| Which MPs should i have in my new party? 19:55 - Dec 12 with 12098 views | Bluefish |
Ken Clarke
Anna Soubry
Sarah Wollaston
Chuka Umunna
Who else?
No brexiteers and no socialists |  |
| |  |
| Which MPs should i have in my new party? on 08:15 - Dec 14 with 1998 views | StokieBlue |
| Which MPs should i have in my new party? on 11:45 - Dec 13 by Darth_Koont |
What specific point do you want me to address?
And come off it Stokie, you've been defending so-called fiscal conservatism i.e. the status quo on here since the year dot. You just don't like getting called on it. |
Once again that has nothing to do with anything I posted.
I wanted you to address my concerns on the future Labour policies. I raised specific concerns on two which I thought would lead to less money being available to Labour in the long run to implement their policies. You continually avoid the actual question to bring up historical cases which have nothing to do with this.
Is this the new type of politics you want? Don't answer actual points put which are clear and instead attack some historical position. You state on here virtually everyday that isn't how things should be done.
How is anyone supposed to have a debate if you say "yeah, but historically you thought X so whatever".
Why does it matter what I thought historically when discussing a future proposed policy?
SB [Post edited 14 Dec 2018 8:19]
|  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Which MPs should i have in my new party? on 10:12 - Dec 14 with 1968 views | connorscontract |
| Which MPs should i have in my new party? on 22:25 - Dec 12 by bournemouthblue |
As opposed to taking everybody's money and giving it to salt of the earth companies like G4S |
Remind me if anyone related to any members of the Cabinet have any links to G4S... |  | | |
| Which MPs should i have in my new party? on 10:33 - Dec 14 with 1951 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Which MPs should i have in my new party? on 10:12 - Dec 14 by connorscontract |
Remind me if anyone related to any members of the Cabinet have any links to G4S... |
Is this exclusive to the Tories. I seem to recall John Reid walking from his position as Home Secretary under Blair and straight onto the board of G4. |  |
| |
| Which MPs should i have in my new party? on 10:39 - Dec 14 with 1947 views | StokieBlue |
| Which MPs should i have in my new party? on 10:33 - Dec 14 by GlasgowBlue |
Is this exclusive to the Tories. I seem to recall John Reid walking from his position as Home Secretary under Blair and straight onto the board of G4. |
Who then did the security for the Labour party conferences until 2016.
It's almost like it's just rubbish all round.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Which MPs should i have in my new party? on 10:41 - Dec 14 with 1941 views | Darth_Koont |
| Which MPs should i have in my new party? on 08:15 - Dec 14 by StokieBlue |
Once again that has nothing to do with anything I posted.
I wanted you to address my concerns on the future Labour policies. I raised specific concerns on two which I thought would lead to less money being available to Labour in the long run to implement their policies. You continually avoid the actual question to bring up historical cases which have nothing to do with this.
Is this the new type of politics you want? Don't answer actual points put which are clear and instead attack some historical position. You state on here virtually everyday that isn't how things should be done.
How is anyone supposed to have a debate if you say "yeah, but historically you thought X so whatever".
Why does it matter what I thought historically when discussing a future proposed policy?
SB [Post edited 14 Dec 2018 8:19]
|
These ones?
"The main ones are the re-nationalisation of privately owned companies at whatever value McDonnell sees fit and in government bonds instead of cash and the appropriation of 10% of every medium sized company and above disguised as given money back to the people but capped in a way that means it's a tax on private companies and the people get relatively little."
Re-nationalisation of core infrastructure and services isn't a problem. Clearly there are models all around where nationalisation is better when private companies themselves aren't investing in them and prices are high for the consumer. Yes, there'd be negotiation and the government would play hardball but what's the difference between picking these industries up below a market rate rather than selling them off below market rate. What goes around comes around ... but in any case that's a bridge to cross when we see detail rather than a concept to ignore outright. Clearly the concept isn't an issue.
