You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
We all lose 10pc of the value of our pensions.
The last figures I saw, "our" pensions represented less than 5% of the stock market. And given that pensions will be by far the biggest investment pot for 95% of people, increasing that ownership to 15% of the market through Government seems perfectly logical and beneficial to society as a whole.
Frankly IMO it is the only way the world is going to be able to deal with the next wave of automation many countries are having similar thoughts and once it starts it will become common. The problem is how it is being sold, it shouldn't be class warfare, but a simple methodology for dealing with modern business strategies that allow the whole of society to benefit from advancement.
It isn't even that radical. It is rather sensible, and would introduce levers to protect the share market from short termism and greed overriding long term growth.
It should be positive strategy not a negative one, unfortunately it would take a positive forward looking leader to get the public onside, not one trapped into a mindset of rebelling against everything.
it also gives workers a stake in the company which is well proven to improve productivity.
it also gives workers a stake in the company which is well proven to improve productivity
A 10 percent stake, owned by the government - I'm sure the workers sense of agency is going to reach new heights. Hahah! The world is littered with publicly owned companies where the workers feel disenfranchised as well by the way.
Labours plan will cause capital flight and damage to the UK economy and it would then be undone by the next Tory government, so it's utterly pointless in the long term. The things that can't be as easily undone without political blowback are workers rights and the minimum wage, Labour should be focusing on that - not deranged economically illiterate ideas.
so do all german pension funds invest only out of the country and have all their manufacturing companies moved out of the country?
Germany did it though tax incentives not by taking ownership of 10pc of German firms. As far as I can see the German system has no catastrophic drawbacks at all most people would be totally in favour. ...and the workers own the shares, the shares aren't held in some sort of dodgy trust by the government with a cap on dividends.
NUrses pensions are revenue funded – ie was pay a significant extra amount that is effectivly tax then the taxpayer pays our pensions
So not invested in the stock market at any point, then this won't harm them.
When right wingers are whining about this and making up all sorts of apocalyptic nonsense about it then you know its right.
Remember the minimum wage? According to rightwingers it would destroy companies - guess what - it didn't. It was actually good for them as it stopped the unethical low payers from undercutting employers who pay well
The last figures I saw, “our” pensions represented less than 5% of the stock market.
Whereas the stock market could form ~100pc of many of our pensions. If the government take 10pc of the stock market we all lose 10pc of our pensions if we are lazy enough to leave it invested in the UK stocks.
And given that pensions will be by far the biggest investment pot for 95% of people, increasing that ownership to 15% of the market through Government seems perfectly logical and beneficial to society as a whole.
If it's "logical and beneficial to society" how about society *buying* the shares rather than taking them?
“I’m behind on this one…
But what could be the upside for the country? That has to be factored in.“
There are none:
- companies will relocate their HQs (leading to loss of some of the highest paying roles all of which pay the 45% tax band)
- anyone with a private pension (so not Corbyn or McDonnell with their £2m+ pension pots they have paid nowt towards) will lose 5% of their pension funds
- the government will lose £100b or more in corporation tax receipts - every year
- inward investment will dry up, leading to a compounding of the inevitable effect of Labour coming to power which is higher unemployment
Corbyn has played a blinder though - workers will vote for it because they think they will get £250 a year in shares when the reality is most will just lose their jobs.
Corbyn has played a blinder though – workers will vote for it because they think they will get £250 a year in shares when the reality is most will just lose their jobs.
Which will be more than entertaining.
Starting to really look forward to the coming bloodbath.
If the government take 10pc of the stock market we all lose 10pc of our pensions if we are lazy enough to leave it invested in the UK stocks.
Thankfully both me and my wifes pensions are with companies where we can stop it from being exposed to UK companies. We might do it this week actually, this country is having a collective psychotic break, I think the political risk UK stocks are exposed to is now too great. My wife (coincidentally in investment management) has been saying that the political debate in this country is starting to feel like her home country, the Philippines.
When right wingers are whining about this and making up all sorts of apocalyptic nonsense about it then you know its right.
"Man with a gold plated state funded pension supports grabbing 10pc of everyone else's pension shocker."
