See Trump has done it again. Empty threats against NK, health bill headed for the rocks once more. What is everyone talking about? A sing song before a kick around.
If they are mandatory for mincab firms (no idea if this is the case) then fine, make them comply, don't ban them overnight.
They aren't being banned overnight. Even if they lose their appeal they will continue operating for months. The BBC reckons Uber's license in (say) Brighton would enable them to continue to function even after that...
Authorities right to stand up to Uber and apply some pressure on them to follow the rules. They are also encouraging competitors to enter the marketplace which will be of longer-term benefit to consumers.
Which is almost worse. If no one is expecting to be banned "properly", because, as per the BBC report on the DBS, it is all bullshit, then it shows the action up for the gesture politics that it is.
Huh?
If Uber continue to flout the rules - then I would imagine they will be banned properly at some point. This gives them notice that we actually expect them to follow the rules. As the BBC article notes - TfL are lobbying to close that loophole I mentioned.
You could argue Khan should have been harsher I suppose but I think this course of action is okay. It's likely to bring in competitors, give sufficient warning to Uber (they have apologised already), and avoid inconveniencing consumers in the meantime.
FWIW, I stopped going to Tory conferences in 2009.
Lots of people find them a real laugh, socially (and to be fair, they can be) with a few good fringe events, but I found them expensive and dominated by lobbyists, journalists, aspiring candidates and wannabes.
On topic, very saddened to hear of Mark's death, and a fitting final post from him, of Lib Dem success and sticking one in the eye of Tories.
I have to say I was surprised to find that Mark was as old as he was (I don't know exactly but when news of his passing was posted on here, I had a quick google and in another post on another site, he said he'd been a Liberal / successor-party member since 1966 (IIRC), and an active support since 1962, so I expect he must have been into his 70s at least. He never gave that impression here: his vigour in debate was that of a much younger man.
Will I miss him? Yes. He could be annoying, spiky and at times, downright rude, but he was knowledgeable, insightful and ever-optimistic about the Lib Dems' prospects, which even for those not of his tribe, is an essential feature for those who help to make democracy work. RIP, Mark.
If they are mandatory for mincab firms (no idea if this is the case) then fine, make them comply, don't ban them overnight.
They aren't being banned overnight. Even if they lose their appeal they will continue operating for months. The BBC reckons Uber's license in (say) Brighton would enable them to continue to function even after that...
Authorities right to stand up to Uber and apply some pressure on them to follow the rules. They are also encouraging competitors to enter the marketplace which will be of longer-term benefit to consumers.
Which is almost worse. If no one is expecting to be banned "properly", because, as per the BBC report on the DBS, it is all bullshit, then it shows the action up for the gesture politics that it is.
Looks like Uber are going to eat a bit of humble pie and comply with the rules - and good job too, why should they be special?
is it just me or are the conferences getting much less coverage than they used to, both on the telly, proper news and social media. The LD conference had all the visibility of a witness protection programme. I ask because I am really busy and might be missing it. I am also watching the Labour conference from behind the sofa.
The Lib Dems had a conference?
Yes indeed, a week ago. There was a record attendance, with 4000 members present.
To a large extent, our foreign-owned media failed to notice.
The Labour Conference (Marxist party of UK) has become a hard left mantra which many thought was dead and buried.
Where are all these labour moderates who are idly standing by and watching their party taken over by the hard left and the unions. Is is time that made a stand and resigned on block to set up a centre left party of their own
Big_G, with respect, calling Labour Marxist is the equivalent of calling AfD (or UKIP for that matter) Nazis - it's just plain silly.
is it just me or are the conferences getting much less coverage than they used to, both on the telly, proper news and social media. The LD conference had all the visibility of a witness protection programme. I ask because I am really busy and might be missing it. I am also watching the Labour conference from behind the sofa.
The Lib Dems had a conference?
Yes indeed, a week ago. There was a record attendance, with 4000 members present.
To a large extent, our foreign-owned media failed to notice.
Probably for the best. From what I saw of the conference it reflected the party very well - stuck on s pre 2016 world sporting a European flag beret....
Labour Conference sounds fun: https://order-order.com/2017/09/25/mcdonnell-parliament-determine-nationalisation-share-prices/ Investors in utility companies would not be fully compensated at market value for their shares under Labour’s nationalisation plans, John McDonnell has admitted. Speaking on Radio 4 this morning the Shadow Chancellor instead said share prices would be determined by Parliament according to how MPs perceived the past behaviour of firms
If you wanted to terminally damage business in the UK you could hardly do anything worse. It's quite bonkers.
McDonnell wasn't putting forward some new idea, parliament has debated and decided the terms of compensation in previous nationalisations in exactly the same way.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3309606 - 1949 American article on the problem of compensation with reference to Labour's nationalisations, goes on about the particular conditions of nationalisation that make compensation by market price inappropriate etc. Quite interesting. I'm sure there's more up to date stuff on this.
In theory, you're right. In practice, do we really think that McDonnell would be happy to use the market value on a given day, or to submit to independent arbitration? I suspect - and I'm sure I won't be alone in this - that Labour would use all sorts of spurious adjustments to deliberately reduce the price, both to stuff capitalist shareholders and also to make it cheaper for the government.
Labour Conference sounds fun: https://order-order.com/2017/09/25/mcdonnell-parliament-determine-nationalisation-share-prices/ Investors in utility companies would not be fully compensated at market value for their shares under Labour’s nationalisation plans, John McDonnell has admitted. Speaking on Radio 4 this morning the Shadow Chancellor instead said share prices would be determined by Parliament according to how MPs perceived the past behaviour of firms
If you wanted to terminally damage business in the UK you could hardly do anything worse. It's quite bonkers.
McDonnell wasn't putting forward some new idea, parliament has debated and decided the terms of compensation in previous nationalisations in exactly the same way.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3309606 - 1949 American article on the problem of compensation with reference to Labour's nationalisations, goes on about the particular conditions of nationalisation that make compensation by market price inappropriate etc. Quite interesting. I'm sure there's more up to date stuff on this.
Most things that happened in the past deserve to stay there.