"It's a tax on private companies and people get very little" - well, as one of the developed countries with the lowest corporate tax rate, low taxation on income and surprise, surprise one of the lowest public spending against GDP then we've got a lot of leeway here and so do our private companies. A higher rate of taxation hasn't harmed Germany or Sweden or the Netherlands and their growth. Again the numbers would add up if we looked up from our navel and took inspiration from the rest of the world.
I'm just seeing a pattern here where things never seem to compute if they're not the way we do them according to a more free-market approach. |  |
| |
| Which MPs should i have in my new party? on 10:45 - Dec 14 with 1931 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Which MPs should i have in my new party? on 10:39 - Dec 14 by StokieBlue |
Who then did the security for the Labour party conferences until 2016.
It's almost like it's just rubbish all round.
SB |
It's as if people bash the tories for one thing whilst excusing or ignoring labour for doing the same.
A little consistency wouldn't go amiss on here. | |
| |
| Which MPs should i have in my new party? on 10:53 - Dec 14 with 1922 views | StokieBlue |
| Which MPs should i have in my new party? on 10:41 - Dec 14 by Darth_Koont |
These ones?
"The main ones are the re-nationalisation of privately owned companies at whatever value McDonnell sees fit and in government bonds instead of cash and the appropriation of 10% of every medium sized company and above disguised as given money back to the people but capped in a way that means it's a tax on private companies and the people get relatively little."
Re-nationalisation of core infrastructure and services isn't a problem. Clearly there are models all around where nationalisation is better when private companies themselves aren't investing in them and prices are high for the consumer. Yes, there'd be negotiation and the government would play hardball but what's the difference between picking these industries up below a market rate rather than selling them off below market rate. What goes around comes around ... but in any case that's a bridge to cross when we see detail rather than a concept to ignore outright. Clearly the concept isn't an issue.
"It's a tax on private companies and people get very little" - well, as one of the developed countries with the lowest corporate tax rate, low taxation on income and surprise, surprise one of the lowest public spending against GDP then we've got a lot of leeway here and so do our private companies. A higher rate of taxation hasn't harmed Germany or Sweden or the Netherlands and their growth. Again the numbers would add up if we looked up from our navel and took inspiration from the rest of the world.
I'm just seeing a pattern here where things never seem to compute if they're not the way we do them according to a more free-market approach. |
Thanks for your responses :).
"Re-nationalisation of core infrastructure and services isn't a problem. Clearly there are models all around where nationalisation is better when private companies themselves aren't investing in them and prices are high for the consumer. Yes, there'd be negotiation and the government would play hardball but what's the difference between picking these industries up below a market rate rather than selling them off below market rate. What goes around comes around ... but in any case that's a bridge to cross when we see detail rather than a concept to ignore outright. Clearly the concept isn't an issue."
The concept of renationalisation isn't the issue, I agree with you there and I also agree that some services would be better off in public ownership. I do have an issue with the means they plan to use. The companies have a clearly defined market capitalistion, it's not a fuzzy concept, it's a precise value. To pay an artibary amount below this and then to do it in illiquid instruments and not cash is something that is going to hinder investment in the country.
Would you personally invest in something where you pay cash and then at some time in the future you are given 50% of the value of that cash but in penny sweets which you then can't spend? I suspect you'd take your investment elsewhere.
"well, as one of the developed countries with the lowest corporate tax rate, low taxation on income and surprise, surprise one of the lowest public spending against GDP then we've got a lot of leeway here and so do our private companies. A higher rate of taxation hasn't harmed Germany or Sweden or the Netherlands and their growth. Again the numbers would add up if we looked up from our navel and took inspiration from the rest of the world."
I don't have a problem with a higher tax rate, if that's what people want and vote for then that's absolutely fine. This isn't a tax directly though, it's seizure of 10% of all companies over 200 employees by the state for perpertuity. This was initially claimed to be a redistribution of wealth to employees but Labour then said the payments to employees would be capped at 500 GBP and the rest would go to the government.
Once again, if you started a business (something Labour want to encourage) and then when you reached 200 employees through your hard graft would you be happy with the government then taking 10% share ownership in your hard work?