But let's discuss the "apocalyptic nonsense" shall we? There's a 50/50 chance my pension is about to be devalued by 10pc and I have two options. 1) Leave the it inUK funds as it is. 2) Move it to other markets which aren't about to devalue by 10pc?
Making the change requires me to log on to a website and select from a drop-down list.
Is it really "apocalyptic nonsense" to think a lot of people are going to choose to do that? 10 minutes work to save a tenth of a lifetime's pension savings?
"apocalyptic nonsense" about Capital Flight from the Shadow Chancellor:
Already going to do it outofbreath. Public workers don't get how easy it is to move investment money around and collectively **** an economy over night.
Thankfully both me and my wifes pensions are with companies where we can stop it from being exposed to UK companies. We might do it this week actually,
Agree with you and it needs to be done ASAP and before the election because the market's going to factor this in before it happens. I'm watching the FTSE to try and pick a high point. (Today would have been good.)
Plus "Labour has prepared for a run on the pound and capital flight" which sounds like there might be immediate measures to prevent movement of capital after the election. (Is that even legal in the EU where where we have free movement of people and capital?) Or do these preparations include an immediate hard Brexit to enable halting of capital movement?
Good grief.
Do Labour just not want to be elected?
As I said - apocalyptic nonsense from right wingers.
How is your pension / the stock market going to be devalued by 10%? If a companies issues 10% more shares does that devalue it by 10%?
And of course we are back to Schrodingers companies
so you rightwingers claim none will move because of brexit but ensure workers have a stake in the companies and every one will immediatly fold their UK operations
a
As I said – apocalyptic nonsense from right wingers.
How is your pension / the stock market going to be devalued by 10%? If a companies issues 10% more shares does that devalue it by 10%?
It's already been explained to you.
You're a nurse TJ, my wifes almost CFA chartered - I'm going to listen to her and what her centrist colleagues think. Stop labeling anyone who disagrees with you a right winger, you are peddling the same post truth bullshit that Trump and the Brexiteers did.
so you rightwingers claim none will move because of brexit but ensure workers have a stake in the companies and every one will immediatly fold their UK operations
It's my understanding that most of the people in this thread, including outofbreath are remainers and have a good understanding of the economic consequences of brexit. We also understand that asset seizing is just as, if not scarier to UK companies than a hard brexit.
If a companies issues 10% more shares does that devalue it by 10%?
Yes, if you give 10pc of something away there is only 90pc of it left in the hands of the original owner.
go on - explain to me in simple words I can understand why giving workers 10% of the company is any different that giving shareholders more shares? which I believe happens fairly often that there is a share issue which dilutes existing shares?
Because when that happens, the shareholders have more shares at a lower value per share - but the same total value as before.
That is not what Labour is proposing.
This is key stage 3 level maths dude.
The other scenario is that a company issues new stock as a way to raise capital. Although new stock is issued, the cash raised by the sale becomes an asset on the company's balance sheet - hopefully negating stock dilution.
which I believe happens fairly often that there is a share issue which dilutes existing shares?
It doesn't - because shareholders take a dim view of companies who's stock issue leads to devaluation of the shares. Just as they will take a dim view of the government doing something that has a similar effect.
so what are labour proposing then if its not the equivalent to a new share issue - are you really trying to claim they are going to take 10 % of everyones shares rather than just increase the number of shares?
They are not removing 10% of the value of the company - it still remains in the company. Or are you trying to claim they are going to take 10% of the value out of the company?
apart from anything else its proposed to be 1% a year not 10% the moment labour take power.
#
there is no money being taken out of the company in any form. Its just that 1% of the value of the company willbe transferred to the workforce each year.
so what are labour proposing then if its not the equivalent to a new share issue – are you really trying to claim they are going to take 10 % of everyones shares rather than just increase the number of shares?
If they forces companies to create 10 percent more shares and give them to the government, that still devalues the 90 percent that is remaining.
Once agaim, this is key stage 3 maths.
there is no money being taken out of the company in any form. Its just that 1% of the value of the company willbe transferred to the workforce each year.