Parliament (and in reality likely a govt) deciding how much a govt should pay for private assets is about as far away from capitalism as is possible to conceive in this country.
If they are mandatory for mincab firms (no idea if this is the case) then fine, make them comply, don't ban them overnight.
They aren't being banned overnight. Even if they lose their appeal they will continue operating for months. The BBC reckons Uber's license in (say) Brighton would enable them to continue to function even after that...
Authorities right to stand up to Uber and apply some pressure on them to follow the rules. They are also encouraging competitors to enter the marketplace which will be of longer-term benefit to consumers.
Which is almost worse. If no one is expecting to be banned "properly", because, as per the BBC report on the DBS, it is all bullshit, then it shows the action up for the gesture politics that it is.
Looks like Uber are going to eat a bit of humble pie and comply with the rules - and good job too, why should they be special?
Yep, new CEO is quickly having to get his hands dirty. Good luck to them, they have a concept/offering which is popular with the public - if they can agree to play by the rules.
This is a really interesting debate on modern society. Some on the left are blindly following the Black Cab union, and some on the right are thinking that capitalism should favour a loss-making corporatist bully with an army of lawyers and PRs. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
The Labour Conference (Marxist party of UK) has become a hard left mantra which many thought was dead and buried.
Where are all these labour moderates who are idly standing by and watching their party taken over by the hard left and the unions. Is is time that made a stand and resigned on block to set up a centre left party of their own
Big_G, with respect, calling Labour Marxist is the equivalent of calling AfD (or UKIP for that matter) Nazis - it's just plain silly.
Not really Ben - listen to Corbyn, McDonnell and McCluskey and that is their mantra. Labour moderatesneed to take a stand
Labour Conference sounds fun: https://order-order.com/2017/09/25/mcdonnell-parliament-determine-nationalisation-share-prices/ Investors in utility companies would not be fully compensated at market value for their shares under Labour’s nationalisation plans, John McDonnell has admitted. Speaking on Radio 4 this morning the Shadow Chancellor instead said share prices would be determined by Parliament according to how MPs perceived the past behaviour of firms
If you wanted to terminally damage business in the UK you could hardly do anything worse. It's quite bonkers.
McDonnell wasn't putting forward some new idea, parliament has debated and decided the terms of compensation in previous nationalisations in exactly the same way.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3309606 - 1949 American article on the problem of compensation with reference to Labour's nationalisations, goes on about the particular conditions of nationalisation that make compensation by market price inappropriate etc. Quite interesting. I'm sure there's more up to date stuff on this.
Most things that happened in the past deserve to stay there.
Parliament (and in reality likely a govt) deciding how much a govt should pay for private assets is about as far away from capitalism as is possible to conceive in this country.
It would see business investment collapse.
"Most things that happened in the past deserve to stay there."
Bollocks to Uber, they'll be government owned once Lab get in.
Listening to Macca is pretty scary stuff.
Is there any chance this new found confidence will be Labour undoing by offering stuff that seems excessive and irresponsible- I fail to see how Labour would have the money to bring PFIs to an end or bring in house, whilst nationalising water, energy, the royal mail, rail etch with our current level of debt. And free tuition fees.
The Labour Conference (Marxist party of UK) has become a hard left mantra which many thought was dead and buried.
Where are all these labour moderates who are idly standing by and watching their party taken over by the hard left and the unions. Is is time that made a stand and resigned on block to set up a centre left party of their own
Big_G, with respect, calling Labour Marxist is the equivalent of calling AfD (or UKIP for that matter) Nazis - it's just plain silly.
Not really Ben - listen to Corbyn, McDonnell and McCluskey and that is their mantra. Labour moderatesneed to take a stand
Well I agree they are properly left wing but Marxist is an exaggeration. Some kind of centre left split is not going to happen any time soon though.
The Labour Conference (Marxist party of UK) has become a hard left mantra which many thought was dead and buried.
Where are all these labour moderates who are idly standing by and watching their party taken over by the hard left and the unions. Is is time that made a stand and resigned on block to set up a centre left party of their own
Big_G, with respect, calling Labour Marxist is the equivalent of calling AfD (or UKIP for that matter) Nazis - it's just plain silly.
I think it is a reasonable shorthand description of Corbyn and McDonnell. Relatively unsophisticated examples in my judgement as an ex-Marxist.
Bollocks to Uber, they'll be government owned once Lab get in.
Listening to Macca is pretty scary stuff.
Oddly, PNN which owns SW Water is up 1.05% while the FTSE is unchanged. Either what was priced in is even worse than the reality (unlikely), or the market thinks the whole thing is so bonkers that it makes Lab unelectable.
Labour Conference sounds fun: https://order-order.com/2017/09/25/mcdonnell-parliament-determine-nationalisation-share-prices/ Investors in utility companies would not be fully compensated at market value for their shares under Labour’s nationalisation plans, John McDonnell has admitted. Speaking on Radio 4 this morning the Shadow Chancellor instead said share prices would be determined by Parliament according to how MPs perceived the past behaviour of firms
If you wanted to terminally damage business in the UK you could hardly do anything worse. It's quite bonkers.
McDonnell wasn't putting forward some new idea, parliament has debated and decided the terms of compensation in previous nationalisations in exactly the same way.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3309606 - 1949 American article on the problem of compensation with reference to Labour's nationalisations, goes on about the particular conditions of nationalisation that make compensation by market price inappropriate etc. Quite interesting. I'm sure there's more up to date stuff on this.
In theory, you're right. In practice, do we really think that McDonnell would be happy to use the market value on a given day, or to submit to independent arbitration? I suspect - and I'm sure I won't be alone in this - that Labour would use all sorts of spurious adjustments to deliberately reduce the price, both to stuff capitalist shareholders and also to make it cheaper for the government.
Hasn't every nationalising government tried to make it as cheap as possible? Hasn't every nationalisation had the same debate, and ended up setting the terms of compensation by considering a whole load of different issues and contesting arguments? I don't see what's so different now. A cursory search for 'compensation' in Hansard for the 1940s shows the kinds of debates that went on about all the various factors that must be considered to decide on the 'how' and 'how much', and same debates would probably go on in any future nationalisations. The arguments back then that it would terminally damage British industry don't seem to have played out.