"I'm just seeing a pattern here where things never seem to compute if they're not the way we do them according to a more free-market approach."
I don't think that's fair. I am happy to discuess new ideas and I don't have a problem with tax increases or nationalisation. I have a problem with doing these things in a way they makes the UK look like a crazy place to do business (although brexit doesn't help with that either). In the end, like it or not we need to encourage investment. This can be done whilst doing more progressive things but it shouldn't be forfeit in such a policy structure.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Which MPs should i have in my new party? on 11:01 - Dec 14 with 1910 views | Herbivore |
| Which MPs should i have in my new party? on 10:53 - Dec 14 by StokieBlue |
Thanks for your responses :).
"Re-nationalisation of core infrastructure and services isn't a problem. Clearly there are models all around where nationalisation is better when private companies themselves aren't investing in them and prices are high for the consumer. Yes, there'd be negotiation and the government would play hardball but what's the difference between picking these industries up below a market rate rather than selling them off below market rate. What goes around comes around ... but in any case that's a bridge to cross when we see detail rather than a concept to ignore outright. Clearly the concept isn't an issue."
The concept of renationalisation isn't the issue, I agree with you there and I also agree that some services would be better off in public ownership. I do have an issue with the means they plan to use. The companies have a clearly defined market capitalistion, it's not a fuzzy concept, it's a precise value. To pay an artibary amount below this and then to do it in illiquid instruments and not cash is something that is going to hinder investment in the country.
Would you personally invest in something where you pay cash and then at some time in the future you are given 50% of the value of that cash but in penny sweets which you then can't spend? I suspect you'd take your investment elsewhere.
"well, as one of the developed countries with the lowest corporate tax rate, low taxation on income and surprise, surprise one of the lowest public spending against GDP then we've got a lot of leeway here and so do our private companies. A higher rate of taxation hasn't harmed Germany or Sweden or the Netherlands and their growth. Again the numbers would add up if we looked up from our navel and took inspiration from the rest of the world."
I don't have a problem with a higher tax rate, if that's what people want and vote for then that's absolutely fine. This isn't a tax directly though, it's seizure of 10% of all companies over 200 employees by the state for perpertuity. This was initially claimed to be a redistribution of wealth to employees but Labour then said the payments to employees would be capped at 500 GBP and the rest would go to the government.
Once again, if you started a business (something Labour want to encourage) and then when you reached 200 employees through your hard graft would you be happy with the government then taking 10% share ownership in your hard work?
"I'm just seeing a pattern here where things never seem to compute if they're not the way we do them according to a more free-market approach."
I don't think that's fair. I am happy to discuess new ideas and I don't have a problem with tax increases or nationalisation. I have a problem with doing these things in a way they makes the UK look like a crazy place to do business (although brexit doesn't help with that either). In the end, like it or not we need to encourage investment. This can be done whilst doing more progressive things but it shouldn't be forfeit in such a policy structure.
SB |
I'm not convinced by the argument around deterring investment. They aren't looking at nationalizing everything, primarily it is previously nationally owned commodities like the railways for example. They are something of a special case. The majority of outside investment in the UK is in private enterprise so I don't see how that will be affected, unless you buy into the notion that Labour are going to take all private enterprise into public ownership, which is just rank scaremongering.
I'd be happy with higher taxes and better services. I also wouldn't have any issue with the government owning a share of my business if it grew to that size, though I'd want some of the money taken from that scheme to be made available to be used to support my business should it fall on hard times. If the government is taking 10% of the company it's taking on a share of responsibility too I would expect.
Rampant free market capitalism isn't working for the country, we need a different approach. Perhaps Labour's ideas are too radical for most but more of the same isn't going to benefit people either and minor tweaks won't do much either. I think we fundamentally need to shift towards a more social democratic approach if we're going to progress as a country. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Which MPs should i have in my new party? on 11:08 - Dec 14 with 1904 views | StokieBlue |
| Which MPs should i have in my new party? on 11:01 - Dec 14 by Herbivore |
I'm not convinced by the argument around deterring investment. They aren't looking at nationalizing everything, primarily it is previously nationally owned commodities like the railways for example. They are something of a special case. The majority of outside investment in the UK is in private enterprise so I don't see how that will be affected, unless you buy into the notion that Labour are going to take all private enterprise into public ownership, which is just rank scaremongering.
