You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
The UK is one of the worlds poorest countries, our per capita debt is staggering
Poor countries tend to have low per capita debt. Let’s not have another diversionary economics lecture in this thread, and just except that part of your statement is a bit odd.
The next chapter in libdem fantasy polling, this time they're misattributing their dodgy bar charts to Yougov. You couldn't make it up.
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1192044683742056449?s=20
I cannot find it now OOB. I thought you had missed that bit. They are offering a fair price tho rather than a market price which you will not like. It was in one of the bits of analysis in the guardian
this is why I kept on asking you to read up on it.
I thought the UK was one of the worlds richest countries! 7th or 8th is it not in terms of GDP per capita
They are offering a fair price tho rather than a market price which you will not like.
No, they are offering a 'fair' price set by parliament for the industries they are totally nationalising. (Water, rail etc.) Pienaar was all over RLB on that because international law requires governments to pay the *market* price, not an arbitrary value. RBL stuck to her guns that it wouldn't be the market rate, it wold be a 'Fair' rate but had no way to square that circle. (Because there isn't a way to square that circle.)
The 10pc of shares policy is a completely different policy.
I thought the UK was one of the worlds richest countries! 7th or 8th is it not in terms of GDP per capita
From memory it's 33rd in GDP per capita.
EDIT: I googled, 39th.
What’s all this about?
I'm going to find out! Heading back home the 'law very shortly. Interesting - she was a very odd choice!
Certainly the early signs look good for labour and the tories are reacting to events and having to apologise for multiple things. Tories are certainly on the back foot.
Doubt it, sadly.
My wife is STILL a Tory voter, despite my best efforts, because she responds to every example of Tory sleaze, dishonesty and hypocrisy with 'well you would say that, wouldn't you' or 'yes, but they're all at it' or 'you're just saying that because that's what it says in the Guardian'.
Sad thing is, she's not exactly wrong, I don't have the time or inclination to trawl through all the right wing sources and papers to prove that Labour/SNP/Greens aren't also lying, or misrepresenting, or contradicting themselves.
This is why I think this sort of stuff will only change the minds of a very fringe number of supporters, e.g. those open-minded enough and diligent enough to do their research. The rest of us will absolutely be led by our media source of choice, which is why politics in this country will remain broken until all media outlets are forced to abide to a code of truth, completeness and factualness, which in turn will probably make them all very dull reading.
If we can't change the media, maybe we should only allow people to vote if they can prove they actually have some comprehension of the issues, but I doubt even that would overcome good old fashioned tribal instinct. At the end of the day my wife votes Tory because she's from blue Perthshire and her family have always voted Tory, nothing will ever change that.
OOB – yes the FT ran an analysis as have others and its nothing like what you keep on claiming.
LOL - Outofbreaths analysis is the same as the FTs, quit talking bullshit.
There is a simple overarching message here:
The Tories have ran out of time, steam and ideas. That is the resting place of neolibralism after 40 years of car-boot economics.
Labour have loads of great new potential policies - some of them tricky - but worth a shot as the Tories are rummaging around in a political black hole, and there is nothing left other than to lie and go on offensive.
The Eton school bully is cornered.
Kick them out.
I thought the UK was one of the worlds richest countries! 7th or 8th is it not in terms of GDP per capita
Depends how you define rich I guess, you could earn 10k a month, so 'rich', but if your monthly outgoing, (servicing debt, living costs etc) are 9.8k per month, you don't look so wealthy any more.
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.
The Stalin apologists he keeps as company and his backers attacks on people like Tom Watson. Those are to name a few.
The Tories have ran out of time, steam and ideas. That is the resting place of neolibralism after 40 years of car-boot economics.
People like you keep saying this, but in comparison to countries that have tried alternatives to neoliberalism in the past 40 years we are doing remarkably well in terms of inequality, living standards and corruption. Don’t bother holding Scandinavia up as an alternative model, they are neoliberal with a smattering of socialism thrown in - Labours current plans are further left than their model.
