You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
where are you looking?
In his imagination I would guess 🙂
< backs out of thread >
BTW I don’t see a manifesto commitment to ending free capital movement, where are you looking?
The 10pc policy was described by RLB in the link posted by me above.
The response to the capital flight that will cause was described by John MacDonnell, posted in another link by me above.
I'd *love* to be wrong here, it would put my mind at ease.
Scary times.
Excellent. Project Fear is underway along with Project keep repeating lies.
Well I haven't time to listen to an hour of programme, and I've googled for this policy but I cann't find any quotes from RLB.
I did find this though from 2018, in the Guardian:
At Labour conference on Monday, John McDonnell declared that he plans to force all companies with more than 250 staff to put 10% of their equity into a fund for their workers. Each employee will then be entitled to company share dividends worth up to £500 a year. Any extra will go back into public services.
That doesn't specify how it will be done, but if companies are forced to do this then I think they will have to buy back their own shares, therefore investors aren't losing money...?
It could well be that a shadow minister is talking bollocks, which let's face it wouldn't be the first time.
Re capital flight, if you mean the article I think you mean, it says this:
The shadow Chancellor told party activists they should be prepared for an “assault” by opponents in the City, the media and in Parliament that could have economic consequences.
He revealed that extensive plans are being made for Jeremy Corbyn entering Downing Street, including contingency planning for a scenario in which a Labour victory triggers a fall in the value of the pound.
Speaking at a fringe event at Labour’s annual conference in Brighton about the early days of a Labour government, Mr McDonnell said: "What if there is a run on the pound? What happens if there is this concept of capital flight? I don't think there will be, but you never know, so we've got to scenario plan for that.
You made it sound like they know their policies will cause capital flight and are doing them anyway. But that's really not what was said, is it?
Labour's manifesto doesn't seem to be out yet, so perhaps we should hold off panicking until it is?
Labour’s manifesto doesn’t seem to be out ye
Is anyone's? Yet here we are discussing them. That's the interest for you.
More lib dem fantasy electioneering. Add this to their imaginary barcharts and Swinson today saying she never thought she'd be a candidate for PM (yes Jo, of course you are!) and there seems to be very little about the lib dem campaign based on reality. It's not a good look, and pretty sure it will backfire massively. The electorate don't like being taken for idiots.
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 gives some context as to just how big 10% is. It changes the math on single !ajority shareholders. The power comes not from being able to sell the shares, which does sweet FA to affect the company, it just might lower the share price temporarily, but from having 10% of the votes. That's alot in a block.
then overnight someone can just take 10pc of your pension savings.
If you are genuinely concerned about this you should not be in the market. No government will do that but lots of banks did and more in 2008.
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.
1 almost all developed econonmies are desperately short of workers at the moment, low wages and insufficient hours to live on may be contributing.
2) attracting capital from outside the country has been government policy since the 80s. So you've got a lot of dead money making money for people outside the country and doing absolutely nothing for people inside the country. Inward capital is meaningless if it goes right back out again.
3) if you aren't getting paid enough to live on, you won't be paying much tax.
4) that's at odds with the fact that household debt is growing.
5)but is at an all time high.
6)but hadn't kept pace with inflation over a meaningful period (eg the pound is way up * over the beginning of October, it's still way down otherwise)
6)not sure what that proves? They are increasing debt to do it?
7)and is a cut in real terms. As the Tories have admitted. Demand is higher, demographics require much more spending just to keep the status quo. The newly promised money will go some way to replacing the money they cut 4 years ago, but won't actually do anything to get real services back to where they were before austerity.
8) but have no actual plan to enable them to keep that commitment.
force all companies with more than 250 staff to put 10% of their equity into a fund for their workers.
!=
I think they will have to buy back their own shares, therefore investors aren’t losing money
A company buying 10pc of it own shares at the market rate is neutral and totally benign. In contrast:
https://www.ft.com/content/dc17d7ee-ccab-11e9-b018-ca4456540ea6
if companies are forced to do this then I think they will have to buy back their own shares, therefore investors aren’t losing money…?
Those who haven't got the ready capital to do this can issue some new stock to fund it, or something. 🙂 Though hopefully McDonnell has this loophole covered by taking one in ten of the new shares issued.