I'd be happy with higher taxes and better services. I also wouldn't have any issue with the government owning a share of my business if it grew to that size, though I'd want some of the money taken from that scheme to be made available to be used to support my business should it fall on hard times. If the government is taking 10% of the company it's taking on a share of responsibility too I would expect.
Rampant free market capitalism isn't working for the country, we need a different approach. Perhaps Labour's ideas are too radical for most but more of the same isn't going to benefit people either and minor tweaks won't do much either. I think we fundamentally need to shift towards a more social democratic approach if we're going to progress as a country. |
Perhaps you are right, maybe they are too radical for me but I do disagree on deterring investment. If someone has X to invest somewhere why would they buy shares in UK companies if that investment can be diluted by 10% by the government on a whim? What if the government then decided that company needed to be nationalised and then suddenly that investment is reduced by whatever the government decides and you don't even get your money back - you get UK government bonds in exchange.
I think you'll find there are few takers for investment in such a climate.
As I've said I have no issue with nationalisation, especially of utilities which probably should be nationalised. I do believe this should be done at their actual value and not in illiquid instruments. It's just a slippery slope in my opinion, once a precedence has been set then why even bother paying anything next time?
I agree it's time to discuss new policies and directions, I just don't think these ones are particularly good.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Which MPs should i have in my new party? on 11:19 - Dec 14 with 1891 views | footers |
| Which MPs should i have in my new party? on 11:08 - Dec 14 by StokieBlue |
Perhaps you are right, maybe they are too radical for me but I do disagree on deterring investment. If someone has X to invest somewhere why would they buy shares in UK companies if that investment can be diluted by 10% by the government on a whim? What if the government then decided that company needed to be nationalised and then suddenly that investment is reduced by whatever the government decides and you don't even get your money back - you get UK government bonds in exchange.
I think you'll find there are few takers for investment in such a climate.
As I've said I have no issue with nationalisation, especially of utilities which probably should be nationalised. I do believe this should be done at their actual value and not in illiquid instruments. It's just a slippery slope in my opinion, once a precedence has been set then why even bother paying anything next time?
I agree it's time to discuss new policies and directions, I just don't think these ones are particularly good.
SB |
You could argue that infrastructure investment and renationalisation of utilities/transport would actually increase the likelihood and potential upside of investment. The current state the country is in is actually a detriment to doing business here. Any trip to most EU countries I think would bear that out.
We have to acknowledge when systems fail and when they are successful. With total free market capitalism we have discovered that the privatisation of certain industries simply doesn't work and insisting that they do is pure ideology.
I'm not sure Labour intend to nationalise any companies that don't fall within those areas- why would they? |  |
| |
| Which MPs should i have in my new party? on 11:28 - Dec 14 with 1880 views | Herbivore |
| Which MPs should i have in my new party? on 11:08 - Dec 14 by StokieBlue |
Perhaps you are right, maybe they are too radical for me but I do disagree on deterring investment. If someone has X to invest somewhere why would they buy shares in UK companies if that investment can be diluted by 10% by the government on a whim? What if the government then decided that company needed to be nationalised and then suddenly that investment is reduced by whatever the government decides and you don't even get your money back - you get UK government bonds in exchange.
I think you'll find there are few takers for investment in such a climate.
As I've said I have no issue with nationalisation, especially of utilities which probably should be nationalised. I do believe this should be done at their actual value and not in illiquid instruments. It's just a slippery slope in my opinion, once a precedence has been set then why even bother paying anything next time?
I agree it's time to discuss new policies and directions, I just don't think these ones are particularly good.