I've listened to the RLB interview. She talks about buying back shares but it's the context of nationalising industries rather than 10% employee ownership. She explicitly says that they will be bought back (not confiscated, because that's illegal and she acknowledged that); and the price will be set by parliament not the market rate. Presumably that's because if they were bought at market rate traders would know it was coming, hoard them, push the price up and make a killing at the public's expense.
Still not seeing your issue. Pienaar starts talking about confiscation to the pundit at the end of the shop, but that's not what was discussed in the interview.
So have we gone from trying to argue the case for asset seizures to doing #fakenews now?
Mefty and Ninfan etc would be pissing themselves with laughter if they weren’t banned.
That is the resting place of neolibralism after 40 years of car-boot economics.
Care to name a country you regard as successful that doesn't employ [1] liberal economics?
[1] Not sure what term to use here.
I thought the UK was one of the worlds richest countries! 7th or 8th is it not in terms of GDP per capita
Spending does not make a country wealthy if it has to import more than it exports.... (regardless depending which measure we are about 20th) however our net exports are negative and have been since 1989
It isn't rocket science ... our spending exceeds our income and regardless of what we do internally ... it's like our family spending more than we earn.... if I buy Jnr a new bike on credit it increases our "GDP" and increases our debt and I have to pay back the interest ... I don't see why this seems so difficult to understand?
martin hutch ^^^ re momentum twitter post about johnson & guppy; you do know the call from guppy took place in 1990?
If you're trying to make link between Johnson's Ofsted comments and a phone call from 30 years ago it's tenuous at best.
I'm no fan of the Tories but the momentum post is pathetic.
I’ve listened to the RLB interview. She talks about buying back shares but it’s the context of nationalising industries rather than 10% employee ownership. She explicitly says that they will be bought back (not confiscated, because that’s illegal and she acknowledged that); and the price will be set by parliament not the market rate. Presumably that’s because if they were bought at market rate traders would know it was coming, hoard them, push the price up and make a killing at the public’s expense.
Still not seeing your issue. Pienaar starts talking about confiscation to the pundit at the end of the shop, but that’s not what was discussed in the interview.
It was put to her at 34:37 and was the promt to the discussion about capital flight.
The Nationalization plans are a completely different issue and far less scary AFAIC.
The Stalin apologists he keeps as company and his backers attacks on people like Tom Watson. Those are to name a few.
No I am looking for evidence of his, as you claimed, authoritarianism. You have failed to actually produce anything beyond yet more vague smears. Care to try again with some actual clear evidence?
Depends how you define rich I guess, you could earn 10k a month, so ‘rich’, but if your monthly outgoing, (servicing debt, living costs etc) are 9.8k per month, you don’t look so wealthy any more.
Since 1989 we have been spending a bit over 10k/mo EVERY month .... and sticking the difference on credit.
Care to name a country you regard as successful that doesn’t employ [1] liberal economics?
You really need to be more precise than that. Its an unclear term which covers a wide range of variants. Once we have your definition then can see which dont match it.
I suspect unless you are going for so vague as to be meaningless China, South Korea, Singapore amongst others.
stevextc - bit of a humble brag there about your spending
It was put to her at 34:37 and was the promt to the discussion about capital flight.
Pienaar mentioned they'd need £300bn for "expropriation" of shares, and she then didn't mention it in her response, she talked about the costing of their housing upgrade programme.
Not sure it counts as expropriation if you're paying for it, or if it ends up in private hands not government, but I dunno.
Mefty and Ninfan etc would be pissing themselves with laughter if they weren’t banned.
This is only partially true.
raybanwomble
Member
Don’t bother holding Scandinavia up as an alternative model, as I'll be proved wrong
Pienaar mentioned they’d need £300bn for “expropriation” of shares, and she then didn’t mention it in her response, she talked about the costing of their housing upgrade programme.
Ok, my memory of the show isn't that good but £300bn would be the cost if the govt bought the shares, but the policy posted above in text it's clear the govt aren't paying and the FT analysis makes it clear the govt aren't paying and RLB didn't take the chance to point out they'd be paying. Plus if they *were* paying the 300bn that would make this one policy 8 times more expensive then their entire 2017 manifesto. [1] So there's really no doubt what this policy is doing.
