Tories propose 'people's bank bonus' in cheap shares

StevieJ

I think the real Tory achilles heel may yet be in inheritance tax, the reducing of taxes on the perceived rich (some austerity measure ) while increasing taxes on the not so well off. It may have some support in the high house price areas of the south but in the North when an election looms and people start to decide who to vote for it could be a disaster.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

WhiteHorse wrote: »

They haven't lost it ... they're just being what they are ... fat cats.

They are trying to get backing to fund their election campaign...

& they have got to hurry up.

markharding557

This bank shares idea is straight from the 1980's privatisations:eek:
They did this with the utilities and now they are some cases foreign owned and nothing more than cartels:mad:
Shows how little the tories have changed when all they come up with are ancient policies which have failed,in the long term,in their intention of selling shares to the public

1984ReturnsForReal_2

markharding557 wrote: »

their intention of selling shares to the public

Didn't they sell them off to large buyers first & then gave the scraps to the public?

lightSwitch_3

I was laughing this morning when I heard this proposal. What a load of tosh. It doesn't even make sense.

The Tories keep trying to shove things in our pockets, and that makes for good policy?
If they had said we will offer reduced mortage rates for nurses and teachers so they can live near work then I'd say they were thinking in the right direction.

blueboy43

Even quite normal people have had enough of Brown and Labour.

Its the equivalent of an open goal for the Tories. They have a handful of decent politicians (Hague, Ken Clarke, Liam Fox, David Willets) but are led by a pair of utterly vacuous air heads in Cameron and Osbourne who seem determined to make a balls of it.

Osbourne in particular seems to prove the case that an expensive education is wasted on some people. I bet his dad thanks his lucky stars that he didn't join the family business.

lightSwitch_3

blueboy43 wrote: »

Even quite normal people have had enough of Brown and Labour.

Its the equivalent of an open goal for the Tories. They have a handful of decent politicians (Hague, Ken Clarke, Liam Fox, David Willets) but are led by a pair of utterly vacuous air heads in Cameron and Osbourne who seem determined to make a balls of it.

Osbourne in particular seems to prove the case that an expensive education is wasted on some people. I bet his dad thanks his lucky stars that he didn't join the family business.

When two Tory multimillionaires say that austerity measures are required for the foreseeable future then patronise their audience ie. us, by saying "we are in this together" then how much more vacuous can you get.
The more Osbourne used that phrased the more dumb he sounded.

Radiantsoul

blueboy43 wrote: »

Osbourne in particular seems to prove the case that an expensive education is wasted on some people. I bet his dad thanks his lucky stars that he didn't join the family business.

He does seem like an odd choice really. In many ways it is surprising that people seem to have more faith in Darling than than him.

Kohoutek

blueboy43 wrote: »

Even quite normal people have had enough of Brown and Labour.

Its the equivalent of an open goal for the Tories. They have a handful of decent politicians (Hague, Ken Clarke, Liam Fox, David Willets) but are led by a pair of utterly vacuous air heads in Cameron and Osbourne who seem determined to make a balls of it.

Osbourne in particular seems to prove the case that an expensive education is wasted on some people. I bet his dad thanks his lucky stars that he didn't join the family business.

I couldn't agree more. Such a shame the genuinely able Tory politicians are sidelined to the marginal posts.

Osborne is a crazy choice for Chancellor, he literally has no experience outside politics at all, when several senior MPs have business backgrounds, especially Clarke. It's a shame David Davis didn't win the leadership contest - he would have demolished Brown by now.

lostinrates

Degenerate wrote: »

We don't need you to sell us shares we already collectively own, George.

OK, I admit, I've nly read the headlines, but think from what has been said on the thread I have interpreted them wrongly....

I presumed the shares were going to be available to be held by us privately? In which case I feel it is very different from owning them as a ''collective'' part of public asset.

Is that not what is being proposed?

(lir was out for lunch and missed the family scrum for the news papers...)