SB |
I'm not a fan of slippery slope arguments, they aren't very sound logically and tend to be based primarily on an emotive, gut response to something. There is nothing to suggest that a Labour government would, on a whim, nationalise all business. You seem a bit torn on it because on the one hand you agree with some industries being nationalised but on the other hand you worry about where it might lead.
In respect to the 10% share in other businesses, whether that comes to fruition is still open to debate but if it did I imagine the share would come with some sort of government backing or responsibility. You could make a case that knowing you are investing in a company that is backed by the government could feasibly increase investor confidence, since the government has a stake in and therefore genuine interest in ensuring that business thrives and remains viable. There are many different ways of looking at it, it's fairly radical change which causes anxiety but that's not to say it couldn't be viable. It only looks untenable through the lens of rampant free market capitalism, and rightly so since it offers an alternative and a challenge to rampant free market capitalism. | |
| |
| Which MPs should i have in my new party? on 11:44 - Dec 14 with 1863 views | StokieBlue |
| Which MPs should i have in my new party? on 11:28 - Dec 14 by Herbivore |
I'm not a fan of slippery slope arguments, they aren't very sound logically and tend to be based primarily on an emotive, gut response to something. There is nothing to suggest that a Labour government would, on a whim, nationalise all business. You seem a bit torn on it because on the one hand you agree with some industries being nationalised but on the other hand you worry about where it might lead.
In respect to the 10% share in other businesses, whether that comes to fruition is still open to debate but if it did I imagine the share would come with some sort of government backing or responsibility. You could make a case that knowing you are investing in a company that is backed by the government could feasibly increase investor confidence, since the government has a stake in and therefore genuine interest in ensuring that business thrives and remains viable. There are many different ways of looking at it, it's fairly radical change which causes anxiety but that's not to say it couldn't be viable. It only looks untenable through the lens of rampant free market capitalism, and rightly so since it offers an alternative and a challenge to rampant free market capitalism. |
I never said they would nationalise all business, a precedence would have been set though to nationalise companies at a rate below their market value in bonds. As I've said I don't have a problem with nationalisation of these utilities, just that I think it should be done at market rate and in liquid assets. I disagree that doing it below market rate won't have an impact in how people invest in a country. Do you not have an issue with things being done at arbitary values? What if the government (and they won't of course) decided that they wanted to buy your house for 70% it's value and give you some bonds meaning you can't use those to buy another one unless you can sell them or wait for maturity?
Some background on the 10% scheme here:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2018/sep/24/john-mc
I am not sure the government backing argument works. Would the government bail these companies out if something does go wrong? That's a massive unknown expense which hasn't been considered. I've not see anywhere that the government would do this if the scheme went ahead. I guess my problem is that once again the policy is taking something from a private investor at an arbitary rate (in this case 0).
I would argue a tax is a better alternative given it's transparent to everyone and known when investment is made. Of course there needs to be assurances and checks that it's paid but I think that's better than what essentially amounts to an opaque dividend tax. If they really want to get employee ownership they shouldn't be capping the amounts the employees receive. Partial employee ownership is probably a very good thing to work towards but this isn't it as the Guardian article points out.
I guess in summary I can see the value in the ideas (both of them). It's the implementation I don't particularly like.
SB [Post edited 14 Dec 2018 11:45]
| |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Which MPs should i have in my new party? on 11:49 - Dec 14 with 1848 views | No9 |
| Which MPs should i have in my new party? on 10:12 - Dec 14 by connorscontract |
Remind me if anyone related to any members of the Cabinet have any links to G4S... |
Norman Fowler was a director for G4 & gave them some of their original contracts
Don't know if he's still involved | | | |
| Which MPs should i have in my new party? on 11:51 - Dec 14 with 1844 views | No9 |
| Which MPs should i have in my new party? on 08:15 - Dec 14 by StokieBlue |
Once again that has nothing to do with anything I posted.
I wanted you to address my concerns on the future Labour policies. I raised specific concerns on two which I thought would lead to less money being available to Labour in the long run to implement their policies. You continually avoid the actual question to bring up historical cases which have nothing to do with this.