Wealth managers, manage investments with long term goals in mind - 10 percent over 10 years would certainly be factored into how they pick funds.
Needless to say, Labour would only allow 500 quid of dividends to go to the workers in a company before the rest goes to the state. Have you any idea how much 10 percent in a company can reap in terms of dividends?
It's not about the workers at all, a 500 quid bonus is crap compared to what German companies voluntarily give their workers.
so the same as a share issue which is done all the time. a 1% share issue a year
They are not being given to the government - they are being given to workers in a trust. so you see if you start to argue from false premise then you get false answers.
That is not what Labour is proposing.
I think this is Labour doing peak labour and using language which appeals to their base, who were going to vote for them no matter what, and drive away those who are in the fence.
As I understand the proposal, they aren't going to confiscate shares held privately 'in the market' They are going to require corporations to find and sequester 10% of their shares in a pot for the employees. Those shares will remain 'out there' in the sense that they will still count towards the number of outstanding shares, will fluctuate in value and will pay the same dividends as all the others. They will not be raiding your pension fund. The corporations will fulfill the requiremnt however they choose. While issuing more shares to do it might lower the value of the shares in the short term, because they can't be sold on the market in the middle or longer term they will probably balance. The dividends are more dilute but companies that have employee input and representation are often more profitable, so that will be a wash.
There really is no need to panic over this. It will have far less effect on shares than the underhanded tactics boards and CEOs get up to.
Brexit, on the other hand, is something to worry about, if you are concerned about your market funds.
They are going to require corporations to find and sequester 10% of their shares in a pot for the employees. Those shares will remain ‘out there’ in the sense that they will still count towards the number of outstanding shares, will fluctuate in value and will pay the same dividends as all the others. They will not be raiding your pension fund.
They will have to unless they are going to issue new shares.
so the same as a share issue which is done all the time. a 1% share issue a year
Under certain circumstances, to raise capital.
https://www.ft.com/content/dc17d7ee-ccab-11e9-b018-ca4456540ea6
We're through the looking glass now. At least it takes the spotlight off Boris for his '**** Business' comments.
The dividends are more dilute but companies that have employee input and representation are often more profitable, so that will be a wash.
The cap on the dividends per worker is £500, under Labours scheme - which is laughable. Especially considering that many of the FTSE250 companies will be giving their employees half decent performance related bonuses anyway.
because shareholders take a dim view of companies who’s stock issue leads to devaluation of the shares.
That's usually only true when the shares aren't offered to existing shareholders first.
And issuing more shares doesn't automatically or frequently lead to a drop in share prices. If they don't discount them then the market capitalisation to #shares remain constant. It might even increase if the shares go for above market.
And issuing more shares doesn’t automatically or frequently lead to a drop in share prices. If they don’t discount them then the market capitalisation to #shares remain constant. It might even increase if the shares go for above market.
Yes - but this is how competent companies issue shares.
It's not the same as removing or creating shares for a workers pot that is not on the free market.
They will have to unless they are going to issue new shares.
They might offer to buy from your pension fund but a private company can't confiscate them. They'll have to pay fair value.
There are plenty of sources of shares beyond that which they tap all the time.
The cap on the dividends per worker is £500
Per year.
considering that many of the FTSE250 companies will be giving their employees half decent performance related bonuses anyway.
You are taking the piss, right? Hahaha! If you're senior management maybe...
Per year.
That is still crap.
Yeah arguing about Labour's policies are great, but let's all be honest it's gonna be a Tory government until 2025*
Maybe we should be looking at their plans... They've got a brexit that's set to take £bns from the economy, spending promises through the roof & tax cuts too
The magic money tree is in full
* Oh crap, do the FTPA mean every election will ruin an Xmas every five years?
You are taking the piss, right? Hahaha! If you’re senior management maybe…
Most pharma companies I've worked for even gave the cleaners at least double that in bonuses.
It’s not the same as removing or creating shares for a pot.
Especially when the dividends for those shares are being either handed to different people or, for the most part, the Exchequer, rather than the existing shareholders. They are not just being sequestered off with no effect on shareholders, the dividends they generate, which support their value for investors - is being removed.
