Will Brexit happen?

phillw

lvader wrote: »

Governments stealing assets from companies and people is normally a very bad idea!

Conservatives did it worse than Labour are proposing. So swings and roundabouts

https://www.uksa.org.uk/action/northern_rock

I don't see why nationalizing the railways is a bad idea, it's certainly not working for the people right now. However I expect that to take more than one term to go through. So even if the lie was true that he was going to steal assets, then he isn't going to get it just because he was voted for once.

Thrugelmir

lisyloo wrote: »

Please feel free to educate me (not interested in express or daily mail) if you come here to educate then this is a chance to actually do that.

You are a grown up. Plenty of information in the public domain. Upon which to form ones owns opinions. Corbyn has been around a very long time and holds views that are on the extremes.

Filo25

phillw wrote: »

Conservatives did it worse than Labour are proposing. So swings and roundabouts

https://www.uksa.org.uk/action/northern_rock

I don't see why nationalizing the railways is a bad idea, it's certainly not working for the people right now. However I expect that to take more than one term to go through. So even if the lie was true that he was going to steal assets, then he isn't going to get it just because he was voted for once.

Railways are easy, just take them into public control as the franchises expire.

But stuff like taking 10% of all UK companies with more than 250 employees into public ownership over the next 10 years is very "out there" to be polite. I'm not sure Corbyn really views private property in the way that most people do.

phillw

Filo25 wrote: »

But stuff like taking 10% of all UK companies with more than 250 employees into public ownership over the next 10 years is very "out there" to be polite. I'm not sure Corbyn really views private property in the way that most people do.

You got the figures wrong.

This would see every company with more than 250 staff having to transfer one percent of their shares from shareholders to employees over 10 years.

It's kinda like when the conservatives bought in auto enrollment and forced companies to give extra money to employees. I don't have a strong view either way, the actual percentage might be too high & would need a period of consultation while it's debated in parliament.

John Lewis and the Co-op would disagree with you saying it was very "out there" & wouldn't think you're being very polite.

lvader

phillw wrote: »

You got the figures wrong.



John Lewis and the Co-op would disagree with you saying it was very "out there" & wouldn't think you're being very polite.

There is a huge difference between companies wishing to organise themselves that way and being forced. What do you think will happen to share prices and investment?

StevieJ

Sailtheworld wrote: »

If Boris was so keen to bring matters to a head he could've helped to do that ages ago instead of playing the long PM game.

There's a logic to the idea that the EU won't be forced into compromise if they think we wouldn't contemplate leaving without a deal. Not that I've ever thought threatening self-harm is much of a negotiating strategy you understand.

Boris' problem is that he's neither trusted nor trustworthy so there's a suspicion he wants no-deal anyway and his logic, such as it is, is nothing but a disguise for acting in bad faith.

I don't think he wants 'no deal' but he does want an election while Labour are on the back foot.

Conina

The first legal attempt to stop Boris's prorogue has failed.

... Lord Doherty ruled on Wednesday that the issue was for politicians and voters to judge, and not the courts.

He said there had been no contravention of the law by the UK government.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49568760

Great - that sets a precedent too.

Filo25

phillw wrote: »

You got the figures wrong.

This would see every company with more than 250 staff having to transfer one percent of their shares from shareholders to employees over 10 years.

It's kinda like when the conservatives bought in auto enrollment and forced companies to give extra money to employees. I don't have a strong view either way, the actual percentage might be too high & would need a period of consultation while it's debated in parliament.

John Lewis and the Co-op would disagree with you saying it was very "out there" & wouldn't think you're being very polite.

If organisations choose to organise as a co-op that is entirely their prorogative, enforced nationalisation of company shares is pretty out there by UK standards, it isn't really a case of employee ownership either, they can partiipate in some dividends up to £500 a year (assuming the company pays any), any surplus above that goes to the state.

To be fair looking at where I work it is no benefit to me, we don't pay dividends, and as a fully owned subsidiary any voting rights mean nothing, so more concerned about the principle of seizure of assets with no compensation, where does that end up stopping when you have literal communists like Milne and Murray in very senior positions in Labour.

Or how about renters being able to buy private housing from their landlord for whatever price the govt deems appropriate?

Conina

StevieJ wrote: »

I don't think he wants 'no deal' but he does want an election while Labour are on the back foot.

I wish more people "got" this , it's not that a no deal is wanted but frankly the country is being pushed into it by remainers who are actively preventing any other option being negotiated. Why on earth would the EU bother when they see a divided parliament and (still) a possibility of the UK remaining by default?

MaxiRobriguez

StevieJ wrote: »

I don't think he wants 'no deal' but he does want an election while Labour are on the back foot.

Not sure how you come to that conclusion. The short reality is that a PM who has set is stall out to deliver Brexit 'do or die' by the end of October without any election is that he will be forced (or break the law unprecedentedly) to go to Brussels with an extension whilst at the same time demanding an election. Meanwhile, the primary objective of Labour to prevent a no-deal passes with the party looking united for the first since forever. Not only that, the chances of calling a no-confidence vote and then forming a unity government has increased.

Under what circumstances have events in the past 48 hours put Labour on the back foot?