Poll: Election 2019
Total Members Polled: 1601
Discussion
98elise said:
kuro68k said:
I really hope Boris doesn't get a majority. Really dreading another 5+ years of this brexit s
t.
People need to look beyond brexit. Boris is a menace, and things like the NHS and our sovereignty are more important than brexit. Once the NHS is sold off and a bad deal done with the US it will be very, very hard to undo.
You might not like Labour but there will be another election in 5 years time when it can all be undone. Not so with brexit and a bad Boris deal.
Nobody is selling the NHS. Not now and not all the other times Labour have said it.t.People need to look beyond brexit. Boris is a menace, and things like the NHS and our sovereignty are more important than brexit. Once the NHS is sold off and a bad deal done with the US it will be very, very hard to undo.
You might not like Labour but there will be another election in 5 years time when it can all be undone. Not so with brexit and a bad Boris deal.
In 5 years we would have to go through another period of trying to fix a f
ked up economy only way worse.I don't know how you would undo expropriation of my assets without making the new owners give them back to me and compensating me for my losses. Thats never going to happen.
I'll give communism a miss thanks.
However this morning I am getting the sickening feeling in the pit of my stomach that we heading for another hung parliament or even a rainbow “anyone but the Conservatives” government.
May god have mercy on our souls.
stongle said:
kuro68k said:
1. Those "costs" are really investments though, because those industries generate revenue. In fact as long as the revenue covers the cost of borrowing the money to buy them, which at the moment is extremely low, it's a net positive for the government. Not to mention the huge benefits to us, the customers.
2. They aren't giving away 10% of companies either, the rule will just be that over time they have to offer shares to staff and move towards that goal. It's worked extremely well in places like Germany.
1. They are not really investments if bought below @ Fair Market Value - as McDonnell is keen to point out. Buying at lower than this price is theft from pension funds AND grossly illegal under international treaty (done to death in here - please go back and read up). Revenue is NOT profit (used to pay dividends). It's only net positive IF you appropriate the shares - but then the UK will spend 3 times the cost on legal fee's and investor compensation over the next 10 years. You've also issued a liability with little correlation to the investment performance. They will be divergent with the equity highly exposed to market risks - which the govt exacerbated. 2. They aren't giving away 10% of companies either, the rule will just be that over time they have to offer shares to staff and move towards that goal. It's worked extremely well in places like Germany.
2. The 10% employee purchase program generates 10 times the revenue for the govt than the workers. It's a plain and simple tax grab. Since they also plan to rip up OECD tax documentation on Capital Gains, and Withholding Taxes - the tax tilt, could increase.
That aside, you make an interesting point on patents – IT’S THE only credible argument I’ve heard on the NHS on here to date (I think it’s overstated as a risk – but it clearly is one, its a banana skin THAT could crystalise into increased costs). Suggesting it’s for sale; or we are going for a US style system with the requirement MedicAid / Medicare doesn’t stack up – privatisation in the US medical “industry” (it’s not a service) means that Medicaid alone costs $350bn P.A. we couldn’t afford that (no matter how far right you are). It’s 10% of the Federal Budget.
Edited by stongle on Wednesday 11th December 10:55
kuro68k said:
I remember when people said all that about New Labour, and we actually went into a pretty long period of fiscal stability until the global financial crisis hit. At the very least it was better than the regular boom and bust cycles under the Tories.
Err apart from austerity for the last decade. Its a direct result of the borrowing under Blair... You borrow now and defer growth later its not rocket science. The Hypno-Toad said:
If anyone genuinely believes that in 5 years time there will be a chance to vote in another government you are very sadly mistaken. Corbyn and his Stalinist buddies have been waiting a very long time to get within a sniff of power and if they do get a majority they won’t be leaving anytime soon.
However this morning I am getting the sickening feeling in the pit of my stomach that we heading for another hung parliament or even a rainbow “anyone but the Conservatives” government.
May god have mercy on our souls.
Unlike Boris who is talking about "reviewing" the powers of the judiciary to hold the government to the law, and threatened both Channel 4 and the BBC when they criticised him. The man hates democracy, it gets in the way of his lies.However this morning I am getting the sickening feeling in the pit of my stomach that we heading for another hung parliament or even a rainbow “anyone but the Conservatives” government.
May god have mercy on our souls.
Tankrizzo said:
booboise blueboys said:
Johnson is a coward. Hiding in a fridge and looking like a complete mess. Why can't he smarten up?
Its a no from me and probably most of the country on Thursday.