Most British pharma companies I’ve worked for even gave the cleaners at least double that in bonuses.
Cos they are a massively representative sample.
They are not just being sequestered off with no effect on shareholders, the dividends they generate, which support their value for investors – is being removed.
Just like CEOs donto boost share prices for their own reasons - no one worries about that. Who is looking out for shareholders then?
Cos they are a massively representative sample.
I understand that.
However a £500 dividend is sweet **** all, but it sounds a hell of a lot better to the electorate than raising the minimum wage 2.7 percent. It's a good populist sound bite who's cost is damage to the economy.
It won't increase worker agency, because 10 percent of shares are not enough to give workers any input into a companies direction. It's not a substantial pay rise. It's **** all of anything except economic damage and bread and circuses.
It looks like the opposite of privatisation to me?
Ha! Thanks… I’ve managed to talk complete nonsense there, haven’t I.
sweet **** all
Precisely, the “staff’ get bugger all out of the policy… they are just the populist wrapping around an attempted grab by the state. It it won’t even work… it’ll just result in companies being broken up or moving offshore.
Most pharma companies I’ve worked for even gave the cleaners at least double that in bonuses.
For context, greggs Plc is on that list.
How much did your minimum wage pasty slave get paid in bonuses this year?
Just like CEOs donto boost share prices for their own reasons – no one worries about that. Who is looking out for shareholders then?
If you want to equate Labour's corporate policy with the market manipulating antics of dodgy CEOs, that seems like a good starting point.
This proposal is being presented as some kind of 'victimless crime', but you cannot redistribute that amount of share capital without hurting plenty of people who rely on its dividend income directly or indirectly. And that includes those who have modest amounts in pension funds.
Did Labour see Theresa May threatening to screw over the pensioners at the last election and think that was some kind of vote-winning masterstroke?
How much did your minimum wage pasty slave get paid in bonuses this year?
https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Bonuses/Greggs-Bonuses-E10161_P2.htm
A bit of googling suggests that 20,000 Greggs workers got a £500 bonus last year. So now they'll get a government mandated bonus that gives them the same amount as last year despite growth of the company and economic damage. WIN!
Oh - and why not just raise the minimum wage by the equivalent amount if you care about Greggs workers?
Oh well that's fine then, a 200 quid 'bonus' over the year.
That will make everyone feel better.
Edit, or even £500, the shop workers don't earn squat to begin with.
Did Labour see Theresa May threatening to screw over the pensioners at the last election and think that was some kind of vote-winning masterstroke?
I'm starting to think that they are just really ****ing high and snaffling copious amounts of magic mushrooms.
That or they are A) as cynical as the Tories B) ****ing stupid.
Oh well that’s fine then, a 200 quid ‘bonus’ over the year.
That will make everyone feel better.
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2016/mar/05/greggs-conquered-britain-bakery-profit-sausage-rolls
Guardian is saying 20,000 employees received £500. So I assume that's most of them and the glasdoor page is wrong.
So now they'll get the same as they did last year, despite sales growth! What a win for income equality! It appears that Labour are as charitable as the Greggs CEO.
Edit, or even £500, the shop workers don’t earn squat to begin with.
So had you actually been reading my posts, you would have noticed me suggesting paying them more. What do you think will happen to these workers bonuses when the labour ones come it? Worked yourself up to team leader, where you were previously inline for a bit more than £500? Sorry, you have your government mandated £500 dividend - now **** off!
I was speaking more in general terms, but I concede I took a quote from you, without full context it kind of demonstrates how easily things are skewed in politics.
£500 bonus sounds sweet, but when you divide that by 12 and take 20%,it suddenly becomes nothing, maybe an extra meal or two over a year for a family. Especially when the pound is on it's arse against the dollar and the euro.
I guess I'm just still hopeful we can stop brexit.
It's a cynical soundbitey move by Labour, that doesn't really solve the cost of living crisis in this country. It doesn't address worker apathy, it's a stealth tax and Labour are doing it because they don't have the balls to add it on to the corporation tax they have already announced. Because under a Corbyn labour, it's not about emancipating the worker, it's about tying them to the state - the reward for working hard and helping to increase your companies performance is supporting the glorious state and that should be enough in of itself.