[1] As you know they've already made 60bn spending commitments on day one of the election when last time they made 48bn in the whole campaign!
martin hutch ^^^ re momentum twitter post about johnson & guppy; you do know the call from guppy took place in 1990?
I do, I actually observed part of Darius Guppy's fraud trial at Snaresbrook CC. Obviously Boris was not as significant a figure in those days, just some louche journalist with a burgeoning reputation for making shit up.
Have you listened to the audio? The man who is now our PM says he is working to provide the home address of a fellow journo to Darius Guppy in the clear knowledge that the bloke is going to be physically attacked or at the very least threatened.
There is no statute of limitations on that kind of behaviour - it speaks to his character and (lack of) integrity then and now, and is, if anything, more relevant today because of the office of state he holds.
Happy to mention it whenever even a tenuous opportunity arises. 🙂
He tries to wriggle out of it in this interview with Eddie Mair.
China
Have you ever been to Shenzhen? The bits of China that have economic success have done it by going full on capitalist! Christ, Shenzhen is an amazing place but it's raw capitalism. Mind you you're still better off being poor in Shenzhen than you are in the country where communism still rules. Much like you're better off being poor in West Germany than you were in East Germany, or poor in South Korea than North Korea.
Shenzhen isn't even socialist let alone communist, the businesses are privately owned.
Once again OOB - its not 10% the moment they gain power - its 1% a year for ten years
I am certain I saw that they were offing a fair price on this but of course not being able to find it somewhat negates this 😉
I have also seen a few other suggestions as to how they are going to pay for it from articles a while ago. It makes it pretty clear that they are not going to just take 10% of the companies and give them to the workforce but will pay for them in some form
Maybe hold off your condemnation until we actually have a bit more detail?
So there’s really no doubt what this policy is doing.
Of course there is. You need to open both your eyes not just one. Confiscating assets is illegal, and RLB was very clear to rule out doing anything illegal, obviously. So it has to be paid for. If you are just imagining a Labour government turning into some kind of rogue criminal enterprise then.. well.. I dunno. You need a bit of a sit-down I think.
It would be interesting to read the FT article but I'm not going to subscribe just for this.
Shenzhen isn’t even socialist let alone communist, the businesses are privately owned.
That is a matter of debate with quite a few of them but thats a separate discussion.
How about, rather than ranting, you manage to answer the question.
What specific variant of economic liberalism are you referring to?
Confiscating assets is illegal, and RLB was very clear to rule out doing anything illegal, obviously. So it has to be paid for.
The government can seize control and ownership of any industry simply by passing the legislation that allows it to do it, so if something it fancies doing is technically illegal, it will pass laws that make it legal. However, that's a side issue, as I don't see the government either physically grabbing the shares or coming up with some cut-price 'fair price' offer to buy them up. They certainly can't afford 30bn a year for 10 years to do it at market value.
The way I've seen it phrased suggests that individual companies will be expected to take action to sequester these shares in a fund so they can start coughing up the dividends to workers (but mainly to the Exchequer). This is obvious because while the government could legislate to nationalise an entire company, or even an industry, doing it to many thousands of firms simultaneously is impractical, and how would you select which private shareholders to force to sell up, or administer the process?
So companies might have to provide or buy the shares back themselves via the market. Which sounds fine, because they would have to pay market price for them, so shareholders don't lose out. Except they might not have the cash to do this - not many companies have vast reserves of cash, or at least, they don't hold it for this purpose.
So their option might be to issue another x thousand shares so the new shares could be placed directly in the fund. Naturally, this would have the effect of diluting the dividend earnings per share for everyone, so not only would individual shareholders lose out, but the value of the shares would fall to reflect this - most likely in anticipation of policy coming into place.