Bollocks to Uber, they'll be government owned once Lab get in.
Listening to Macca is pretty scary stuff.
Is there any chance this new found confidence will be Labour undoing by offering stuff that seems excessive and irresponsible- I fail to see how Labour would have the money to bring PFIs to an end or bring in house, whilst nationalising water, energy, the royal mail, rail etch with our current level of debt. And free tuition fees.
The Labour Conference (Marxist party of UK) has become a hard left mantra which many thought was dead and buried.
Where are all these labour moderates who are idly standing by and watching their party taken over by the hard left and the unions. Is is time that made a stand and resigned on block to set up a centre left party of their own
Big_G, with respect, calling Labour Marxist is the equivalent of calling AfD (or UKIP for that matter) Nazis - it's just plain silly.
Not really Ben - listen to Corbyn, McDonnell and McCluskey and that is their mantra. Labour moderatesneed to take a stand
Well I agree they are properly left wing but Marxist is an exaggeration. Some kind of centre left split is not going to happen any time soon though.
Corbyn and McDonnell's economic model is that of Venezeula
The Labour Conference (Marxist party of UK) has become a hard left mantra which many thought was dead and buried.
Where are all these labour moderates who are idly standing by and watching their party taken over by the hard left and the unions. Is is time that made a stand and resigned on block to set up a centre left party of their own
Big_G, with respect, calling Labour Marxist is the equivalent of calling AfD (or UKIP for that matter) Nazis - it's just plain silly.
Not really Ben - listen to Corbyn, McDonnell and McCluskey and that is their mantra. Labour moderatesneed to take a stand
Did you support New Labour at all then back in the day ?
A cursory search for 'compensation' in Hansard for the 1940s shows the kinds of debates that went on about all the various factors that must be considered to decide on the 'how' and 'how much', and same debates would probably go on in any future nationalisations. The arguments back then that it would terminally damage British industry don't seem to have played out.
The world has changed enormously since then. Companies wouldn't look elsewhere and see similar market conditions in other countries. The rest of the world is not likely to follow us in the time machine back to the 1940s.
Bollocks to Uber, they'll be government owned once Lab get in.
Listening to Macca is pretty scary stuff.
Is there any chance this new found confidence will be Labour undoing by offering stuff that seems excessive and irresponsible- I fail to see how Labour would have the money to bring PFIs to an end or bring in house, whilst nationalising water, energy, the royal mail, rail etch with our current level of debt. And free tuition fees.
People's QE?
Otherwise known as printing money.
Bit of land value tax / wealth tax too probably. Let's hear the pips squeak!
Labour Conference sounds fun: https://order-order.com/2017/09/25/mcdonnell-parliament-determine-nationalisation-share-prices/ Investors in utility companies would not be fully compensated at market value for their shares under Labour’s nationalisation plans, John McDonnell has admitted. Speaking on Radio 4 this morning the Shadow Chancellor instead said share prices would be determined by Parliament according to how MPs perceived the past behaviour of firms
If you wanted to terminally damage business in the UK you could hardly do anything worse. It's quite bonkers.
McDonnell wasn't putting forward some new idea, parliament has debated and decided the terms of compensation in previous nationalisations in exactly the same way.
In theory, you're right. In practice, do we really think that McDonnell would be happy to use the market value on a given day, or to submit to independent arbitration? I suspect - and I'm sure I won't be alone in this - that Labour would use all sorts of spurious adjustments to deliberately reduce the price, both to stuff capitalist shareholders and also to make it cheaper for the government.
Hasn't every nationalising government tried to make it as cheap as possible? Hasn't every nationalisation had the same debate, and ended up setting the terms of compensation by considering a whole load of different issues and contesting arguments? I don't see what's so different now. A cursory search for 'compensation' in Hansard for the 1940s shows the kinds of debates that went on about all the various factors that must be considered to decide on the 'how' and 'how much', and same debates would probably go on in any future nationalisations. The arguments back then that it would terminally damage British industry don't seem to have played out.
I’d say that the 1940s were a time when financial services were significantly simpler than they are today, and most people didn’t have a private pension invested in the stock market.
Where we are today, a significant nationalisation programme at less than market prices will cause a run on the pound and the stock market before it even happens, and several large pensions providers will find themselves bankrupt and in need of nationalisation themselves.
More than ever in the next few years, and despite what we all think of them and their previous record, expect political opinion polling to influence the stock market quite significantly.
A cursory search for 'compensation' in Hansard for the 1940s shows the kinds of debates that went on about all the various factors that must be considered to decide on the 'how' and 'how much', and same debates would probably go on in any future nationalisations. The arguments back then that it would terminally damage British industry don't seem to have played out.
The world has changed enormously since then. Companies wouldn't look elsewhere and see similar market conditions in other countries. The rest of the world is not likely to follow us in the time machine back to the 1940s.
How does, say, the East Coast mainline get moved elsewhere? Or any of the UK utilities for that matter?
Bollocks to Uber, they'll be government owned once Lab get in.
Listening to Macca is pretty scary stuff.
Is there any chance this new found confidence will be Labour undoing by offering stuff that seems excessive and irresponsible- I fail to see how Labour would have the money to bring PFIs to an end or bring in house, whilst nationalising water, energy, the royal mail, rail etch with our current level of debt. And free tuition fees.
People's QE?
Otherwise known as printing money.
Bit of land value tax / wealth tax too probably. Let's hear the pips squeak!
If you have a private pension, as most people do, it's your pension fund that McDonnell and Corbyn will be indirectly raiding. So laugh harder, you will be paying for it.
The Labour Conference (Marxist party of UK) has become a hard left mantra which many thought was dead and buried.
Where are all these labour moderates who are idly standing by and watching their party taken over by the hard left and the unions. Is is time that made a stand and resigned on block to set up a centre left party of their own
Big_G, with respect, calling Labour Marxist is the equivalent of calling AfD (or UKIP for that matter) Nazis - it's just plain silly.
Not really Ben - listen to Corbyn, McDonnell and McCluskey and that is their mantra. Labour moderatesneed to take a stand
Did you support New Labour at all then back in the day ?