That is such utter bollox its hard to even begin to refute it
do German companies have higher productivity and higher profitability? do they have worker representation and shareholding?
One key thing with workers having a stake in the company is productivity goes up
What you are doing here is project fear from a far right wing perspective. and completely misunderstandin / misrepresenting what the policy actually is. You do realise that although the FT hates the idea its analysis is way away from yours
That is such utter bollox its hard to even begin to refute it
do German companies have higher productivity and higher profitability? do they have worker representation and shareholding?
One key thing with workers having a stake in the company is productivity goes up
German companies do a "stake in the company" in an entirely different manner, they are better unionized for a start - and the workers, even the cleaners don't just get a paltry £500 - it's a 13th month of pay.
https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/comments/9oo04q/how_common_is_the_13th_month_as_a_christmas_bonus/
You do realise that although the FT hates the idea its analysis is way away from yours
Not really, it's tone is just more diplomatic.
What you are doing here is project fear from a far right wing perspective.
Yeah, it's fake news isn't it TJ.
Do you not like experts TJ (the FT)?
do German companies have higher productivity and higher profitability? do they have worker representation and shareholding?
Correlation is not causation.
Working culture is utterly different in Germany for so many reasons.
One key thing with workers having a stake in the company is productivity goes up
Agree entirely. But this proposal only pretends to give workers a stake in the company. They have a “share”, which they can’t do anything with, and if it performs well the government gets the rewards not them. It’s a grab by the state neatly dressed up us a sensible policy we can all get behind, if we don’t look too closely at the details. That should ring alarm bells with Labour voters, never mind those Labour need to be winning over in the next six weeks.
“apocalyptic nonsense” about Capital Flight from the Shadow Chancellor:
It isn't a surprise that they have considered captial flight, Corbyn and McDonnells ex-CPB mates have been wargaming capital flight, currency devaluation and bond boycotts as counter-revolutionary attacks for decades.
Kelvin is right, Labour voters should be worried about the people who are leading the party at the moment.
"I can't prove you are a Communist. But when I see a bird that quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, has feathers and webbed feet and associates with ducks—I'm certainly going to assume that he is a duck." - Emil Mazey, 1946
But this proposal only pretends to give workers a stake in the company. They have a “share”, which they can’t do anything with,
By focusing on the dividend and missing out that 10% block of shares in a single block is huge. In fact it is double what a lot of companies set as a disclosure threshold. It would give workers real influence at the board level.
It's pretty clear that Labour are positioning themselves to be the party to reduce inequality. Ending independent schools, this share plan etc
They are just bloody awful at communicating it.
By focusing on the dividend and missing out that 10% block of shares in a single block is huge. In fact it is double what a lot of companies set as a disclosure threshold. It would give workers real influence at the board level.
Mentioning the disclosure threshold is meaningless waffle. It's pretty normal for single majority shareholders to essentially control the direction of a company in the real world. It's a stealth tax that offers workers very little real agency, what are they going to be able to threaten to do if they disagree with the direction of the company? Dump the shares and hurt the company? They can't.
There are two possible reasons why this is Labour policy:
1) Cynical soundbite electioneering.
2) Murray et al have not forgotten their CPB/Sraight Left commie roots and are softening up/testing the electorate for full scale seizures of privately owned UK headquartered companies.
Anyway, I hope it works out for you - I hope Labour save you and make your life better. Instead of tanking the economy and doing a Venezuela. Sadly, I think in 2025, there are going to be a lot of hilariously angry and even more viciously disillusioned voters if Corbyn takes power in December.
Might be true (the disillusioned bit, not the Venezuela fantasy). But the alternative is far far worse… a Johnson government “promising” that the transition period will end next year, with us out of the Single Market, out of the Customs Union, rushing into a deregulation focused trade deal with the USA.
Instead of tanking the economy and doing a Venezuela
Stop with that repeated nonsense. You can no more predict that than compare it.