Fresh share issues aren't always a bad thing, normally because they might signal the company raising capital for a new venture or investment, which might increase profits. In normal circumstances, that might keep the share price up, but not here, because the company is receiving no extra cash to fuel growth - the money is being used to give a small amount to each worker and a fistful to the government.
So, yes, it will have to be paid for, the question as always is by who?
Are we having a sweep on which Tory MP is the next to make a massive gaffe/get caught shagging rent boys/skeleton come rattling out of the closet?
I'm going for Boris
get caught shagging rent boys
Is Keith Vaz standing?
On a related note, I see that Chris Williamson's re-election road show wassuccesful....in deselecting Chris Williamson.
get caught shagging rent boys/skeleton
Depends - male or female skeletons?
I’m going for Boris
Surely he has to be blocked from any sweepstake. There has to be an element of chance involved.
I think most of Boris skeletons are out in the open.
I'm going for Raab, there is no way he doesn't have bodies buried somewhere
Pienaar mentioned they’d need £300bn for “expropriation” of shares,
Even a very quick look at the Top 10 companies only comes to £95Bn as 10% of market capitalisation...
https://www.ig.com/uk/news-and-trade-ideas/top-10-largest-uk-companies-by-market-cap-190715
stevextc – bit of a humble brag there about your spending
Yeah, trying to cut back ... but you know what it's like.
So, yes, it will have to be paid for, the question as always is by who?
Actually, it's by whom.
But as above. Labour are here to try and make things better for ordinary people. That's it. They won't achieve this by robbing ordinary people's pensions, and they're not stupid enough to try because it would be the biggest vote lose ever if nothing else.
If a company buys back its shares and then gives them away that has the similar dilutive effect as a share issue to new shareholders for nil consideration. A simple example shows this:
Company with 100 shares and EV of 100, buys backs 10% for 10 i.e. MV, shares bought back given to staff.
Value of 50 shares pre transactions, 50
after buy back transaction assuming pro rata buy back own 45 share worth 40.5 plus cash of 5 so value of 4.5 has been lost.
In a bonus issue to give new shares holders 10%, approx 11.1 shares need to be issued, value of existing holder of 50 shares is 50/111.1 x 100 = 45 so 5 is lost.
The difference between the two is because in the buyback the company is "smaller" before the give away.
The shareholder always pays.
Seemed like from what Corbyn said today the Private School policy will be scaled back to just taking away their charitable status.
Cool. Labour only have to make one or two policies more “realistic” and their manifesto could be met with near universal approval. Should result in a jump in the polls when the manifesto come out, if people can accept ignoring the Brexit issue, and un hear lots of things said in the last few years.
————
As I predicted earlier, the Brexit Party have just announced that they will not have a manifesto… are we still only going to hold parties to account for what is in their manifesto, or be suspicious of polices they’ve floated recently but not committed to on paper in this election?
————
Interesting – she was a very odd choice!
Odd in what way? Not pro-Brexit?
The man-frog has just announced that the Brexit party will not be launching any kind of manifesto
And some people are so unbelievably stupid, they'll actually vote for that.
Actually, thats fine with me. They'll all be gammony Brexiteers who would have no doubt voted for Boris
If a company buys back its shares and then gives them away that has the similar dilutive effect as a share issue to new shareholders for nil consideration. A simple example shows this:
That too. Still trying to visualise this policy as something that makes any kind of sense other than a massive redistribution of wealth from shareholders to the public purse.
Actually, it’s by whom.
I feel suitably chastened.
They won’t achieve this by robbing ordinary people’s pensions, and they’re not stupid enough to try because it would be the biggest vote lose ever if nothing else.
This remains to be seen. Perhaps they'll either drop it quietly, or still try to dress it up as some sort of 'standing up for the workers against corporate fat cats', even when every other voice is telling them that small investors and pension funds will be among those paying for it.
It'll get diluted, modified or dropped, for sure.
It would be interesting to read the FT article but I’m not going to subscribe just for this.
It wasn't behind a paywall for me and doesn't seem to have been for anyone else. If it is behind a paywall sorry for posting, that was bad form.
