Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

scaredofdebt

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Which results in the matter being fudged. Something the EU are expert at.

Isn't the definition of an agreed settlement, a fudge? Or maybe a compromise?

scaredofdebt

.string. wrote: »

So now we know,

o. Labour will vote against any deal reached with the EU by the Conservative Party.

o. Labour will "insist" on a new Referendum with "Remain" amongst the choices

Clearly the Party's opinion overides the People's opinion•

How very Communist!

How do "we" know this?

What is "the people's opinion" NOW?

The second referendum is supported by the party's members, they are simply acting on that, ie democratically!

scaredofdebt

Lornapink wrote: »

So Corbyn wants to take 10% of shares away from shareholders. Most shares are owned by us all via our pensions and ISA's.


Any of you here that has spent years making sacrifice to pay into a pension or equity ISA will thus have 10% of your assets confiscated. Up with the revolution comrades.


Moneysaving?

Nonsense. What makes you think this?

Enterprise_1701C

scaredofdebt wrote: »

Nonsense. What makes you think this?

https://www.ft.com/content/d7aa158a-bf52-11e8-8d55-54197280d3f7

Herzlos

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

https://www.ft.com/content/d7aa158a-bf52-11e8-8d55-54197280d3f7

Have you read it? Because the headline tells a completely different story:


"Hand 10% of equity to workers, Labour to tell major UK companies"



So he's proposing that shares in a company are shared with the staff in said company, likely over a fairly long time period so they don't need to do a buy back. He's not telling the stock market to give 10% of it's holdings to the government.


The impact that'd have on pension funds, if any, is to push the price up whilst companies are doing stock buy-backs.


Do you see any problem with workers owning shares in their company, beyond the all-eggs-in-one-basket stuff?

LHW99

I haven't read the FT's take, but I've read the BBC and city am
http://www.cityam.com/263503/labour-tell-major-uk-companies-hand-10-per-equity-workers
and it seems the plan is the 10% will go into "so-called "inclusive ownership funds"" from which the workers would get up to £500 dividend per year and any surplus "will be transferred back to our public services as a social dividend"
ie Labour taxes companies by a method that makes it look as if the workers benefit, but actually the benefit to them is relatively minor - I think this has all been discussed earlier.
various comments are made in the article from various sources. You may wish to read other takes on it, such as Bloomberg:
"Implementing the Labour proposal would essentially amount to a free giveaway. To do so, the company would either need to purchase the stake from shareholders or issue new shares, which would dilute everyone’s holdings." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-23/labour-would-force-u-k-companies-to-hand-10-of-equity-to-staff

.string.

scaredofdebt wrote: »

How do "we" know this?

What is "the people's opinion" NOW?

The second referendum is supported by the party's members, they are simply acting on that, ie democratically!

Shone relevant points.

We had a Referendum on the matter.

We then had a general election in which the Labour Party declared their intent to implement the result of that referendum.

As a result of the composite of that and what else was in the Labour manifesto, Labour got a more than expected number of seats.

Now, Labour are reversing their policy and rengeging on their contracf with their voters.

So their actions are contrary to the wishes of their electorate as expressed in the referendum and in the GE.

We have a Parliamentary Democracy where NPs are meant to do as they have said in their manifestos, not feel free to make it up as they go along.

This is not a "Labour Party" I would want to vote for; they have lost my respect.

mrginge

Herzlos wrote: »

What is democracy, if it can't change it's mind?

Good point.
When we’ve asked for the second time do we have to check again next year?

As we know you’re a big fan of error margins presumably you’d be looking for a super majority this time in order to enact a change from what we decided the first time?
Two thirds majority be enough for you?

.string.

Herzlos wrote: »

I honestly don't see how another referendum with a "Remain" option is overriding the peoples opinion. If they still want to leave (which polling shows the don't), then people are not going to choose it. If it is a Remain result, then presumably that means the peoples opinion has changed?


What is democracy, if it can't change it's mind?


I agree that it'll be poor form if they automatically reject any proposal because it comes from the Tories. That's unfortunately just politics though, and the converse would be true too. It's also likely because the Tories deal is probably a bad one in the eyes of Labour, but they should be rejecting or amending it on that basis.

Please see my previous post on this.

I see the call for a second referendum as a miss-use of the referendum process. In this case it is a certain rump of Remainders who still want their view to be paramount allied with a party putting party interests above the instructions they got from the people.

Whether this will be in Labour's interest remains to be seen. If a reasonable deal is available I can't see them benefiting from their approach.

scaredofdebt

.string. wrote: »

Shone relevant points.

We had a Referendum on the matter.

We then had a general election in which the Labour Party declared their intent to implement the result of that referendum.

As a result of the composite of that and what else was in the Labour manifesto, Labour got a more than expected number of seats.

Now, Labour are reversing their policy and rengeging on their contracf with their voters.

So their actions are contrary to the wishes of their electorate as expressed in the referendum and in the GE.

We have a Parliamentary Democracy where NPs are meant to do as they have said in their manifestos, not feel free to make it up as they go along.

This is not a "Labour Party" I would want to vote for; they have lost my respect.

The Labour manifesto does indeed support Brexit but the detail in the manifesto says they will not support May's vision of Brexit. So voters got what they voted for.

Now, 27 months after the referendum, who's to say what the "will of the people" is? Things change, we know more about Brexit and some have undoubtedly changed their minds, plus there's aother 2 million or so people eligible to vote. Every poll (I know, polls) for the last several months points towards a shift towards Remain, so another referendum would be entirely reasonable.

We had a general election in 2015 and May called another two years later (with quite different results), so a bit hypocritical of her to refuse another referendum isn't it?