No government will do that
As the FT article above tells us, no government has done that *yet* [1] but one potential government announced over the weekend that they *are* going to do it.
[1] “There is no historic precedent for this,” said Dan Neidle, a partner at Clifford Chance. “We are in completely uncharted territory.”
You made it sound like they know their policies will cause capital flight and are doing them anyway. But that’s really not what was said, is it?
Why is it that everyone is quick to accuse Cummings of being the one running downing street, but they give Murray a free pass?
Murray left the CPB in 2016 - here's what the CPB say about capital flight - here is what they have to say.
Previous experience of social-democratic governments in Britain, notably in the 1960s and 1970s, indicates that a real left government must expect attempts at economic and financial sabotage. An investment strike, the flight of capital, an attack on Britain's currency, trade sanctions and a boycott of government bills and bonds should all be anticipated.
This is why the left government must take steps to control the movement of capital, close all tax havens under British jurisdiction and use the requisite powers to control and liquidate British-owned economic and financial assets abroad. There may also be tactical value in prioritising the public ownership of sectors or enterprises according to the economic or political threat that they pose to the left government and socialist revolution at any given point.
In order to counteract anti-revolutionary propaganda, the grip of a small number of monopoly conglomerates on the capitalist mass media would have to be decisively broken. A more diverse pattern of ownership and control in the print, broadcasting, film, telecommunications and web-based media would reflect the wide range of legitimate interests and aspirations in a modern, democratic and tolerant society.
Efforts to publicise and implement even the mildest LWP policies will meet with resistance inside the civil service and associated public bodies, including regulatory agencies, the Bank of England and the state broadcasting system.
A left government does not mean that the apparatus and forces of the state are now on the side of a fundamental transformation of society. They are not, nor have they ever have been, neutral on the question of which socio-economic system should exist.
Key parts of the state apparatus will endeavour to continue operating in the interests of the system for which they were designed, as will many of their top personnel who have been selected, trained and promoted to operate it.
Therefore, the state itself will quickly become a focal point for heightened class struggle. To what extent will the monopoly capitalists and their supporters be able to use the state machine to obstruct the LWP? Will the working class and its allies be able to take control of the administrative and political apparatus, restructure and then replace it with one designed to dismantle capitalism and construct a system that serves the interests of society as a whole?
From the outset, the left government will have to introduce extensive changes in recruitment, staffing and management policies within the civil and diplomatic services, the judiciary, the police, the secret services and armed forces in order to replace key personnel with supporters of the revolutionary process.
The police, secret services and armed forces will have to be made fully and openly answerable to elected representatives of the people at national and British levels. Their functions and priorities will need to be reviewed and in some respects altered fundamentally. The introduction of wide-ranging trade union rights and civic education programmes will also help to break down oppressive and reactionary ideas and practices. Substantial improvements in the terms and conditions of employment of uniformed as well as civilian public servants will show them that the left government upholds the interests of all workers.
The state's corps of military reservists would have to be expanded and linked with large workplaces and local working class communities. The trade union movement could be involved in its recruitment, education and administration. Over time, reflecting the adoption of an independent foreign policy based on peaceful coexistence, the balance of resources will tilt away from a full-time selective professional army towards popular military reservists with specialised professional units.
Throughout this process, the positive involvement of public sector trade unions will be essential. It will also be vital to secure the widest possible public support. This is more likely to be forthcoming if the left government's policies regularly receive democratic endorsement by the people in elections and referendums, and all parliamentary means are tried in order to implement the government's programme.
New bodies of working class and popular power are likely to be necessary to monitor or take over state functions and ensure implementation of the LWP.
The drive to implement key LWP policies relating to the state, capital controls, mass media ownership and membership of the EU and NATO will almost certainly meet the most determined resistance from monopoly capital and its forces within and outside the state apparatus.
Enormous confrontations will signify that the revolutionary process has entered its third, most crucial stage, following those in which the left government has taken office and then, with the mass movement, fought to enact the LWP. These new confrontations will decide whether the monopoly finance capitalists retain state power or have it taken from them by the working class and its allies.
