Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

wunferall

Herzlos wrote: »

Brexit has already caused economic harm. So have the Tories. May as well let Labour have a pop.

I mean, what's wrong with hospitals and trains running properly? Why is state ownership bad when it's us but works fine for everyone else?

Despite your "economic harm" the UK has:
* Record levels of employment.
* An upbeat populace who are relaxed about the future.
* Continued growth - ahead of that of some other EU countries.
And much, much more.
( Before one of the usual suspects says "all while we are in the EU" may I remind them of Greece, Italy & France. )

Nothing's wrong with hospitals & trains running properly.
You seem to have missed the point however that buying private companies costs money.
Lots of it.
Then (from past experience) the service costs more and delivers less.

wunferall

Oh dear.
More worries that France's economy is stalling.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-france-economy-confidence/french-consumer-confidence-falls-to-lowest-level-since-april-2016-idUKKCN1M60RZ?il=0

GreatApe

Herzlos wrote: »

Brexit has already caused economic harm. So have the Tories. May as well let Labour have a pop.

I mean, what's wrong with hospitals and trains running properly? Why is state ownership bad when it's us but works fine for everyone else?

state ownership is generally bad because large state owned industries end up being run to win votes for the local MP and other bureaucrats rather than to produce good goods and services at good prices. The one exception to this I can think of is the NHS but that is such a huge industry and so spread out and so vital that it seems the politicians cant meddle too badly in it. While where I worked tens of thousands would come in to work just to sleep or play cards thats how efficient state owned steel was.

I used to work at a state owned industry, 30,000 workers producing 1 million tons of steel per year. It was then privatized and the workforce fell to 3,000 workers but we managed to increase production to 3 million tons of steel per year

There is nothing wrong with state ownership if you can guarantee no meddling and politics impacting decisions but that is not easy to do.

If you really want state ownership then maybe the state can buy small stakes in companies perhaps 5% and then have no say in how its run. But it is not about the state owning shares it is about left loonies taking power of business to try and buy votes and give their chums jobs and power

No thanks

Also the state does have a stake in all businesses via corporation tax a portion of all the profits goes to the state this is a better more honest and more sustainable way to do it

Thrugelmir

.string. wrote: »

TCorbyn will do nothing but pass a message, deliberate or not but I suspect the former, to the EU that they should stonewall their side of the negotiations and thd UK negotiation stance will collapse through parliamentary stagnation, to be replaced by a compliant "Labour Party" who wish to do exactly what the EU wants, namely remain in the EU- controlled Common Market.

The EU's leadership have their own political battles to fight. No interest in the UK power struggle. Where there's no certainty that Corbyn will garner sufficient support. The Labour party may well split. Momentum want their own MP's not Blair's babes.

buglawton

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Many PLC's already run share schemes. Not so easy for private companies. Would you be happy to give away 10% of your family business that's taken years to build. Companies with 250 employees aren't worth multi million sums neccessarily.

Needless to say the rules wouldn't apply to all sizes of company. For example in Germany workers councils with board representation are only a requirement in larger companies.

LHW99

Needless to say the rules wouldn't apply to all sizes of company.

Nor, I believe, to unlisted private companies or to those that sell in the UK but are owned abroad - cue delistings, companies reversing into foreign shell companies, company splits when they reach 249 employees, - anything to avoid being caught by the scheme and a good deal of potential corporation tax being removed from the Treasury's coffers.

Herzlos

.string. wrote: »

This is unforgivable.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/18/jeremy-corbyn-to-meet-top-eu-brexit-negotiator-michel-barnier-in-brussels

I find it difficult to express the extent of my utter contempt at Corbyn's visit and the thinking that led to it.

The UK is at the most critical stage in it's negotiations with the EU and Corbyn will do nothing but pass a message, deliberate or not but I suspect the former, to the EU that they should stonewall their side of the negotiations and thd UK negotiation stance will collapse through parliamentary stagnation, to be replaced by a compliant "Labour Party" who wish to do exactly what the EU wants, namely remain in the EU- controlled Common Market.

In my view the "Labour Party" is not currently in the National Interest and needs to be replaced by something more sensible.

"This article is over 11 months old" so I'm not sure the outrage is justified.

antrobus

Herzlos wrote: »

"This article is over 11 months old" so I'm not sure the outrage is justified.

Well he is off to speak to Barnier again, apparently.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-26/corbyn-said-to-go-to-brussels-thursday-to-meet-barnier-on-brexit

Double outrage!!!:)

Moby

Rinoa wrote: »

Does he still mention how Venezuela is showing the world the benefits of socialism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FbWsINjpRY

Zzzzzzzzzz

Moby

Herzlos wrote: »

"This article is over 11 months old" so I'm not sure the outrage is justified.

Far be it for me to say that some of us prefer the warm comfort blanket of living in the past......