If Corbyn is PM, do you think the FTSE would drop?

DragonQ

Uxb1 wrote: »

The trouble is us oldies remember the days of whole scale public ownership where
1. Prices were set and increased by HMG to get in money as disguised extra taxation for them to waste and nowt was spent on the infrastructure.
2. The service for us the consumers was appalling - I can remember two weeks as standard to get a faulty phone line repaired and a new line was 6 months. I suppose few now remember the worst days of British Rail...
3. The endless strikes, as instead of limited private funds for a pay rise the workers knew there was a never ending stream of magic money from HMG - ie taxpayers to fund their excesses.
So we sadly expect a return to public ownership to be a return to much of the above.

That's part of the problem isn't it, older generations interpret "putting more stuff in public hands" as "returning to 1970s Britain". There is a sliding scale between unfettered capitalism and communism and I would definitely argue we are too far to the former, it's as simple as that. I am happy with capitalism driving technology and various other sectors, all I am saying is that there are certain industries where the profit motive is directly opposed to public interest, healthcare being an obvious one. Prisons, water, railways are others.

There is too much wealth and power concentrated in the hands of too few and that heavily impacts the lives of everyone else (particularly those at the bottom of the pile) in an unfair way. No-one could ever justify the level of income inequality that exists right now, surely. Businesses constantly merging and every major market being reduced to a handful of huge players (if we're lucky) is a big problem too.

Yes there are always concerns of beurocracy and lack of infrastructure spending but anyone that has worked for a large company knows that these concerns are not limited to publicly owned entities. I think it's pretty obvious that both infrastructure investment (which the Tories have generally been relucatant to do, in case anyone isn't paying attention) and technology are additional drivers of improving consumer service, it's not just about the profit motive. I would hope certain industries can return to public ownership and the tax model can be changed to be fairer without causing all of the issues you mentioned. We'll see I guess.

Uxb1 wrote: »

As to the NHS - I don't think there is another country in the world that manages/finances health as we do. But each time someone suggests this model is broken all we ever get is a comment that we don't want the USA system which is right at the other end of the spectrum. Well actually it is not. Singapore is even more extreme, basically you and your extended family are expected to pay for everything.
Indeed why not look at how other countries do it - South Korea is reputed to be very good and very efficient- and guess what - every single doctors surgery and all bar 10 university hospitals are in private hands and its funded by compulsory work place levies on the employed and similar on the self employed.

Yes there are other health systems that perform better than ours in certain metrics. The South Korean system you describe sounds similar to the French model where hospitals are privately owned but publicly funded, except they've cut out the whole "tax the employer then give to the hospitals" step. It's really difficult to come up with a way of determining which is the best "overall" system but the NHS always ends up with a good score in those kinds of studies (18th in WHO, 1st in Commonwealth, etc.). Pretty good considering the current state of underfunding! Conversely, the " reputed to be very good and very efficient" South Korea is 58th on the WHO ranking.

As technology improves and the population ages, healthcare spending per person has to increase, and that means raising taxes. There's no way around that without resorting to further privatisation, which will ultimately always cost more.

lvader

They used to say Labour is bad for the economy, then Blair came round and that changed although ultimately the economy still tanked which in my mind he was only partially responsible for.

Corbyn's Labour is a whole different thing, he doesn't believe in a free market economy and be doesn't believe in property rights. I have no doubt that Corbyn would ruin the economy but I don't know if it will be the slow death kind or a massive market reaction to his policies.

AnotherJoe

newbinvestor wrote: »

If Corbyn was the permanent new PM, do you think the FTSE 100 would fall or stay where it is?

I think it would fall off a cliff, but i dont care as i have little invested in it, and everyone else also should have very little invested in it.

longleggedhair

I really don't think you should worry about Corbyn, it's the people surrounding him that frighten me, McDonnel namely, and Abbot. Yes it's true that for those of us who have saved into a pension, are property owners and have savings a Labour victory would be damaging, but the recent votes at the Labour Conference for open boarders, unlimited migration, and the calls for confiscation of private property are equally concerning.

We all have a responsibility to ensure it doesn't happen, so make sure you use your vote when the election comes. Boris is a little unorthodox, but my god I would have him any day over the disaster the Labour Party would be.

nyermen

AnotherJoe wrote: »

everyone else also should have very little invested in it.

Except for people with pension funds.

SonOf

nyermen wrote: »

Except for people with pension funds.

If you are talking occupational pension funds then you are likely looking at sector allocated portfolios where UK equity would only be a part of the holdings. And it would likely be all-share based rather than large cap only.

If you are talking about individual pensions then the vast majority of the population is multi-asset funds which only have a small allocation to UK large cap (remember the topic is about the FTSE100 not UK equity). Those that run their own portfolios in their pension will likely have very little in UK large cap.

Wheres_My_Cashback

Corbyn is the reason why Labour don't stand a chance. Replace him with someone decent and the direction and their chances would dramatically increase in today's climate.

DragonQ

longleggedhair wrote: »

I really don't think you should worry about Corbyn, it's the people surrounding him that frighten me, McDonnel namely, and Abbot. Yes it's true that for those of us who have saved into a pension, are property owners and have savings a Labour victory would be damaging, but the recent votes at the Labour Conference for open boarders, unlimited migration, and the calls for confiscation of private property are equally concerning.

Was 1980s privatisation called "confiscation of public property"?

Wheres_My_Cashback wrote: »

Corbyn is the reason why Labour don't stand a chance. Replace him with someone decent and the direction and their chances would dramatically increase in today's climate.

Without trying to be disrespectful, I'm not sure anyone who understands what "today's climate" is would make such a statement. A watered-down, more centrist Corbyn was Miliband, and he fared much worse. Unless you mean something different by "someone decent"?


I actually think Brexit is one of Labour's weakest policies (i.e. not just what is voted for at their conference) and that if we did leave on 31st October, Labour would have a better chance in the subsequent general election than they would have if Brexit was delayed.

webjaved

First thing that pops to my mind when reading the title of the thread is/was;

Why on earth would anyone want to invest in the FTSE 100?

Go easy on me!