It is also at this point that different and even contradictory interests within the popular democratic anti-monopoly alliance might come most sharply to the fore, encouraged and exploited from within the ruling class. In such circumstances, the left government and the labour movement will have to make enormous efforts to maintain the unity of the alliance through the best prioritisation of policies and choice of tactics, short of undermining or abandoning the revolutionary process itself. In particular, new forms and ways of cooperating together will have to develop to ensure that unity is maintained and cemented between the forces in the alliance and the new left government.
If progress in implementing key policies of the LWP has been obstructed to a significant extent, then the revolutionary movement and its left government, facing an unfavourable balance of forces, might have to pursue other policies in the LWP, rather than proceed immediately with those likely to spark decisive confrontations of state power.
If, on the other hand, substantial inroads have already been made into the wealth and power of the finance capitalists, the conditions will be all the more favourable for taking the advanced measures necessary to remove political power from their hands, decisively and completely.
The ruling class will battle for its very survival and can be expected to use every weapon at its disposal against the revolutionary movement and the left government.
For example, as in the 1970s, private armies might form under the direction of ex-military chiefs, supported by big business leaders and sections of the mass media. This possibility will be reduced by the measures already proposed to democratise and unionise the armed forces and to break monopoly power, not least in the mass media.
Direct foreign military intervention against a left government in Britain with mass support is unlikely. Nevertheless, there is the possibility that US and NATO military bases in Britain might become centres of intrigue and subversion. Once again, this underlines the need for an elected left government to move swiftly to close all foreign military bases in Britain and withdraw from NATO and EU armed forces.
The key factor in this decisive, third stage of the revolutionary process will be the balance of forces outside parliament and in society as a whole. In particular, it will be vital to mobilise the popular anti-monopoly alliance – led by the organised working class – to uphold popular sovereignty and help the elected government to enforce its policies.
The extent to which this process involves physical or military violence will depend upon the revolutionary movement having the best strategy to minimise the capacity for resistance of the capitalist class. As the working class invariably bears the brunt of counter-revolutionary violence, it is the duty of all serious revolutionaries to devise such a strategy, rather than propose simplistic notions of violent insurrection and armed struggle.
In any event, there can be no question: the democratically elected left government will use all the official and popular forces at its disposal to crush each and every attempt at military subversion, rebellion or invasion.
Popular sovereignty means the sovereignty of the people and their elected representatives in parliaments, governments and mass movements. This requires the abolition of all powers and institutions relating to the monarchy, including such posts as head of state and commander-in-chief of the armed forces, together with the royal prerogative, the Privy Council and similarly unaccountable offices of state. Such measures, for which mass support would have to be won, will themselves reduce the scope for counter-revolutionary violence against the people and their elected authorities.
Sweeping measures of reform, restructuring and democratisation will aim to replace the capitalist state apparatus with one that represents the interests of the working class and the whole population. This would establish what Marx and Lenin called ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’, by which they meant simply the rule of the working class – in Britain the vast majority of the population. This would displace the present unelected rule – or dictatorship – of a tiny capitalist class.
The scary shit is in bold.
Why is it that everyone is quick to accuse Cummings of being the one running downing street, but they give Murray a free pass?
Ohh I know the answer to this one. Its because they dont. Next?
Havent you see the nutters frothing about Murray.
Also to use annoying minor details. We have Cummings own words vs those from, as you try to skip over, some from a group Murray left years back.
So lets see Murrays own words?
Ohh I know the answer to this one. Its because they dont. Next?
Havent you see the nutters frothing about Murray.
Also to use annoying minor details. We have Cummings own words vs those from, as you try to skip over, some from a group Murray left years back.
So lets see Murrays own words?
Cummings influence in Downing street is patently clear to the vast majority of political pundits, you are claiming this isn't the case because it suits your narrative.
Murray supposedly left the CPB in 2016 to hop on the Corbyn bandwagon, it is perfectly acceptable to question who Corbyn associates himself with - just as it is when Trump and Forage court fascist scum.
you are claiming this isn’t the case because it suits your narrative.
At the risk of bringing pesky details into the argument exactly where am I doing that?
The rest of your claims is equally devoid of evidence.
Try harder.
Most sources with a quick google have him leaving the CPB in 2016, if you have any evidence to the contrary then go ahead and post it.
Once a communist/fascist - always a communist/fascist. There should be no place for them in mainstream politics, they are both depraved, malignant and violent ideologies.
if you have any evidence to the contrary then go ahead and post it.
