Jeremy Corbyn Vol. 2
Discussion
Sway said:
I disagree. Watching that interview I saw a different Corbyn.
One that had prepped half a dozen set pieces, all carefully designed.
One that showed disturbing desires, and a willingness to evade and play shadow games with what they are.
He's planning a full on 'revolution'. Nationalise everything, as 'we own the bond, so it's not borrowing'.
I genuinely now believe he is a truly dangerous person, wanting to obtain votes via platitudes and reference to 'principles' - whilst trying to prevent the electorate finding out what those principles are until it's too late.
Agree. Just said to the missus, looking into the guy's eyes during that interview would have been a game changer for many.One that had prepped half a dozen set pieces, all carefully designed.
One that showed disturbing desires, and a willingness to evade and play shadow games with what they are.
He's planning a full on 'revolution'. Nationalise everything, as 'we own the bond, so it's not borrowing'.
I genuinely now believe he is a truly dangerous person, wanting to obtain votes via platitudes and reference to 'principles' - whilst trying to prevent the electorate finding out what those principles are until it's too late.
Dangerous fkr.
The Polls may say one thing but come the day of the Election Corbyn is the Conservatives biggest asset because he will force millions of people to go to the Polling booth and vote for them. On the other hand will the same situation occur with potential Labour voters, keep it up Jeremy your doing a great job in turning people towards Theresa May and the Conservatives.
Dr Jekyll said:
Sway said:
He's planning a full on 'revolution'. Nationalise everything, as 'we own the bond, so it's not borrowing'.
I suspect he's actually planning full confiscation, so the question of paying for the shares doesn't arise.Edited by Burwood on Saturday 27th May 09:56
gazza285 said:
Burwood said:
Let's be clear. There is no special law that allows a UK government to take anything nor pay anything less than market value.
Not yet there isn't.Edited by Burwood on Saturday 27th May 10:52
ICOJ is UN not EUBurwood said:
Let's be clear. There is no special law that allows a UK government to take anything nor pay anything less than market value. If they want the National Grid they will have to cough up around £40B.
Power generation is still heavily unionised, I wonder what a year or 2 of Corbyns mates/ owners doing a southern rail to the national grid would do its value?Edited by Burwood on Saturday 27th May 09:56
Burwood said:
such laws could never be passed. Unjust, illegal etc. Further, a case could be heard by the highest court in the World 'International Court of Justice' which the UK is a member of and bound by it's decisions. When Russian 'took' various companies associated with a political opponent, he won compensation.
We aren't Russia. Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 27th May 10:52
Such a law could be passed. And would be legal (parliamentary sovereignty, anyone?).
The Govt would expropriate shares in nationalised companies in exchange for (probably non-negotiable for a period of time) Govt bonds with a face value equal to the market value of the expropriated shares.
What happens to the face value in the future, well, we all know, but that's not going to stop it happening.
The ICJ deals with matters of public international law - disputes between nations. It wouldn't touch this in a gazillion years.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 27th May 12:38
Greg66 said:
Burwood said:
such laws could never be passed. Unjust, illegal etc. Further, a case could be heard by the highest court in the World 'International Court of Justice' which the UK is a member of and bound by it's decisions. When Russian 'took' various companies associated with a political opponent, he won compensation.
We aren't Russia. Edited by Burwood on Saturday 27th May 10:52
Such a law could be passed. And would be legal (parliamentary sovereignty, anyone?).
The Govt would expropriate shares in nationalised companies in exchange for (probably non-negotiable for a period of time) Govt bonds with a face value equal to the market value of the expropriated shares.
What happens to the face value in the future, well, we all know, but that's not going to stop it happening.
The ICJ deals with matters of public international law - disputes between nations. It wouldn't touch this in a gazillion years.
Edited by Greg66 on Saturday 27th May 12:38
Edited by Burwood on Saturday 27th May 13:09
Burwood said:
Greg, the suggestion was they could just take it and I've stated they can not. You then go on to say they can if they pay for it?
Ok - I see now Dr Jekyll's rather apocalyptic suggestion of flat out confiscation, which is nuts, I agree. But the fact remains that McDonnell is proposing to pay for shares in the companies he wants to nationalise with pieces of paper which will bear little relation to the value of what he takes, and there won't be a way to stop him if he is in No 11 and wants to do it.
Corbyn now offering cheap football tickets and again critical of the need to deploy army troops when the police should do it but can see why as the Tory scum cut their numbers. But it's ok that Labour did just this in 2003 and were in power during the war in Iraq. The man is a colossal prick
Greg66 said:
We aren't Russia.
Such a law could be passed. And would be legal (parliamentary sovereignty, anyone?).
The Govt would expropriate shares in nationalised companies in exchange for (probably non-negotiable for a period of time) Govt bonds with a face value equal to the market value of the expropriated shares.
What happens to the face value in the future, well, we all know, but that's not going to stop it happening.
The ICJ deals with matters of public international law - disputes between nations. It wouldn't touch this in a gazillion years.
The problem with nationalising via the issuance of gilts is that the government needs to find a willing buyer at a sustainable coupon level. An asset grab isn't generally regarded as an attractive proposition for institutional investors unless the coupon adequately reflects the risk, this would make the acquisition more expensive for the government.Such a law could be passed. And would be legal (parliamentary sovereignty, anyone?).
The Govt would expropriate shares in nationalised companies in exchange for (probably non-negotiable for a period of time) Govt bonds with a face value equal to the market value of the expropriated shares.
What happens to the face value in the future, well, we all know, but that's not going to stop it happening.
The ICJ deals with matters of public international law - disputes between nations. It wouldn't touch this in a gazillion years.
Edited by Greg66 on Saturday 27th May 12:38
I for one wouldn't count on a Corbyn government if they where to secure power having an effective working majority vs more moderate elements of the Labour Party.
Justayellowbadge said:
desolate said:
Justayellowbadge said:
Disagree.
It fundamentally changed my view of the man.
From support to no support?It fundamentally changed my view of the man.
Or the other way?
ie would you have voted labour and this interview changed your mind?
I now think him deceitful and really very dangerous.
Greg66 said:
Ok - I see now Dr Jekyll's rather apocalyptic suggestion of flat out confiscation, which is nuts, I agree.
But the fact remains that McDonnell is proposing to pay for shares in the companies he wants to nationalise with pieces of paper which will bear little relation to the value of what he takes, and there won't be a way to stop him if he is in No 11 and wants to do it.
But they are nuts, that's my point. If they are planning to confiscate irrespective of whether this is actually practical then they aren't going to worry about how much legal acquisition would cost.But the fact remains that McDonnell is proposing to pay for shares in the companies he wants to nationalise with pieces of paper which will bear little relation to the value of what he takes, and there won't be a way to stop him if he is in No 11 and wants to do it.
https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-a895-Nationa...
Justayellowbadge said:
desolate said:
Justayellowbadge said:
Disagree.
It fundamentally changed my view of the man.
From support to no support?It fundamentally changed my view of the man.
Or the other way?
ie would you have voted labour and this interview changed your mind?
I now think him deceitful and really very dangerous.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff