone into debt–by the exact same amount, of course. It is impossible for it to work out any other way. The balances must add to zero because, as the last column indicates, total spending must equal total income in a closed system. And with the government in surplus, the private sector goes into debt.
On the other hand, look at what happens when the government spends in deficit:
Government Budget Deficit and Private Sector Surplus
Private Government Total
Income £1100 £0 £1100
Spending £1000 £100 £1100
Balance +£100 -£100 £0
Now it is the private sector that gets the surplus! In this scenario, the government has collected no taxes, but spent £100 on goods and services produced by the private sector. This creates enough income for the private sector for them to actually save money rather than go into debt.
What the above means is this: government deficits create private sector wealth, while government surpluses drain it. This is the clear maths not trickery. When the government spends in deficit, it does so by putting financial assets, usually in the form of Treasury bills, in the hands of the public; when it spends in surplus, the net quantity of Treasury bills held by the public declines. Thus, government deficits create the extra demand necessary.
This is not an example to show why governments should not collect taxes - of course they should, but rather why increasing the deficit in the right way is not the issue some politicians would have you believe.
The problem is, despite this simplification, it is still a bit long and more complicated than you can't spend what you don't have - it takes less than 10 seconds to say that and makes you feel smart because a lot of supposedly clever people including the top economists in the world, don't get it! How can anybody explain this when you are only ever allowed 30 seconds to answer questions as is the case in our election contests - better to trip politicians up for not knowing the price of milk!
I think Keynes was making this point when he explained about digging holes and filling them in, but of course it is better to spend money on things that benefit us, and Keynes would have said that too.
That said I can see it as another way of taxing people who own more than one property which most parties seem to want to do.
He now says he doesn't want to scrap trident when he's always said that he wanted to.
Only fair to say the same about him if people say it about May?
The actual question Kuenssberg had asked during the interview was: "If you were prime minister, would you be happy to order people - police or military - to shoot to kill on Britain's streets?"
The previous question in the interview, in a section that was not used on the News At Six, he had been asked specifically about his response to a Paris-style attack if he was prime minister and whether he would "order security services onto the street to stop people being killed".
In answer to that question, Mr Corbyn had replied: "Of course you'd bring people onto the streets to prevent and ensure there is safety within our society."
JC: "I am not happy with a shoot to kill policy in general. I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often be counter-productive."
LK: "If you were the resident here at Number 10, would you be happy for British officers to pull the trigger in the event of a Paris-style attack?"
JC: "Of course you'd bring people onto the streets to prevent and ensure there is safety within our society."