At the risk of being picky it is you who was trying to hint he was still a member. So why, exactly, is it on me to either support or disprove your allegations?
Once a communist/fascist – always a communist/fascist.
An interesting approach and, to be honest, somewhat ideological purist (which would include hardcore communist/fascist) in assuming someone should always be stained by their earlier beliefs. You arent really in favour of people being able to be rehabilitated I guess? What generation do you feel their sins should stain their descendants?
Whilst I do have my own doubts about those who do go to extreme ideologies (the spike lot ricocheting from hard left to ultra hard right being a good example) it is best to look at each individual, well, individually.
So if you have some actual evidence provide it otherwise why not skip your insinuations?
An interesting approach and, to be honest, somewhat ideological purist (which would include hardcore communist/fascist) in assuming someone should always be stained by their earlier beliefs. You arent really in favour of people being able to be rehabilitated I guess? What generation do you feel their sins should stain their descendants?
It takes the Suadis a solid three month program to reform the potentially explodey members of their society. Has Murray been through a deradicalisation program? Can you prove he is no longer a radical? You can't.
Under this scenario, using a risk based approach you have to assume that he still is. Needless to say, it's only been three years since Murray left.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/09/dont-underestimate-corbyns-pet-stalinist/
The fact that Corbym, McDonnell, Murray and Seamus Milne have all chosen to associate with each other is enough for me. The latter, defends Soviet atrocities to this day.
It takes the Suadis a solid three month program to reform the potentially explodey members of their society
To be honest anyone the Saudi government has approved of I would tend to consider a significant risk. What with their habit of exporting terrorism and bumping off inconvenient journalists.
Remember the Saudi definition of reform is not pose a threat to their inbred monarchy. Spreading chaos and terror elsewhere is fine. I wonder why you decided some ideological unpleasant cause was a good reference point?
What research have you done into this three month program to decide its worth commenting on?
using a risk based approach you have to assume that he still is.
Ah no, thats not how reality works as opposed to conspiracy theory central. Do you believe some restaurants are paedo central? After all they havent bribed, sorry, been rehabilitated by the Saudi government.
Keep going with the smear campaign. By the way who are you voting for? I am guessing Libdems since they seem to have acquired a bunch of, shall we say, non traditional extremist supporters recently. Which is a somewhat sad thing.
Three years, do you seriously think he has changed a lifetime of ideology in three years?
Do you believe some restaurants are paedo central?
If the owner was one three years ago, then yes.
Rayban - how far to the right are you going to go? Remember thatcher defending Pinochet?
OOB - I do suggest you actually read the policy - you are not daft but what you are saying is one heck of a long way from the analysis I have read.
Remember thatcher defending Pinochet?
I have no time for Thatcher and no time for Pinochet, he was a mass murdering scumbag.
I also have no time for communists.
So to get back to the electuion
Johnson is now insisting no extension to the transition - either another promise he will not keep or another attempt to go "no deal" because a we all know there is not enough time left in the transition period ( assuming he actually get a WA thru) to produce a FTA
And Swinson and the limp Dems have been caught red handed in outright lies and misinformation
On the topic of the lib dems, I can't bring myself to vote for them either right now. I might just spoil my ****ing ballot this time around by pissing on it. I'd vote SNP if I could do in London and then move up flee and annoy TJ in person once they got independence.
…the grip of a small number of monopoly conglomerates on the capitalist mass media would have to be decisively broken. A more diverse pattern of ownership and control in the print, broadcasting, film, telecommunications and web-based media would reflect the wide range of legitimate interests and aspirations in a modern, democratic and tolerant society.
Hard to disagree with that, no?
I’ll ignore all the “evil LibDems” bullshit, because responding to it is a waste of mine or anyone else’s time. They are only drawing so much flak because Labour have left them policy space to operate in that Labour supporters consider they have the right to. Well, if you appear too radically left wing to the electorate, and want to tub thump for Brexit, then others will offer alternative policies to people. Suck it up.
Right, vote Labour. Don’t let the nutters put you off. Stop Johnson.
Today Swinson was calling out Tory austerity for being bad. 6 months ago she made a speech stating how proud she was of her five years in coalition.
I have voted lib dem in the past but swinsons behavior has made it very unlikely I will ever again until she is gone and they reboot.
