-
Yeah, I guess I would agree that there is potentially some political capital in trying to persuade business that the Labour party isn't a threat, but in this circumstance I think the material benefits to be gained from increasing corporation tax outweigh that.
Ignoring the snarkiness from the comment below, the Labour party should be prepared to confront (big) business in some way or another, because in certain ways the needs of capital are often antagonistic to the needs of those who work, to the needs of the environment, to the needs of the social state etc. etc.
That should not be controversial or difficult to understand for a party with the word 'labour' in its name.
bens0n-
I think the problem lies in the perception that there are two sides such that pro-workers means anti business.
Rightly or wrongly, people do seem to view this as a zero sum game, whereby the good of workers is pitted against business. You rightly use the term capital not business in your message, but I don't think average jo thinks in terms of capital Vs workers, but more in terms of "good for the economy or not", and is therefore pretty susceptible to an argument that labour = bad for business = bad for economy = everyone is poorer.
(I don't agree, but I think that is a very common and hard to shift narrative. And beating that seems to me to be necessary for labour to win)
andyfallsoff
Maybe those are the Labour party's reasons, but do you not think there might be some mileage in trying to persuade business that labour isn't a threat?
(Not saying your other arguments are wrong, but seems to me they address different things).