Is this the new type of politics you want? Don't answer actual points put which are clear and instead attack some historical position. You state on here virtually everyday that isn't how things should be done.
How is anyone supposed to have a debate if you say "yeah, but historically you thought X so whatever".
Why does it matter what I thought historically when discussing a future proposed policy?
SB [Post edited 14 Dec 2018 8:19]
|
You should have learned by now that any parties polcies at the GE & in their manifesto don't necessarily end up as law | | | |
| Which MPs should i have in my new party? on 11:53 - Dec 14 with 1842 views | Herbivore |
| Which MPs should i have in my new party? on 11:44 - Dec 14 by StokieBlue |
I never said they would nationalise all business, a precedence would have been set though to nationalise companies at a rate below their market value in bonds. As I've said I don't have a problem with nationalisation of these utilities, just that I think it should be done at market rate and in liquid assets. I disagree that doing it below market rate won't have an impact in how people invest in a country. Do you not have an issue with things being done at arbitary values? What if the government (and they won't of course) decided that they wanted to buy your house for 70% it's value and give you some bonds meaning you can't use those to buy another one unless you can sell them or wait for maturity?
Some background on the 10% scheme here:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2018/sep/24/john-mc
I am not sure the government backing argument works. Would the government bail these companies out if something does go wrong? That's a massive unknown expense which hasn't been considered. I've not see anywhere that the government would do this if the scheme went ahead. I guess my problem is that once again the policy is taking something from a private investor at an arbitary rate (in this case 0).
I would argue a tax is a better alternative given it's transparent to everyone and known when investment is made. Of course there needs to be assurances and checks that it's paid but I think that's better than what essentially amounts to an opaque dividend tax. If they really want to get employee ownership they shouldn't be capping the amounts the employees receive. Partial employee ownership is probably a very good thing to work towards but this isn't it as the Guardian article points out.
I guess in summary I can see the value in the ideas (both of them). It's the implementation I don't particularly like.
SB [Post edited 14 Dec 2018 11:45]
|
Fair dos. Personally with the nationalisation, given that in most cases they were sold off at below market rate in the first place then a price below market rate to re-buy them is not unreasonable. It shouldn't actually be that hard to calculate by how much they were undersold in order to work out a fair price against their current market value. I understand what you're saying about setting a precedent, I just think you're overstating the potential impact of that. There are no plans to nationalise everything so I don't think it'll impact on investment in private business. And if we are investing generally in infrastructure and British business then that will also attract investors.
The 10% thing evidently needs some work to be implementable but in principle it's a decent enough idea of we're moving towards a model of social democracy. Whether there is the intellect and talent in the party to make it implementable is another matter but at least there is a genuine alternative to think about now. | |
| |
| Which MPs should i have in my new party? on 11:55 - Dec 14 with 1838 views | GeoffSentence |
| Which MPs should i have in my new party? on 11:34 - Dec 13 by chicoazul |
Daddy was never convicted. |
At the very least he's a warmonger. Couldn't wait to send in the tanks and the bombs, and was prepared to con parliament into backing him. |  |
| |
| Which MPs should i have in my new party? on 12:03 - Dec 14 with 1824 views | No9 |
| Which MPs should i have in my new party? on 11:19 - Dec 14 by footers |
You could argue that infrastructure investment and renationalisation of utilities/transport would actually increase the likelihood and potential upside of investment. The current state the country is in is actually a detriment to doing business here. Any trip to most EU countries I think would bear that out.
We have to acknowledge when systems fail and when they are successful. With total free market capitalism we have discovered that the privatisation of certain industries simply doesn't work and insisting that they do is pure ideology.
I'm not sure Labour intend to nationalise any companies that don't fall within those areas- why would they? |
The privatisation of many industries and parts of governemtn have been a very expensive mistake
It is mot just the headline grabbers like energy and rail but the less well known like government procurement and services for health, & the military which are far too expensive to be sustained. | | | |
| Which MPs should i have in my new party? on 11:14 - Feb 20 with 1441 views | Bluefish |
This is going well | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