The fake graphs they are producing are appalling. According the them they are the best placed to oust the SNP in my constituency. Last GE they came 4th and lost their deposit but they have manipulated things to try to make themselves look relevant
It's a weird situation, I'm basically a socialist Liberal or whatever.
I find corbyn intolerable and I find Swinson intolerable.
I'll never vote tory again, because the Conservatives are.. I was going to say evil, but that's probably giving them too much credit, so I'll just say Conservatives are privelged by luck and completely selfish.
(plot twist, I've voted for all three at various times in the past).
I want to stop brexit, or secure the softest possible brexit as a second option. And I'll be voting accordingly.
Swinson was unequivocal about not supporting a Corbyn Govt in any way.
Has she made a similar statement about a Johnson Tory Govt?
Nope. Its clear she is positioning for a second tory / lib dem coalition. She did say Johnson was unfit to be PM but has refused to rule out a tory / lib dem coalition despite being asked several times
.. does she think she can force Johnson into a 2nd ref? I have my doubts
Hard to disagree with that, no?
You will always find something sensible in most political movements. Whether you trust the CPB to create a more impartial media, considering the revolutionary, violent and combative language and rhetoric used in the rest of the document is another matter.
It’s a weird situation, I’m basically a socialist Liberal or whatever.
I find corbyn intolerable and I find Swinson intolerable.
Agreed, I've found that my political beliefs have slowly stabilized around a moderately left-wing libertarianism.
Has she made a similar statement about a Johnson Tory Govt?
Yes. The line she is pushing is that neither Corbyn or Johnson should be PM. She seems to always mention both… but some only hear the bits about Corbyn. You can see why though, her party and her as an individual have experience of propping up a Tory government… so people suspect a repeat of that… but in this campaign so far they have ruled out the same options as regards both the main party leaders. What would actually happen after the election if we have a hung parliament will depend on the numbers I suspect.
Got a quote kelvin?
I have seen her state absolute no to any deal with labour under any circumstances but only a much less strident " Johnson is not fit for office"
Rayban - the only left you are on is the left of the tory party from your postings on here which always follow right wing dogma as truth.
I haven't ever made it clear what policies I agree with on here tj, so you can't make that judgement.
I want a better funded NHS and Education system. I want PR. I want more equitable taxation. I want more houses built (whether that is through state funding or a relaxing of planning laws, I couldn't care). I want better funding of the sciences and renewable plus nuclear energy. I want to see homelessness outright ended. I want to see either improved wages or lowered costs of living. I want Brexit stopped.
I'm also a social libertarian and that puts me at odds with Labours and more specifically Corbyns insularity and authoritarianism. I vehemently disagree with attacks on private business such the appropriation of intellectual property by the state and state based influence of the media. Corbyns authoritarian leanings are more of a problem for me than finding a party that supports the policy outcomes that I want, these policies can be acted upon at any point and would be quite quick to implement - demagoguery takes decades and decades and decades to undo, I cannot reconcile his past and the people who he currently associates with, with the policy outcomes that may or may not be best served by a labor government. The risk is too great, even if the odds are low that he and his mates are in actual fact revolutionary lunatics.
Yes. The line she is pushing is that neither Corbyn or Johnson should be PM. She seems to always mention both… but some only hear the bits about Corbyn.
I assume LDs are trying to keep the position that they dislike both Corbyn and Johnson to try and Hoover up Labour and Tory voters who are turned off by the leaders , rather than the whole party.
However strange some of Swinsons moves have been recently I can't see them going into coalition with the Torys again. If they do get in that position for it to be an option, Johnson will still be PM and it'll be Tuition Fees 2.0 but 1000x worse.
Whereas my bet is if the numbers add up after the next election the Lib Dems will do a deal with the tories like a shot.
Swinson is politically naive and is much closer to the tories than labour. Over the last decade lib dems have moved a huge amount to the right
Swinson is politically naive and is much closer to the tories than labour. Over the last decade lib dems have moved a huge amount to the right
And while I have heard her categorically stating she would not join up with Labour I haven't heard her rule out joining up with Tories (I may have missed it though as I find her trying too hard/over confident personality difficult to listen to)
She's just doing what any politician would do in her position at this stage to hoover up as many votes as possible and I'm pretty sure she is not naive enough to realise the consequences of teaming up with the conservatives would be the end of the libdems.