Venezuela has an economy pegged to oil prices which also had a large private sector.
It's had success and failure as both socialist and capitalist - with both corruption and mismanagement across different adminstrations.
Anyone defending the status quo of our failed market economy and it's ability to function for the privileged few hasn't been on the right side of reality.
If you want another five years racing to the bottom then let's keep going in the same direction. Otherwise let's change it and do something different.
In other news you can smell the Tory desperation. Gove has been on twitter - probably mildly drunk - creating havoc with all manor of AS allegations.
It's back-fired.
The party of liars.
Tories broke pledge on 'starter homes' in 2015 manifesto, report says
The world seems a very dangerous place at the moment. We all think we're established or getting established and then overnight someone can just take 10pc of your pension savings. The defence that it will redistributed to 'workers' is a bit lame since AFAIR 35 million of us have pensions invested in stocks and (I suspect) not many of us work for uk owned companies.
But the alternative is far far worse… a Johnson government “promising” that the transition period will end next year, with us out of the Single Market, out of the Customs Union, rushing into a deregulation focused trade deal with the USA.
Labour say they are going to implement controls to stop capital flight to stop, among other things, people saving their pensions savings. Self evidently they're going to have to. I can't see how you can do that within the EU which requires free movement of capital so we can be pretty sure that under Labour we will be leaving the EU.
Can anyone solve the paradox of stopping capital flight whilst keeping free movement of capital? No? We're leaving under Labour then.
Venezuela has an economy pegged to oil prices which also had a large private sector.
...and Britain has an economy pegged to business and inward and outward investment.
If you sequester 10pc of UK firms and then impose controls on moving capital out to stop people saving their pensions you lose all of that.
That German 13th month. They did that in the 30s when my mum was serving her apprenticeship. Basically the salary is divided into 13 parts and you get 2/13ths in December. So not necessarily a "bonus".
Can anyone solve the paradox of stopping capital flight whilst keeping free movement of capital? No? We’re leaving under Labour then.
It can’t be.
JC has opposed the EU (in whatever form it’s taken) since it’s inception.
He’s a life long Brexiteer & even the most cursory examinations on his voting record confirms that.
Vote Labour if you like JC & his policies.....but don’t vote Labour if you expect him to fight your corner on Remain. He doesn’t want to & the fence sitting, the contrary political views with8n his own party, the consistent whipping to ensure Brexit progresses prove that.
the consistent whipping to ensure Brexit progresses prove that.
Yes. It was startling that May lost her votes despite him whipping to support it.
Oh wait thats not quite what happened is it?
They are not taking 10% of your pension. I suggest you read the proposal
“I can’t prove you are a Communist. But when I see a bird that quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, has feathers and webbed feet and associates with ducks—I’m certainly going to assume that he is a duck.” – Emil Mazey, 1946
That's rubbish - you might as well just point and shout "Look at him. JUST LOOK AT HIM!"
The world seems a very dangerous place at the moment. We all think we’re established or getting established and then overnight someone can just take 10pc of your pension savings.
That's not going to happen.
Yes. It was startling that May lost her votes despite him whipping to support it.
Oh wait thats not quite what happened is it?
May lost her votes because the ERG headbangers voted against their own leader. As did de Pfeffel and Jaxon Rees Mugg at times.
That’s not going to happen.
In what sense is it not going to happen?
He’s a life long Brexiteer & even the most cursory examinations on his voting record confirms that.
And yet.. 2nd ref is party policy and he campaigned for remain last time...
There's a massive difference between a protest vote and actually doing something.
I can't understand why otherwise intelligent people are so moronic when it comes to politics. So incredibly irrational.
And yet.. 2nd ref is party policy and he campaigned for remain last time…
So you can solve the paradox of stopping capital flight whilst keeping free movement of capital? Great, tell us how!
Ah… back to whether the “Straight Left” team around Corbyn are communists or not, and why they are still trying so hard to keep Labour policy strongly pro-Leave. Nothing has changed.
So you can solve the paradox of stopping capital flight whilst keeping free movement of capital? Great, tell us how!