I mean, I'm sure we're all shocked by this pronouncement given your posting history.Its a no from me and probably most of the country on Thursday.
In other breaking news: Jimboka not voting Tory.
nikaiyo2 said:
kuro68k said:
I remember when people said all that about New Labour, and we actually went into a pretty long period of fiscal stability until the global financial crisis hit. At the very least it was better than the regular boom and bust cycles under the Tories.
Err apart from austerity for the last decade. Its a direct result of the borrowing under Blair... You borrow now and defer growth later its not rocket science. nikaiyo2 said:
kuro68k said:
I remember when people said all that about New Labour, and we actually went into a pretty long period of fiscal stability until the global financial crisis hit. At the very least it was better than the regular boom and bust cycles under the Tories.
Err apart from austerity for the last decade. Its a direct result of the borrowing under Blair... You borrow now and defer growth later its not rocket science. otolith said:
That's complete bullst. It works nothing like that. You either don't understand the policy or you're lying.
https://www.cliffordchance.com/content/dam/cliffor...
Over a 10 year period, 10% of equity will be expropriated. This will not be offered to staff. It will be put into a fund. Of the dividends paid to that fund, a proportion will be given to staff, capped at £500/year and the rest (most of it) will be taken by government.
It's theft of equity and an effective hike in corporation tax to the highest in the developed world.
Why go to some stupid blog for your information when you can just read the actual proposal?t. It works nothing like that. You either don't understand the policy or you're lying.https://www.cliffordchance.com/content/dam/cliffor...
Over a 10 year period, 10% of equity will be expropriated. This will not be offered to staff. It will be put into a fund. Of the dividends paid to that fund, a proportion will be given to staff, capped at £500/year and the rest (most of it) will be taken by government.
It's theft of equity and an effective hike in corporation tax to the highest in the developed world.
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/R...
"We will give workers a stake in the companies they work for – and a share of the profits they help create – by requiring large companies to set up Inclusive Ownership Funds (IOFs). Up to 10% of a company will be owned collectively by employees, with dividend payments distributed equally among all, capped at £500 a year, and the rest being used to top up the Climate Apprenticeship Fund."
(page 60)
Note that it says "up to", as in they aren't even mandating that much.
kuro68k said:
Well when we adopt US patent rules on medicine we can't just buy cheaper generic versions as we do now. That's what patents are for, to stop you doing that.
Shocking that people don't understand basic stuff like this and are willingly going to destroy the best thing we have in this country because of it.
You are completely clueless. Shocking that some people have not a clue about medicine and patents.Shocking that people don't understand basic stuff like this and are willingly going to destroy the best thing we have in this country because of it.
[quote=kuro68k]
Those "costs" are really investments though, because those industries generate revenue. In fact as long as the revenue covers the cost of borrowing the money to buy them, which at the moment is extremely low, it's a net positive for the government. Not to mention the huge benefits to us, the customers.
/quote]
Oh dear, your logic is flawed. First, as Stongle points out, it's about profit, not revenue. If a utility company has £500 million revenue and zero profit, do you think it makes sense to borrow several billion to buy it "because the revenue covers the cost of borrowing"? Of course it doesn't.
Secondly, the only way there's a benefit to the public is if the government buys the utilities at below market value. Otherwise you are just paying for future profits in one lump up front. Note, the share price roughly equals future profits (note, not revenue!).
If the government tries to buy privately owned assets at below market value, that is theft, and is illegal under various treaties the UK has signed. Not only would it destroy investors' confidence in the UK (why invest if Labour just nicks your investment?), it would be challenged in court and the government would lose.
Loony Labour's nationalisation policy is stupidly expensive, illogical and legally impossible to deliver.
Those "costs" are really investments though, because those industries generate revenue. In fact as long as the revenue covers the cost of borrowing the money to buy them, which at the moment is extremely low, it's a net positive for the government. Not to mention the huge benefits to us, the customers.
/quote]
Oh dear, your logic is flawed. First, as Stongle points out, it's about profit, not revenue. If a utility company has £500 million revenue and zero profit, do you think it makes sense to borrow several billion to buy it "because the revenue covers the cost of borrowing"? Of course it doesn't.
Secondly, the only way there's a benefit to the public is if the government buys the utilities at below market value. Otherwise you are just paying for future profits in one lump up front. Note, the share price roughly equals future profits (note, not revenue!).