For sure she knows most of the lib dems target seats are tory ones. However she is personally so much more right wing than lib dem leaders from a generation ago.
I believe she is so venal that she would jump into bed with the tories to get another sniff of power. Its all she is interested in.
Oh dear Jo...
And so it continues. The LibDem fantasy election campaign is going to be highlight of this election. What next I wonder?
https://twitter.com/guardianheather/status/1191820920555487232?s=21
I am in Derbyshire Dales and I don't know which way to vote as I don't believe my vote will make a difference. It was won in 2017 with a 60% to 30% Conservative/Labour split. Patrick McLoughlin has just retired but I am sure the Conservatives will put someone in to mop up. LD got 6% so I think my vote is just wasted.
I may have missed it though
I think you have. The libdem's have ruled out both in every interview I've heard.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49717388
That makes sense, nobody thanks you for being in government, the endless stream of unpopular decision you have to make costs political capital and votes. The libdems can use the excuse of 'Revoke' and the SNP can use the excuse of another indyref both of which the Blue and Red parties may find unpalatable. In spite of that circumstances can force you into power even if you don't want it. And if you do manage to avoid the responsibility your voter might ask themselves what is the point of voting for a party that will literally never be in government.
a real left government must expect attempts at economic and financial sabotage. An investment strike, the flight of capital, an attack on Britain’s currency, trade sanctions and a boycott of government bills and bonds should all be anticipated.
This is why the left government must take steps to control the movement of capital,
I agree with almost all of that except the idea that the motive is sabotage. I really can't see how that can be described as sabotage. The only one of the above that could be put down to sabotage is 'trade sanctions' (which the US have done to Cuba). All the others are just people desperately trying to salvage their investments. (In my case my retirement savings.)
The language is mental.'sabotage' 'investment strike' 'attack on Britain’s currency' 'boycott of government bills and bonds'. Literally every single one of those words is pejoratively describing people making an inevitable response to the threat of losing their savings. There's 34 million people getting shafted here, we can't all be fat cat millionaires, I'm certainly not.
I am in Derbyshire Dales and I don’t know which way to vote as I don’t believe my vote will make a difference. It was won in 2017 with a 60% to 30% Conservative/Labour split. Patrick McLoughlin has just retired but I am sure the Conservatives will put someone in to mop up. LD got 6% so I think my vote is just wasted.
Assuming you don't want to vote Tory if you're a remainer vote Libdem, if you're a leaver vote BP if you consider them all equally good then lucky you, you don't need to bother voting!
No votes are wasted, if your candidate doesn't win you're still sending a signal of what you want to happen so the election is an opinion poll rather than choosing a government for people in your situation.
so I think my vote is just wasted.
Remember that '80% of people voted for parties who support Brexit' stat from the 2017 election? If you don't want that to be repeated, then vote for a party that has a clear 'no brexit' policy. If you want to leave but don't like Boris' deal, or want another referendum, then vote for a party that is promising that so there can be a stat saying 'XX% of the electorate voted for parties that support another referendum'. No vote is truly wasted as you will contribute to turnout, overall vote split etc
I'm in a similar seat where the winner is pretty much guaranteed so could feel quite disenfranchised, but I'll still vote. You never know, there could be tens of thousands more feeling like you in the consituency and if none of them vote then nothing will ever change.
Of course voting lib dem rather than labour and ending up with a tory instead is a wasted vote
FPTP means the vast majority of votes actually make no differnce.
The only way to vote that makes any sense in the UKs broken system is to vote tactically and negatively - you vote for the party most likely to beat the part you dislike most!
OOB - as I have said several times you need to read the labour policy on worker representation and some decent analysis from differnt folk
Its not a theft of your pension. Its nothing like you keep on claiming. having read the FT analysis and the Guardians analysis its obvious that the policy is nothing like you keep on claiming
The LibDem fantasy election campaign is going to be highlight of this election.
And I'm sure the Tories will be delighted if Labour activists spend 80% of their effort trashing a party which probably stands to gain 20 seats.
The LibDem performance in this election is not going to be the difference between a Labour outright majority and a hung parliament. It will possibly be the difference between a Tory outright majority and a hung parliament.