Here it is again:
https://www.ft.com/content/dc17d7ee-ccab-11e9-b018-ca4456540ea6
Even a very quick look at the Top 10 companies only comes to £95Bn as 10% of market capitalisation…
Assuming Pienaar is quoting the FT the 300m comes from confiscating 10pc of every UK firm over 250FTEs.
Here's the sum the FT did from the link above:
the FT and law firm Clifford Chance have sought to gauge the size of the policy by extrapolating data from the Office for National Statistics.
The ONS estimates that financial and non-financial corporations have a book value of £5.5tn. The national accounts do not separate out large companies, but 57 per cent of overall corporate turnover derives from large companies, according to the ONS. On that basis the value of large private sector companies is about £3tn — meaning Labour would expropriate £300bn.
Seemed like from what Corbyn said today the Private School policy will be scaled back to just taking away their charitable status.
That's a lot less mental. Still a bit mental because it's still gonna close a lot of struggling schools and those kids become the state's problem overnight.
I understand why you are so vexed by this, OOB. The FT have analysed a policy they havent seen and decided it is a seizure, confiscation, expropriation.
The only people using that language are them. They aren't quoting from the policy, nor any Labour sources. They have decided that it is because they believe it is. So it's based on ideology, not any actual facts.
It would be just as legitimate to say that Tory social policy is to execute benefit claimants. More legit, actually, because you can at least find a Tory saying that and quote him.
For the record, I don't think the Tories are going to "put down" benefit claimants. I think they are going to gradually strip away their dignity, humanity, and necessities of life just like they always have and in a new twist will blame them for not having enough common sense.
Matt Kilcoyne, of the Adam Smith Institute, called the share move “expropriation”
So yeah, basically it's political opponents putting the boot in. No surprise they are producing hysteria about it.
TBH McDonnell always comes across as a very reasonable and rational man in interviews, so I've no concern that he's going to go nuts if he gets into power.
A few more sources:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45627146
It is undoubtedly true that the prospect of handing over 10% of the company will be unappealing to current investors. (Their ownership stake would be diluted, or cut slightly, as the shares are issued to workers).
https://www.ft.com/content/4cad1c50-bf59-11e8-8d55-54197280d3f7
Every company with more than 250 staff would have to set up an “inclusive ownership fund”, or IOF, holding 10 per cent of its equity on behalf of workers. The stake would be built up gradually, with a company handing over 1 per cent of its equity a year over a decade.
Well spotted, that article really spells it out:
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/labours-private-tenants-right-buy-and-workers-shares-plans
Mr McDonnell also detailed a plan for mass transfer of company shares to workers.
Labour in government would transfer some £300 billion of shares in 7,000 large companies to workers in those firms in “inclusive ownership funds.”
It would be one of the largest private-sector transfers seen in a western democracy
Well spotted, that article really spells it out:
Well aside from all it is doing is reporting the FT one. So doesnt answer cromolyolly's observations. Although well done to Mefty for an inspired smear.
Beaten to it by Kimbers^^^.
Any plausible reason offered by Watson?
But advocates of greater employee ownership told Newsnight that the devil would be in the detail. How you structure this type of policy affects whether you reap the wider potential benefits in terms of improved productivity and longer-term thinking.
So we don't really know how it's going to work. So like I said - hold your fire.
Well spotted, that article really spells it out:
Not sure if this is sarcasm or not but it does nothing of the sort. It doesn't mention the crucial factor of compensation for the people who already own the shares, which is precisely what you're worried about.
I would imagine he's probably nervous about being in a potential Labour government.
And now remain/ref is on the table he can't keep attacking Labour for not offering it.
Not as good as his last resignation letter:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jul/04/tom-watson-resignation-letter-ed-miliband-full-text
Struggling to see a smear - but obviously there is a different definition for Corbyn because referring to things he said constitutes a smear.
Russel Howard vocalising a lot of peoples thoughts on JRM
https://twitter.com/russellhoward/status/1192022998632599552?s=21
Bit vague.