If the government tries to buy privately owned assets at below market value, that is theft, and is illegal under various treaties the UK has signed. Not only would it destroy investors' confidence in the UK (why invest if Labour just nicks your investment?), it would be challenged in court and the government would lose.
Loony Labour's nationalisation policy is stupidly expensive, illogical and legally impossible to deliver.
kuro68k said:
otolith said:
That's complete bullst. It works nothing like that. You either don't understand the policy or you're lying.
https://www.cliffordchance.com/content/dam/cliffor...
Over a 10 year period, 10% of equity will be expropriated. This will not be offered to staff. It will be put into a fund. Of the dividends paid to that fund, a proportion will be given to staff, capped at £500/year and the rest (most of it) will be taken by government.
It's theft of equity and an effective hike in corporation tax to the highest in the developed world.
Why go to some stupid blog for your information when you can just read the actual proposal?t. It works nothing like that. You either don't understand the policy or you're lying.https://www.cliffordchance.com/content/dam/cliffor...
Over a 10 year period, 10% of equity will be expropriated. This will not be offered to staff. It will be put into a fund. Of the dividends paid to that fund, a proportion will be given to staff, capped at £500/year and the rest (most of it) will be taken by government.
It's theft of equity and an effective hike in corporation tax to the highest in the developed world.
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/R...
"We will give workers a stake in the companies they work for – and a share of the profits they help create – by requiring large companies to set up Inclusive Ownership Funds (IOFs). Up to 10% of a company will be owned collectively by employees, with dividend payments distributed equally among all, capped at £500 a year, and the rest being used to top up the Climate Apprenticeship Fund."
(page 60)
Note that it says "up to", as in they aren't even mandating that much.
Socialist witter on about 'public ownership', but they can't stand the thought of actual members of the public owning anything.
kuro68k said:
Why go to some stupid blog for your information when you can just read the actual proposal?
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/R...
"We will give workers a stake in the companies they work for – and a share of the profits they help create – by requiring large companies to set up Inclusive Ownership Funds (IOFs). Up to 10% of a company will be owned collectively by employees, with dividend payments distributed equally among all, capped at £500 a year, and the rest being used to top up the Climate Apprenticeship Fund."
(page 60)
Note that it says "up to", as in they aren't even mandating that much.
So the fund owns it. The employee does not get shares. When they leave the company, they lose the benefit.https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/R...
"We will give workers a stake in the companies they work for – and a share of the profits they help create – by requiring large companies to set up Inclusive Ownership Funds (IOFs). Up to 10% of a company will be owned collectively by employees, with dividend payments distributed equally among all, capped at £500 a year, and the rest being used to top up the Climate Apprenticeship Fund."
(page 60)
Note that it says "up to", as in they aren't even mandating that much.
If they were given shares then that ownership would survive their employment.
kuro68k said:
otolith said:
That's complete bullst. It works nothing like that. You either don't understand the policy or you're lying.
https://www.cliffordchance.com/content/dam/cliffor...
Over a 10 year period, 10% of equity will be expropriated. This will not be offered to staff. It will be put into a fund. Of the dividends paid to that fund, a proportion will be given to staff, capped at £500/year and the rest (most of it) will be taken by government.
It's theft of equity and an effective hike in corporation tax to the highest in the developed world.
Why go to some stupid blog for your information when you can just read the actual proposal?t. It works nothing like that. You either don't understand the policy or you're lying.https://www.cliffordchance.com/content/dam/cliffor...
Over a 10 year period, 10% of equity will be expropriated. This will not be offered to staff. It will be put into a fund. Of the dividends paid to that fund, a proportion will be given to staff, capped at £500/year and the rest (most of it) will be taken by government.
It's theft of equity and an effective hike in corporation tax to the highest in the developed world.
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/R...
"We will give workers a stake in the companies they work for – and a share of the profits they help create – by requiring large companies to set up Inclusive Ownership Funds (IOFs). Up to 10% of a company will be owned collectively by employees, with dividend payments distributed equally among all, capped at £500 a year, and the rest being used to top up the Climate Apprenticeship Fund."
(page 60)
Note that it says "up to", as in they aren't even mandating that much.
The Clifford Chance analysis is consistent with the manifesto statement.
It says "up to" because the policy is a mandatory 1% a year over ten years.
A scheme where part of the company is taken into ownership by a fund, which then gives a fraction of the dividend to earners and pays the rest to the treasury is absolutely nothing like a scheme where workers are allowed to acquire shares in the company.
kuro68k said:
Why go to some stupid blog for your information when you can just read the actual proposal?
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/R...