Opposition parties fighting like rats in a sack is exactly what the Tories want.
Corbyns authoritarian leanings are more of a problem for me
Can you elaborate on those a bit? I know its tedious providing evidence for your smears but rather than just repeating rubbish why not provide a serious argument.
Remember that ‘80% of people voted for parties who support Brexit’ stat from the 2017 election? If you don’t want that to be repeated, then vote for a party that has a clear ‘no brexit’ policy. If you want to leave but don’t like Boris’ deal, or want another referendum, then vote for a party that is promising that so there can be a stat saying ‘XX% of the electorate voted for parties that support another referendum’. No vote is truly wasted as you will contribute to turnout, overall vote split etc
This.
You never know, there could be tens of thousands more feeling like you in the consituency and if none of them vote then nothing will ever change.
Yep, I'd go further, in the election we *know* that ~48pc of the electorate are feeling like us. If we all vote for what we want that's a majority for revoke and revoke will happen.
Its not a theft of your pension. Its nothing like you keep on claiming.
So you keep saying, but you never credibly say why if 10pc of something I own is given away I'm not left with 10pc less of it. I've heard the policy it for myself from RLB and it's been posted in this thread. I can find wedges of analysis that says that's exactly what it means and literally none that says otherwise. Nobody will be more chuffed than me if you can find a credible article or statement from Labour that demonstrates the policy does not involve giving 10pc of UK firms away without compensating the current owners. (If you do that I will post to thank you, if you don't I won't reply because I feel we're getting nowhere by replying to each other.)
And again - go an read the policy and read analysis of it from differnt places to get a better view
firstly - its not 10% the moment labour get in. Its 1% per year for ten years
Secondly - there is no value being removed from the company and it does not mean that this has to be done by dilution of share value ie issueing 1% new shares per year. It can be done by a buyback by management, a transfer from one group to another etc etc. companies will be able to chose how they release this 1% stake to the workforce
The thing is your view on this is coloured by your own hard right views where greed is good and might trumps right
Ref. first past the post, wasted votes etc.
UKIP never had more than one or two MPs, but despite that, they have had a massive influence due to the popular vote they stirred up over the years.
Key was that GE map from I think 2015 which showed second placers, and outwith Scotland & NI it was overwhelmingly purple.
If you're a Remainer in Eng and Wal, vote Liberal. It's as simple as that.
If you’re a Remainer in Eng and Wal, vote Liberal. It’s as simple as that.
If you are a hard brexiteer or lunatic rightwinger who is willing to have a hard brexit then yes.
Otherwise its about as moronic advice as can be given.
OOB
When a company that you have your pension invested in releases new shares to reward their execs is that theft of your pension?
Many many execs have share options that mean that if / when a certain point is reached they will be given more shares. do you protest about that? Is that theft of your pension?
And I’m sure the Tories will be delighted if Labour activists spend 80% of their effort trashing a party which probably stands to gain 20 seats.
Absolutely. Fortunately I'm not a labour activist so can carry on laughing at them safe in the knowledge I'm having zero impact on the result. I'm pretty sure labour are ignoring Jo and her megalomaniac fantasies and concentrating on the real target.
Why would it be moronic for a Remainer to vote for the only remain party on offer?
because if you vote lib dem in a labour / tory marginal rather than voting labour then you risk getting a tory MP and a no deal brexit rather than a second referendum
Why would it be moronic for a Remainer to vote for the only remain party on offer?
Leaving aside the inaccuracies in that claim. Because you will have a hard ****ing brexit in return for believing the yellow unicorns about revoking it.
Whereas if you vote tactically you will get a second referendum
Shouldnt be a hard choice unless you are a hard brexiteer or rabid righwinger (whilst there is a strong intersect not a complete overlap).
So - Cleverly the tory chair lets the cat out of the bag
"Cleverly said a no-deal Brexit at the end of the transition period was still an option, because no deal was the “default setting”. But it was not what the party wanted, he said. Asked if a no-deal Brexit was still possible, in the light of Boris Johnson’s decision to rule out extending the transition and to abandon a promise made two weeks ago to give MPs a vote on this, Cleverly said:
Ultimately, the default setting has always been no-deal. That is not what we want."
Given that the tories have also ruled out any extension to the transition period even if they ever get a WA thru parliament then its obvious they are still working towards no deal as there is zero chance of a FTA being done in the short transition period.
Its obvious that the tory party is now completely hijacked by the far right and no deal brexit is their aim
Wow - I am no fan at all of sky in any form but this is pretty devastating ( If I can get the link to work)
https://twitter.com/i/status/1192013743967932416
you never credibly say why if 10pc of something I own is given away I’m not left with 10pc less of it.
Well I'm no expert, but publicly traded shares are traded all the time, right? So all a company has to do is buy them back gradually.
Indeed molgrips - thats one way they can do it. Or the board can give up some of their shares / share options, or they can release more shares as they would do in other circumstances
And of course as we know that worker representation leads to greater productivity the possible 1% dilution of shares is balanced by an increase in the total value of the firm due to the increased productivity
Why would it be moronic for a Remainer to vote for the only remain party on offer?
A - because Labour have more chance of unseating a tory where I live than Lib Dems and even Labours chances are pretty much zero
B - I don't like anything about the Lib Dems so don't want to vote for them and help their numbers (even in a losing seat) I will vote Green as that is who I support, who I am closest to in policies and so on and would rather give a vote to a Green loser than a Lib Dem loser.
Sorry - this is distracting from the real debate about the election. Lets move it on?
Well I’m no expert, but publicly traded shares are traded all the time, right? So all a company has to do is buy them back gradually.
Imagine you have ten cars, I take one. Cars are traded all the time so you can easily buy a car back. You've still had a car nicked!
Why would it be moronic for a Remainer to vote for the only remain party on offer?
It wouldn't, and if everyone who voted remain in 2016 votes to Revoke in 2019 we will be remaining.
The Tories could have a day like yesterday repeat itself until voting day and return a majority. I'm beginning to despair that their decrepitude, arrogance, cluelessness, malevolence etc etc just won't cut through to the disinterested voters.
My MIL was boasting about voting for Brexit and Boris at the weekend. And my FIL will just quietly go along with it. I've had to unfollow friends on Facebook who've started to share brexity post. I know this is nothing new but I've got a sense of foreboding about this.
OOB - lets move it on?
What about that clip from Sky?
Wow – I am no fan at all of sky in any form but this is pretty devastating
Unbelievable. Is it just me or is the tory campaign in complete chaos? I'm really trying not to get carried away but compared to the libdems fantasy campaign and the tories thick of it re-enactment labour are on another level, and that's coming across very clearly in the media.
Remember everyone saying that Johnson's campaign couldn't be worse than May's?
It can be done by a buyback by management,
@tjagain Where would the money for this buyback come from then?
I agree - its astonishing how much chaos in the tory campaign. Rees Mogg and Bridgen both having to issue apologies over Grenfell comments. Cleverly ( whats the opposite of having an appropriate name?)letting it out of the bag that "no deal" is still their default position on Brexit.
Tories are now very much on the back foot and defensive
Whereas the labour campagin is looking considered and serious and forward looking
My bet is Johnson will make plenty more gaffes
Edit - deleted. I want to move the discussion on
Peston suggesting theyre doing it on purpose
to be fair official campaign launch isnt tll this evening & we have 5 weeks to get through before the vote, absolutely loads could change
Ultimately I think the problem is twofold-10 years in power, the last 4 particularly bruising Tories are simply fatigued
On top of that theyve forced out many of the moderates, an awful lot of women, all the genuinely smart MPs oppose brexit, those left in cabinet & the wider party that are driving them are dim, callous, bigoted and/or simply arseholes
Those that still support Brexit are idealogues , the likes of Francois, Bridgen, Fysh, Paterson, Redwood, Truss, Born-again baker, Mogg, Raab- all those that Cummings despised during the ref campaign.
My bet is Johnson will make plenty more gaffes
Indeed. What's weird is that he's been almost completely invisible so far. I wonder if they're deliberately keeping him away from the tv cameras? Does he really think he can win an election by hiding like he did in the tory leadership campaign?
I don't often agree with Robert Peston these days, but this is bang on.
edit: beaten to it 🙂
Tories also on the defensive over Russian money and the hiding of the report on russian interference in 2016.
I bet this report gets leaked at some point
@tjagain are you ignoring my question because you have realised you are wrong or did you just miss it?