It needs to be. He wants Labour to win.
One for the Boris lovers - a handy fact check from his latest speech:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50317404
a handy fact check from his latest speech:
Did he manage to say anything truthful?
Good to see he is copying Farage with his military talk "go to the barricades". I assume he is planning to die on them as well?
Watson lists a whole load of stuff he wants to do all of which looks credible to me especially the young family bit.
Who the hell wants to miss their kid's childhood in exchange for 5 years in opposition or potentially in a minority government? Very best case scenario is they'll be handling Brexit which is a total poison chalice.
He's not exactly popular with Momentum and he takes a lot of abuse on twitter but even without that there's easily enough there to warrant him jacking it in for positive reasons.
EDIT: Ahhh, WBE is 68pc leave which offers a more immediate motive:
http://democraticdashboard.com/constituency/west-bromwich-east
Which I guess is why is George Galloway is standing there.
Hancock has had to delete a tweet after being found out lying. another liar outed. Its good to see folk calling them out for lies.
Its really not been a good couple of days for the tories. Makes me smile.
Watson - time he went. He has caused a lot of damage as well as doing some good. I am not sorry to ssee him go.
Johnson also outed as lying for his 20 000 more police. Tee Hee
Haha squeaky bum time for John Redwood
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1192187159324844032?s=19
https://twitter.com/iammatthoughton/status/1192184343071993856?s=09
If you need evidence the Tories are completely bonkers and liars. Here it is.
Haha squeaky bum time for John Redwood
I'm going to laugh my cock off if the Lib Dems end up becoming king makers again.
aybanwomble
Member
Don’t bother holding Scandinavia up as an alternative model, as I’ll be proved wrong
Because they aren't capital "S" socialist by Corbyns standards and haven't been since the reforms well over 20 years ago. They are neoliberal states with a somewhat strong welfare model, that's it.
No I am looking for evidence of his, as you claimed, authoritarianism. You have failed to actually produce anything beyond yet more vague smears. Care to try again with some actual clear evidence?
The way the anti-semitism row was dealt with, the way dissenters within the ranks were dealt with, the constant pandering to authoritarian states, and the people he keeps company? How much more evidence do you need? Or can you only make a decision, in your opinion, based on a bullshit manifesto? Since when did ideologues ever stick to the gentrified version of their world view used to sell themselves to the masses? Do you not remember "vote leave" telling us that no deal or hard brexit would never happen? Is it only the right that can lie or obfuscate?
You wouldn't question someone accusing Nick Griffin or Tommy Robinson of being authoritarian fascists because of the people that they keep as company, would you?
Is he the Tory Diane Abbott? Shouldn't be let near an interview?
Errmmm - no - they are social democratic - surprisingly enough like Corbyns labour which follows the nordic / European social democratic tradition very closely Most of Scandinavia remains at least as far to the left as Corbyn. Most of Scandinavia does not follow unfettered neoliberalism either. Where do you think the taking money out of private companies to buy shares to give to workers came from?
Most of Scandinavia has much higher taxation than the UK, Much higher benefit rates, much more worker protection, much higher environmental standards and much more egalitarian societies
Woking is a remain constituency, looking good for the libdems.
http://democraticdashboard.com/constituency/wokingham
Wokingham, constituency voting intention:
CON: 42% (-15)
LDEM: 38% (+22)
LAB: 12% (-13)
BREX: 5% (+5)
GRN: 3% (+1)
Rayban - evidence of authoritarianism? Just a little tiny bit? Some statement. policy, something?
No, I don't need to produce a policity statement - because people like Corbyn and Farage aren't that ****ing stupid. The evidence is there in how he has dealt with internal dissent and who he keeps as company, that is all you need.
.....and on Sweden/Scandanavia
Second, as evidence of the lack of government interference in business affairs, there is the fact that none of these countries have minimum wage laws.
LOL - so socialist TJ. So Corbyn.
Well corbyn is an authoritarian, left wing yes but also authoritarian.
There's nothing Libertarian about his views, it's his way or the highway.