Voted for Blair in 1997 and 2001 - so the answer to your question is yes
Labour Conference sounds fun: https://order-order.com/2017/09/25/mcdonnell-parliament-determine-nationalisation-share-prices/ Investors in utility companies would not be fully compensated at market value for their shares under Labour’s nationalisation plans, John McDonnell has admitted. Speaking on Radio 4 this morning the Shadow Chancellor instead said share prices would be determined by Parliament according to how MPs perceived the past behaviour of firms
If you wanted to terminally damage business in the UK you could hardly do anything worse. It's quite bonkers.
McDonnell wasn't putting forward some new idea, parliament has debated and decided the terms of compensation in previous nationalisations in exactly the same way.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3309606 - 1949 American article on the problem of compensation with reference to Labour's nationalisations, goes on about the particular conditions of nationalisation that make compensation by market price inappropriate etc. Quite interesting. I'm sure there's more up to date stuff on this.
In theory, you're right. In practice, do we really think that McDonnell would be happy to use the market value on a given day, or to submit to independent arbitration? I suspect - and I'm sure I won't be alone in this - that Labour would use all sorts of spurious adjustments to deliberately reduce the price, both to stuff capitalist shareholders and also to make it cheaper for the government.
Hasn't every nationalising government tried to make it as cheap as possible? Hasn't every nationalisation had the same debate, and ended up setting the terms of compensation by considering a whole load of different issues and contesting arguments? I don't see what's so different now. A cursory search for 'compensation' in Hansard for the 1940s shows the kinds of debates that went on about all the various factors that must be considered to decide on the 'how' and 'how much', and same debates would probably go on in any future nationalisations. The arguments back then that it would terminally damage British industry don't seem to have played out.
80% of Severn Trent shareholder hold less than 1,000 shares in the company. As one example.
The one thing that is becoming very clear is that there will be a very big difference on offer at the next GE which will be fought with a new conservative leader
Bollocks to Uber, they'll be government owned once Lab get in.
Listening to Macca is pretty scary stuff.
Oddly, PNN which owns SW Water is up 1.05% while the FTSE is unchanged. Either what was priced in is even worse than the reality (unlikely), or the market thinks the whole thing is so bonkers that it makes Lab unelectable.
Severn Trent up 0.8% today.
I suspect it is more that an election seems years away, so why worry, as an investor.
Bollocks to Uber, they'll be government owned once Lab get in.
Listening to Macca is pretty scary stuff.
Is there any chance this new found confidence will be Labour undoing by offering stuff that seems excessive and irresponsible- I fail to see how Labour would have the money to bring PFIs to an end or bring in house, whilst nationalising water, energy, the royal mail, rail etch with our current level of debt. And free tuition fees.
People's QE?
Otherwise known as printing money.
Bit of land value tax / wealth tax too probably. Let's hear the pips squeak!
If you have a private pension, as most people do, it's your pension fund that McDonnell and Corbyn will be indirectly raiding. So laugh harder, you will be paying for it.
"The wealthiest 1% of households hold about 20% of household wealth, the top 5% of hold approximately 40%, and the top 10% hold over 50% of wealth", according to the IFS. I think there's plenty of room for manoeuvre.
A cursory search for 'compensation' in Hansard for the 1940s shows the kinds of debates that went on about all the various factors that must be considered to decide on the 'how' and 'how much', and same debates would probably go on in any future nationalisations. The arguments back then that it would terminally damage British industry don't seem to have played out.
The world has changed enormously since then. Companies wouldn't look elsewhere and see similar market conditions in other countries. The rest of the world is not likely to follow us in the time machine back to the 1940s.
How does, say, the East Coast mainline get moved elsewhere? Or any of the UK utilities for that matter?
Obviously some assets can't be moved to escape Labour's grasp, but the message it would send out is that if the government feels like it it will seize your assets and pay you a fraction of their value. Do you really think a government behaving like that will attract much investment into UK industry?
Bollocks to Uber, they'll be government owned once Lab get in.
Listening to Macca is pretty scary stuff.
Is there any chance this new found confidence will be Labour undoing by offering stuff that seems excessive and irresponsible- I fail to see how Labour would have the money to bring PFIs to an end or bring in house, whilst nationalising water, energy, the royal mail, rail etch with our current level of debt. And free tuition fees.
A cursory search for 'compensation' in Hansard for the 1940s shows the kinds of debates that went on about all the various factors that must be considered to decide on the 'how' and 'how much', and same debates would probably go on in any future nationalisations. The arguments back then that it would terminally damage British industry don't seem to have played out.
The world has changed enormously since then. Companies wouldn't look elsewhere and see similar market conditions in other countries. The rest of the world is not likely to follow us in the time machine back to the 1940s.
How does, say, the East Coast mainline get moved elsewhere? Or any of the UK utilities for that matter?
Obviously some assets can't be moved to escape Labour's grasp, but the message it would send out is that if the government feels like it it will seize your assets and pay you a fraction of their value. Do you really think a government behaving like that will attract much investment into UK industry?
The type of nationalisations being discussed would only bring us back into line with most of Europe, so yes I think investment into UK will be fine.
If they are mandatory for mincab firms (no idea if this is the case) then fine, make them comply, don't ban them overnight.
They aren't being banned overnight. Even if they lose their appeal they will continue operating for months. The BBC reckons Uber's license in (say) Brighton would enable them to continue to function even after that...
Authorities right to stand up to Uber and apply some pressure on them to follow the rules. They are also encouraging competitors to enter the marketplace which will be of longer-term benefit to consumers.
Which is almost worse. If no one is expecting to be banned "properly", because, as per the BBC report on the DBS, it is all bullshit, then it shows the action up for the gesture politics that it is.
Looks like Uber are going to eat a bit of humble pie and comply with the rules - and good job too, why should they be special?
Yep, new CEO is quickly having to get his hands dirty. Good luck to them, they have a concept/offering which is popular with the public - if they can agree to play by the rules.
This is a really interesting debate on modern society. Some on the left are blindly following the Black Cab union, and some on the right are thinking that capitalism should favour a loss-making corporatist bully with an army of lawyers and PRs. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
Ultimately the gig economy provides cheap services at a cost to the taxpayer (corporate tax dodging, in work benefits, free use of public roads), and depends on exploitation of the (often immigrant) workers.
We can protect industries from this, but at a cost to the consumer. Globalisation in a nutshell.
A cursory search for 'compensation' in Hansard for the 1940s shows the kinds of debates that went on about all the various factors that must be considered to decide on the 'how' and 'how much', and same debates would probably go on in any future nationalisations. The arguments back then that it would terminally damage British industry don't seem to have played out.
The world has changed enormously since then. Companies wouldn't look elsewhere and see similar market conditions in other countries. The rest of the world is not likely to follow us in the time machine back to the 1940s.
How does, say, the East Coast mainline get moved elsewhere? Or any of the UK utilities for that matter?
Obviously some assets can't be moved to escape Labour's grasp, but the message it would send out is that if the government feels like it it will seize your assets and pay you a fraction of their value. Do you really think a government behaving like that will attract much investment into UK industry?
The type of nationalisations being discussed would only bring us back into line with most of Europe, so yes I think investment into UK will be fine.
The market would sink like a stone if McDonnell got anywhere near power and private pension investments would collapse
Bollocks to Uber, they'll be government owned once Lab get in.
Listening to Macca is pretty scary stuff.
Oddly, PNN which owns SW Water is up 1.05% while the FTSE is unchanged. Either what was priced in is even worse than the reality (unlikely), or the market thinks the whole thing is so bonkers that it makes Lab unelectable.
Severn Trent up 0.8% today.
I suspect it is more that an election seems years away, so why worry, as an investor.
If Labour won with the promise of nationalisation of utilities it could drive the share prices up - if people think they will pay the market value, or down if people think they won't.
Either way - I'm unconvinced that market value alone at one point in time is the fairest way to balance the interests of owners and taxpayers.
A cursory search for 'compensation' in Hansard for the 1940s shows the kinds of debates that went on about all the various factors that must be considered to decide on the 'how' and 'how much', and same debates would probably go on in any future nationalisations. The arguments back then that it would terminally damage British industry don't seem to have played out.
The world has changed enormously since then. Companies wouldn't look elsewhere and see similar market conditions in other countries. The rest of the world is not likely to follow us in the time machine back to the 1940s.
How does, say, the East Coast mainline get moved elsewhere? Or any of the UK utilities for that matter?
Obviously some assets can't be moved to escape Labour's grasp, but the message it would send out is that if the government feels like it it will seize your assets and pay you a fraction of their value. Do you really think a government behaving like that will attract much investment into UK industry?
The type of nationalisations being discussed would only bring us back into line with most of Europe, so yes I think investment into UK will be fine.
Do you agree with no paying the market rate though to take control?
A cursory search for 'compensation' in Hansard for the 1940s shows the kinds of debates that went on about all the various factors that must be considered to decide on the 'how' and 'how much', and same debates would probably go on in any future nationalisations. The arguments back then that it would terminally damage British industry don't seem to have played out.
The world has changed enormously since then. Companies wouldn't look elsewhere and see similar market conditions in other countries. The rest of the world is not likely to follow us in the time machine back to the 1940s.
How does, say, the East Coast mainline get moved elsewhere? Or any of the UK utilities for that matter?
Obviously some assets can't be moved to escape Labour's grasp, but the message it would send out is that if the government feels like it it will seize your assets and pay you a fraction of their value. Do you really think a government behaving like that will attract much investment into UK industry?
The type of nationalisations being discussed would only bring us back into line with most of Europe, so yes I think investment into UK will be fine.
Do you agree with no paying the market rate though to take control?
Consider this - Labour commits to paying whatever the market value is of water companies in the event they win the election. They win the election. Market value of water companies now doubles/trebles/quadruples as they have a guaranteed buyer.
Bollocks to Uber, they'll be government owned once Lab get in.
Listening to Macca is pretty scary stuff.
Oddly, PNN which owns SW Water is up 1.05% while the FTSE is unchanged. Either what was priced in is even worse than the reality (unlikely), or the market thinks the whole thing is so bonkers that it makes Lab unelectable.
Severn Trent up 0.8% today.
I suspect it is more that an election seems years away, so why worry, as an investor.
If Labour won with the promise of nationalisation of utilities it could drive the share prices up - if people think they will pay the market value, or down if people think they won't.
Either way - I'm unconvinced that market value alone at one point in time is the fairest way to balance the interests of owners and taxpayers.
The sort of people who think Lab will pay the market value will already have had their affairs put in the hands of trustees by the Court of Protection.
Bollocks to Uber, they'll be government owned once Lab get in.
Listening to Macca is pretty scary stuff.
Oddly, PNN which owns SW Water is up 1.05% while the FTSE is unchanged. Either what was priced in is even worse than the reality (unlikely), or the market thinks the whole thing is so bonkers that it makes Lab unelectable.
Severn Trent up 0.8% today.
I suspect it is more that an election seems years away, so why worry, as an investor.
Because you'd be crackers not to.
I listened to the Shadow Chancellor this morning and just about kept control of the car, as I did..
Now don't get me wrong I can be persuaded that water of itself does not sit happily in the private sector like supermarkets or car makers or hairdressers do, but saying Parliament will decide the price is pretty much disapropriation.
"We've had a vote in our household Mr McDonnell and I've decided your house is worth £5K and I'm going to give you, by way of recompense, an IOU I've just printed, of unknown maturity, interest rate, and exchangeability. OK?". Thought not.
It's the effect it has in confidence in everything else that's the killer. I see he mentioned (if by accident?) "construction" as one of his personal priorities, so if you've got shares in any building groups, or your pension scheme that you're relying on for your dotage does - take note.
A fitting tribute to Mark Senior - and also appropriate to see a fond memory of SBS (who unlike Mark I had the pleasure of meeting.)
PB is now well enough established that it has a sense of prior generations - and they were both prominent members of an earlier generation and well worth honouring.
Just one note on Germany - talk of Angela Merkel's demise is premature for a couple of reasons. Firstly the coalition options would always have been GroKo (Grosse Koalition - or crocodile for short) or Jamaica. Although the numbers have changed - fewer CDU than expected - the fundamentals of needing to deal with both FDP and die Gruene are just the same as if she had 50 more seats. And secondly much of the loss was due to the sister CSU party in Bavaria, who prevaricated their support then swung behind her. Sounds like they annoyed both Merkel fans and skeptics in doing so and lost support - but Merkel is insulated from these losses to an extent.
If they are mandatory for mincab firms (no idea if this is the case) then fine, make them comply, don't ban them overnight.
They aren't being banned overnight. Even if they lose their appeal they will continue operating for months. The BBC reckons Uber's license in (say) Brighton would enable them to continue to function even after that...
Authorities right to stand up to Uber and apply some pressure on them to follow the rules. They are also encouraging competitors to enter the marketplace which will be of longer-term benefit to consumers.
Which is almost worse. If no one is expecting to be banned "properly", because, as per the BBC report on the DBS, it is all bullshit, then it shows the action up for the gesture politics that it is.
Looks like Uber are going to eat a bit of humble pie and comply with the rules - and good job too, why should they be special?
Yep, new CEO is quickly having to get his hands dirty. Good luck to them, they have a concept/offering which is popular with the public - if they can agree to play by the rules.
This is a really interesting debate on modern society. Some on the left are blindly following the Black Cab union, and some on the right are thinking that capitalism should favour a loss-making corporatist bully with an army of lawyers and PRs. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
Ultimately the gig economy provides cheap services at a cost to the taxpayer (corporate tax dodging, in work benefits, free use of public roads), and depends on exploitation of the (often immigrant) workers.
We can protect industries from this, but at a cost to the consumer. Globalisation in a nutshell.
Willing buyer, willing seller - this is not exploitation. I've used Uber 100s of times and my drivers have been fervent capitalists. They see the job as a way to get money to progress - many are studying or running part time businesses too. It's about aspiration.
Question - how many black cab drivers do we reckon declare all their 'sorry mate, cash only' earnings?
A cursory search for 'compensation' in Hansard for the 1940s shows the kinds of debates that went on about all the various factors that must be considered to decide on the 'how' and 'how much', and same debates would probably go on in any future nationalisations. The arguments back then that it would terminally damage British industry don't seem to have played out.
The world has changed enormously since then. Companies wouldn't look elsewhere and see similar market conditions in other countries. The rest of the world is not likely to follow us in the time machine back to the 1940s.
How does, say, the East Coast mainline get moved elsewhere? Or any of the UK utilities for that matter?
Obviously some assets can't be moved to escape Labour's grasp, but the message it would send out is that if the government feels like it it will seize your assets and pay you a fraction of their value. Do you really think a government behaving like that will attract much investment into UK industry?
The type of nationalisations being discussed would only bring us back into line with most of Europe, so yes I think investment into UK will be fine.
Nope, cannot agree. People will run a mile. Some have already altered arrangement to respond to this. Like me for one.
Bollocks to Uber, they'll be government owned once Lab get in.
Listening to Macca is pretty scary stuff.
Oddly, PNN which owns SW Water is up 1.05% while the FTSE is unchanged. Either what was priced in is even worse than the reality (unlikely), or the market thinks the whole thing is so bonkers that it makes Lab unelectable.
Severn Trent up 0.8% today.
I suspect it is more that an election seems years away, so why worry, as an investor.
Because you'd be crackers not to.
I listened to the Shadow Chancellor this morning and just about kept control of the car, as I did..
Now don't get me wrong I can be persuaded that water of itself does not sit happily in the private sector like supermarkets or car makers or hairdressers do, but saying Parliament will decide the price is pretty much disapropriation.
"We've had a vote in our household Mr McDonnell and I've decided your house is worth £5K and I'm going to give you, by way of recompense, an IOU I've just printed, of unknown maturity, interest rate, and exchangeability. OK?". Thought not.
It's the effect it has in confidence in everything else that's the killer. I see he mentioned (if by accident?) "construction" as one of his personal priorities, so if you've got shares in any building groups, or your pension scheme that you're relying on for your dotage does - take note.
I agree on construction. He slipped that in. Not sure anyone in media has noticed yet?
A nice tribute Mike particularly reprinting his last post. Typically acerbic and witty. He did once post a photo of himself but it was some years ago. One of my favourite posters. Unshakeable in his beliefs and never posted just for effect but could be be very cutting towards (usually Tory) poseurs who did.
As you say never afraid of a scrap and there was no one better to have on your side. A great pity that the last great political event that he witnessed was Brexit which he loathed.
For his encyclopedic knowledge of local elections and for his rugged and unique posting style he'll be missed. Certainly by me.
+1 I remember when I started posting back in 2005 under a different name, how much a stalwart he was to the Lib Dem cause , which offered balance when the site as now ,is dominated by blue on blue partisans in the main.Thanks
I don't think the site is really dominated by 'blue on blue partisans'. Certainly there are numerous Labour supporters from Justin and Jonathan to Southam Observer even if they are not all Corbynistas, of the Tory posters you can count the May loyalists on one hand ie mainly BigG. Mark's passing means 1 less LD but OGH is one and runs the site and of course we even have our SNP backers like Scotslass and MalcG
Once again you make the wrong assumption. Not being a Tory does not make me a Labour supporter.
I agree on construction. He slipped that in. Not sure anyone in media has noticed yet?
I know Labour have talked about the government building houses, but that does seem to be a new commitment or a mistake on his part.
I suspect it was a personal view slipped out, or something that has been talked about as a possibility. You could see the attraction. House builders don't build houses enough, so let's take control.
Bollocks to Uber, they'll be government owned once Lab get in.
Listening to Macca is pretty scary stuff.
Maggie's famous line form the Bruges speech about pushing back the frontiers of the state at UK level looks very back to front at the moment.
Seizing assets without even paying the market rate is a thin edge of the wedge.
What next after utilities and water?
Larger houses?
No, that comes before. See the post-Grenfell debates.
Any Leavers beginning to reflect that we may need to stay in the EU to protect us.
Hmm It wouldn't be ideal, but if the British public want a McDonnell Brexit then I'm not so arrogant as to think my opinion counts for more than the UK as a whole...
I agree on construction. He slipped that in. Not sure anyone in media has noticed yet?
I know Labour have talked about the government building houses, but that does seem to be a new commitment or a mistake on his part.
I suspect it was a personal view slipped out, or something that has been talked about as a possibility. You could see the attraction. House builders don't build houses enough, so let's take control.
I don't suppose there are many industries or trades that McDonnell and Corbyn think should remain in private hands.
A cursory search for 'compensation' in Hansard for the 1940s shows the kinds of debates that went on about all the various factors that must be considered to decide on the 'how' and 'how much', and same debates would probably go on in any future nationalisations. The arguments back then that it would terminally damage British industry don't seem to have played out.
The world has changed enormously since then. Companies wouldn't look elsewhere and see similar market conditions in other countries. The rest of the world is not likely to follow us in the time machine back to the 1940s.
How does, say, the East Coast mainline get moved elsewhere? Or any of the UK utilities for that matter?
Obviously some assets can't be moved to escape Labour's grasp, but the message it would send out is that if the government feels like it it will seize your assets and pay you a fraction of their value. Do you really think a government behaving like that will attract much investment into UK industry?
The type of nationalisations being discussed would only bring us back into line with most of Europe, so yes I think investment into UK will be fine.
The market would sink like a stone if McDonnell got anywhere near power and private pension investments would collapse
He would also have to oversee the biggest cuts in the NHS ever. Within six months, it would be the most reviled Govt. of all time.
But maybe that is what we need to finally kill off the scourge of Socialism in this country.
Bollocks to Uber, they'll be government owned once Lab get in.
Listening to Macca is pretty scary stuff.
Maggie's famous line form the Bruges speech about pushing back the frontiers of the state at UK level looks very back to front at the moment.
Seizing assets without even paying the market rate is a thin edge of the wedge.
What next after utilities and water?
Larger houses?
No, that comes before. See the post-Grenfell debates.
Any Leavers beginning to reflect that we may need to stay in the EU to protect us.
The difference is at least we can kick loons like Corbyn out. How do I fire the Swedish/Latvian/French/whatever commissioner or stop the flow of regulations decided by QMV?
Time to bring out the 1992 'Labour tax bombshell' posters from the CCHQ basement
The ones they should have used in June you mean?
Certainly, it is notable in New Zealand on Saturday the Nationals went from level pegging or even trailing Labour to a clear poll lead on election night with a heavy negative campaign on Labour tax rises, it was brutal but it worked
Bollocks to Uber, they'll be government owned once Lab get in.
Listening to Macca is pretty scary stuff.
Maggie's famous line form the Bruges speech about pushing back the frontiers of the state at UK level looks very back to front at the moment.
Seizing assets without even paying the market rate is a thin edge of the wedge.
What next after utilities and water?
Larger houses?
No, that comes before. See the post-Grenfell debates.
Any Leavers beginning to reflect that we may need to stay in the EU to protect us.
The difference is at least we can kick loons like Corbyn out. How do I fire the Swedish/Latvian/French/whatever commissioner or stop the flow of regulations decided by QMV?
A nice tribute Mike particularly reprinting his last post. Typically acerbic and witty. He did once post a photo of himself but it was some years ago. One of my favourite posters. Unshakeable in his beliefs and never posted just for effect but could be be very cutting towards (usually Tory) poseurs who did.
As you say never afraid of a scrap and there was no one better to have on your side. A great pity that the last great political event that he witnessed was Brexit which he loathed.
For his encyclopedic knowledge of local elections and for his rugged and unique posting style he'll be missed. Certainly by me.
+1 I remember when I started posting back in 2005 under a different name, how much a stalwart he was to the Lib Dem cause , which offered balance when the site as now ,is dominated by blue on blue partisans in the main.Thanks
I don't think the site is really dominated by 'blue on blue partisans'. Certainly there are numerous Labour supporters from Justin and Jonathan to Southam Observer even if they are not all Corbynistas, of the Tory posters you can count the May loyalists on one hand ie mainly BigG. Mark's passing means 1 less LD but OGH is one and runs the site and of course we even have our SNP backers like Scotslass and MalcG
Once again you make the wrong assumption. Not being a Tory does not make me a Labour supporter.
When did you last vote Tory then? You clearly prefer Labour governments to Tory ones
Thing is, the headlines are about capping credit card fees which is the least bonkers measure announced and arguably not a dreadful idea.
So the public's message will be that those nice sensible Labour types are doing something about those vampire squid credit card companies. What's that? Free puppies also, you say? Well what's not to like?
AfD in the end received 1% fewer votes [ 12.4% [. On the direct mandate [ FPTP ], they won 3 seats against 5 for the Left. All 3 seats came in the far east of Germany around Dresden. So we now which part of Germany is the most racist,
So, Jamaica coalition 393 out of 709. All 4 minor parties within 4 percent, but big winners AfD on 94 and FDP on 80, both from nowhere having been below the threshold last time. Left and Greens edge up also.
The expectation is that this is going to take months to put together. Merkel is much weakened which is not necessarily good news for the UK. In negotiations an essential element is the ability of a party to say yes. AfD are opposed to ever closer Union, amongst other things of course.
The result for Merkel in Germany is worse than that for May here this June. I'm amazed at the inability of mainstream political commentators to notice that not only does she not have anything like a majority (it looks likely to be the CDU/CSU's worst share since 1949), she may not be able to put together a functioning majority* government at all. The blithe talk of 'Merkel being elected for a fourth term' ignores both that and potential repercussions for her leadership personally, either in coalition negotiations or internally within her party.
* i.e. one that has the reliable confidence of the parliament, even if not on all votes.
That sounds like it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that we may get a second election, or an unstable minority coalition relying on others for every vote in Parliament.
Both have to be realistic possibilities. Indeed, they're not mutually exclusive: a minority coalition (or the failure to agree a coalition at all, if the CDU decide that a minority deal with FDP or Greens wouldn't be worth it, and a majority Jamaica or SPD deal can't be struck) could well lead to another election within a year.