"We will give workers a stake in the companies they work for – and a share of the profits they help create – by requiring large companies to set up Inclusive Ownership Funds (IOFs). Up to 10% of a company will be owned collectively by employees, with dividend payments distributed equally among all, capped at £500 a year, and the rest being used to top up the Climate Apprenticeship Fund."
(page 60)
Note that it says "up to", as in they aren't even mandating that much.
The 'stupid blog' is a piece by one of the largest law firms in the world.https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/R...
"We will give workers a stake in the companies they work for – and a share of the profits they help create – by requiring large companies to set up Inclusive Ownership Funds (IOFs). Up to 10% of a company will be owned collectively by employees, with dividend payments distributed equally among all, capped at £500 a year, and the rest being used to top up the Climate Apprenticeship Fund."
(page 60)
Note that it says "up to", as in they aren't even mandating that much.
The website you link to is authored by the people who want to steal money from pension funds.
bad company said:
Nicked from another site but appropriate for me:-
I'm still a bit undecided about my vote direction this coming Thursday.
I've obviously taken into consideration what I consider to be the following swaying points on the two main parties.
On the one hand the Conservative Boris Johnson is a bit of a rascal with the ladies and can sometimes bend the truth a bit and he’s also a bit posh.
And on the other hand..
Labours Jeremy Corbyn ............. "is a terrorist sympathiser"........
This is a little one-dimensional as we aren't electing Presidents, we're electing MPs to form a governing party.I'm still a bit undecided about my vote direction this coming Thursday.
I've obviously taken into consideration what I consider to be the following swaying points on the two main parties.
On the one hand the Conservative Boris Johnson is a bit of a rascal with the ladies and can sometimes bend the truth a bit and he’s also a bit posh.
And on the other hand..
Labours Jeremy Corbyn ............. "is a terrorist sympathiser"........
If Labour wins tomorrow and Corbyn retires/resigns soon afterwards, is it going to be a much different?
ChocolateFrog said:
Digga said:
deadslow said:
ChocolateFrog said:
You're totally deluded if you think the NHS will be "sold off".
It won't be.
correct, it will be given/taken awayIt won't be.
If a government "sold off" the NHS it'd never be voted in ever again.
As an aside to that - I think a bit more public awareness of their personal responsibilities towards the health service is an avenue we need to explore.
For example - person booking an appointment to see their GP about their sore throat and walking away with a prescription that you can buy yourself at a supermarket. Or someone walking away from their GP after a minor complaint with a packet of paracetamol.
You can buy a packet of tablets for 20p if you go to the supermarket - but going the GP route, its cost the health service about £140. People need to be aware of this type of thing and understand their responsibility to not use the health service for minor complaints.
There are a lot of people abusing the NHS via prescriptions/GP appointments/ambulance service and we need a big awareness programme to remove this type of waste. I mean - people will use the ambulance service for A&E queue jumping, rather than actually needing an ambulance. Things like this need to become socially unacceptable but we seem to just accept that people do it. An awareness programme and a culture change of how we use the NHS should be part of the long term strategy.
kuro68k said:
"We will give workers a stake in the companies they work for – and a share of the profits they help create – by requiring large companies to set up Inclusive Ownership Funds (IOFs). Up to 10% of a company will be owned collectively by employees, with dividend payments distributed equally among all, capped at £500 a year, and the rest being used to top up the Climate Apprenticeship Fund."
It'll be 1% per year, so 10% after ten years. And the workers won't own the shares, they will be in a fund controlled by Labour.Take BP as an example. Its current market value is around £95 billion.
Labour is proposing to steal £9.5 billion from BP's current shareholders. Even if they succeed when challenged in the courts of law, it'll be seen as a wealth grab, by the state, of private assets. Much of which are part of my, and others' pension fund.
Loony Labour's policy to steal private assets will destroy investors' confidence. No-one will invest in the UK if they think the government will steal their money.
kuro68k said:
I remember when people said all that about New Labour, and we actually went into a pretty long period of fiscal stability until the global financial crisis hit. At the very least it was better than the regular boom and bust cycles under the Tories.
Lets compare and contrast the New labour of manifesto of 1997 with Corbyn now.Labour in 1997-keep to Tory spending plans for a couple of years
Labour now-Spend an additional £80bn a year of current spending, plus massive capital spending, on top of already announced planned spending increases. Plus extra money for things announced since the manifesto.
Yes that is comparable, I see. Also New labour did eventually trash the public finances, it just took them a few years to get going.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff