You're mistaken there because I'm not encouraging anyone to vote for him. I've just heard from various sources that "Corbyn in no.10 will be a disaster" and I'm struggling to work out how and for whom this will be the case.
Ok. fair enough. Why do I think he will be a disaster?
Well putting aside what I think will be terrible foreign policies, especially around NATO and our commitments internationally AND his approach to Brexit I really worry about economic competence and economic performance of a Corbyn led government.
Honestly, I do not trust the economics of the most recent labour manifesto. They play well with the Corbyn base but they are based on a fantasy that everyone will pay the new taxes in full. That simply isnt going to happen. In particular the most recent manifesto planned to nearly double corporation tax receipts. Again this looks like decent lefty stuff but many economists argue that this will simply drive successful business off shore and reduce investment in the UK and reduce the number of jobs in the market. I think it is simply naive to expect that business and individuals will simply roll over an pay. They wont.
Tax changes change behaviours with most people trying to reduce the taxation burden as much as possible. There is a suggestion, for instance, that "loopholes" in corporation tax will be closed to raise more money yet those "loopholes" have been introduced to try and encourage industry to invest in things like new machinery. The richest people will move off shore to avoid tax, business will do the same and everyone who is able will use clever schemes to doge tax. Those that cant will get screwed. Those people wont be the targeted super rich. The Laffer curve seems to be a stranger to Labour!
Labour were also vague ( charitably) about how they would fund their nationalisation campaign estimated to cost c.£60bn. They said the cost of buying out shareholders will be matched by the purchase of valuable, profitable businesses which would mean the net effect on the government’s balance sheet would be zero. This seems fantastical. There was a suggestion that the shareholders could be converted to bond holders rahter than sahreholders. Government bond holders routinely expect a decent ( say 5%) p/a return. To renationalise at zero cost assumes that the new state-run businesses will perform at least as well the privatised ones, paying the interest to the bondholders and financing all planned investments. Do you think this is likely?
My biggest concern is what if the economy fails to perform post Brexit and/or the tax receipts are not as suggested. How is this manifesto to be paid for? It is going to be lots of borrowing and increased taxes further down the chain. The definition of what is "rich" will slide lower so more and more people are paying higher tax levels. It is also going to lead to a slow down of the economy as investment is reduced and business activity moved away from the UK. This means fewer jobs, paying lower wages and less money to spend in the wider economy.
The real questions are whether the aims of this manifesto are attainable, effective, affordable and politically sustainable and whether they are the most pressing priorities in 21st century Britain. For instance should Labour really abolish tuition fees for the middle classes, many of whom can well afford them rather than spend the money elsewhere? Should Labour chuck endless funds at the NHS without looking at how that important institution works? Is natioinalising the railways or the water board really that important?
Personally I think they have over committed and I worry about the results for the economy.
(The Laffer curve illustrates a theoretical relationship between rates of taxation and the resulting levels of government revenue. One implication of the Laffer curve is that reducing or increasing tax rates beyond a certain point is counter-productive for raising further tax revenue)