This is why I think what you are saying won't happen.
And yet.. 2nd ref is party policy and he campaigned for remain last time…
There’s a massive difference between a protest vote and actually doing something.
I can’t understand why otherwise intelligent people are so moronic when it comes to politics. So incredibly irrational.
Yet he’s spent a lifetime voting against the EU?..
As I said if you like his policies - fine.
But JC has no love for the EU & whatever he says should be tempered by that. The actions of his WHOLE POLITICAL CAREER demonstrate this quite clearly.
I for one find it hard to trust a man whose been so deliberately politically ambiguous the last 3 yrs on the one issue that is so era defining. I’d rather it wasn’t so - but I think we need someone a rather more unequivocal leading the fight. That’s not Corbyn..
“If you want another five years racing to the bottom “
When “racing to the bottom” now means:
- record unemployment
- the U.K. is number one in Europe in attracting inward investment
- c60% of the population now make no net contribution to the running of the state
- real (inflation adjusted) disposable household income has growth 10% in the last 7 years
- Income inequality has fallen compared to the last Labour govt
- wage growth has hit 2.9%
- the U.K. is one of a very few (2 or 3) countries to actually deliver on the 0.7% foreign aid commitment
- healthcare as a % of GDP remains higher than at any point under the last Labour government or any other government before that.
- the U.K. is one of a handful of countries that have committed to de-carbonising the economy by 2050.
There are undoubtedly many areas where more focus and investment is required but many countries would gladly take any of the above outcomes.
There are undoubtedly many areas where more focus and investment is required but many countries would gladly take any of the above outcomes.
They would be even better if they were all true.
healthcare as a % of GDP remains higher than at any point under the last Labour government or any other government before that.
And yet, here in Todmorden, if you want a GP appt you have to queue up at 7.30 in the morning, wait for half an hour when it opens at 8am, and still have no guarantee that you'll see a doctor. The other option is to go to A&E in Halifax. There is effectively no functioning first line NHS provision here. Given that many things rely on that, (getting a sick note for work, ongoing prescriptions etc) it creates chaos in people's lives. And that's not even mentioning things like mental health support where those who should go and see a doctor don't because it's too hard. So yeah, the tories and their apologists can bang on about investment as a %age of GDP, but on the ground it's meaningless, and everyone here knows it is.
So you can solve the paradox of stopping capital flight whilst keeping free movement of capital? Great, tell us how!
This is why I think what you are saying won’t happen.
In what sense will it not happen?
You expect Labour to lose the election?
You mean John MacDonnell is wrong when he says he will impose controls to prevent capital flight? I.e. they'll just let it happen.
You mean the 10pc stock policy announced this week will be quickly cancelled?
You mean the 10pc stock policy announced this week will be quickly cancelled?
I suspect it will… if/when attempts to draft a bill to deliver it meet with reality.
Anyway, if you really want a ‘pro-Business, pro-Worker’ UK… vote Labour if you’re in a close Tory/Labour marginal, and then vote to stop Brexit if Johnson not getting a majority results in a referendum… it’s still a flowchart policy that won’t win over most people … but don’t be ‘most people’, be more considered than that.
I suspect it will… if/when attempts to draft a bill to deliver it meet with reality.
I have a lot of sympathy for that analysis. John MacDonnell spending five minutes with a Treasury Civil servant should be enough to kill it. BUT, the threat is there until that is made public, and the threat is what drives the rush to save out money by moving it.
Anyway, vote Labour if you’re in a close Tory/Labour marginal, and then vote to stop Brexit if Johnson not getting a majority results in a referendum… it’s still a flowchart policy that won’t win over most people … but don’t be ‘most people’, be more considered than that.
Except it's not even a flowchart policy any more because Labour have ruled out free movement of capital and said why they need to do that. There's no way of doing that within the EU so the plan must be to leave. (Unless I'm missing something which is always possible.)
Scary times.
the plan must be to leave
The plan is to hold another ref, it's pretty explicit.
The manifesto is aspirational, as they always are.
BTW I don't see a manifesto commitment to ending free capital movement, where are you looking?