The FDP were in coalition with the SPD under Brandt and Schmidt 1969 - 1982 so there is at least a theoretical possibility of a SPD/Green/FDP coalition if granted Die Linke support on a Confidence & Supply basis! Unlikely though.
Once again you make the wrong assumption. Not being a Tory does not make me a Labour supporter.
When did you last vote Tory then? You clearly prefer Labour governments to Tory ones
If this board is representative of public opinion (and I don't necessarily see that as desirable), some 40% of it should have voted for Corbyn's Labour party. I think that highly unlikely.
My guess would be we are over-represented on Lib Dems and Conservatives. Under-represented on UKIP and Labour.
A nice tribute Mike particularly reprinting his last post. Typically acerbic and witty. He did once post a photo of himself but it was some years ago. One of my favourite posters. Unshakeable in his beliefs and never posted just for effect but could be be very cutting towards (usually Tory) poseurs who did.
As you say never afraid of a scrap and there was no one better to have on your side. A great pity that the last great political event that he witnessed was Brexit which he loathed.
For his encyclopedic knowledge of local elections and for his rugged and unique posting style he'll be missed. Certainly by me.
+1 I remember when I started posting back in 2005 under a different name, how much a stalwart he was to the Lib Dem cause , which offered balance when the site as now ,is dominated by blue on blue partisans in the main.Thanks
I don't think the site is really dominated by 'blue on blue partisans'. Certainly there are numerous Labour supporters from Justin and Jonathan to Southam Observer even if they are not all Corbynistas, of the Tory posters you can count the May loyalists on one hand ie mainly BigG. Mark's passing means 1 less LD but OGH is one and runs the site and of course we even have our SNP backers like Scotslass and MalcG
Once again you make the wrong assumption. Not being a Tory does not make me a Labour supporter.
When did you last vote Tory then? You clearly prefer Labour governments to Tory ones
I have never voted Tory but that fact does not make me a Labour supporter! Moreover, I would certainly have preferred the 1951 - 1964 Tory Govt to the Blair Government. 2015 was the first time I voted Labour at a Parliamentary election since 1992 - ie there were four General Elections plus a by election in 2009 when I voted for other candidates!
Time to bring out the 1992 'Labour tax bombshell' posters from the CCHQ basement
It was a Conservative tax bombshell being hidden at the last election.
No the main one was the visible dementia tax which the Tories have now scrapped
No -- the Conservative manifesto dropped the tax pledge, and there had already been an attempt to raise NI in the budget. This is why Hammond was hidden away during the election campaign, and why CCHQ did not start a fight with Labour on tax.
A nice tribute Mike particularly reprinting his last post. Typically acerbic and witty. He did once post a photo of himself but it was some years ago. One of my favourite posters. Unshakeable in his beliefs and never posted just for effect but could be be very cutting towards (usually Tory) poseurs who did.
As you say never afraid of a scrap and there was no one better to have on your side. A great pity that the last great political event that he witnessed was Brexit which he loathed.
For his encyclopedic knowledge of local elections and for his rugged and unique posting style he'll be missed. Certainly by me.
+1 I remember when I started posting back in 2005 under a different name, how much a stalwart he was to the Lib Dem cause , which offered balance when the site as now ,is dominated by blue on blue partisans in the main.Thanks
I don't think the site is really dominated by 'blue on blue partisans'. Certainly there are numerous Labour supporters from Justin and Jonathan to Southam Observer even if they are not all Corbynistas, of the Tory posters you can count the May loyalists on one hand ie mainly BigG. Mark's passing means 1 less LD but OGH is one and runs the site and of course we even have our SNP backers like Scotslass and MalcG
Once again you make the wrong assumption. Not being a Tory does not make me a Labour supporter.
When did you last vote Tory then? You clearly prefer Labour governments to Tory ones
I have never voted Tory but that fact does not make me a Labour supporter!
Thankyou so you are clearly anti Tory hence evidence this site is not solely made up of Tory posters
The fact you may have voted LD or Green in the Blair years does not change that, many current Labour voters did too
Just one note on Germany - talk of Angela Merkel's demise is premature for a couple of reasons. Firstly the coalition options would always have been GroKo (Grosse Koalition - or crocodile for short) or Jamaica. Although the numbers have changed - fewer CDU than expected - the fundamentals of needing to deal with both FDP and die Gruene are just the same as if she had 50 more seats. And secondly much of the loss was due to the sister CSU party in Bavaria, who prevaricated their support then swung behind her. Sounds like they annoyed both Merkel fans and skeptics in doing so and lost support - but Merkel is insulated from these losses to an extent.
I completely agree with this. In fact going all the way back to 2005 I think Merkel has tried to cultivate the possibility of bringing the Greens into coalition should she ever need it. If Jamaica had been an option at that time, she wouldn't have needed to form the first grand coalition and the story of her time in office would have been very different.
A cursory search for 'compensation' in Hansard for the 1940s shows the kinds of debates that went on about all the various factors that must be considered to decide on the 'how' and 'how much', and same debates would probably go on in any future nationalisations. The arguments back then that it would terminally damage British industry don't seem to have played out.
The world has changed enormously since then. Companies wouldn't look elsewhere and see similar market conditions in other countries. The rest of the world is not likely to follow us in the time machine back to the 1940s.
How does, say, the East Coast mainline get moved elsewhere? Or any of the UK utilities for that matter?
Obviously some assets can't be moved to escape Labour's grasp, but the message it would send out is that if the government feels like it it will seize your assets and pay you a fraction of their value. Do you really think a government behaving like that will attract much investment into UK industry?
The type of nationalisations being discussed would only bring us back into line with most of Europe, so yes I think investment into UK will be fine.
The market would sink like a stone if McDonnell got anywhere near power and private pension investments would collapse
He would also have to oversee the biggest cuts in the NHS ever. Within six months, it would be the most reviled Govt. of all time.
But maybe that is what we need to finally kill off the scourge of Socialism in this country.
Project Fear doesn't work anymore.
5 years of Corbyn and co could be fun, but worth noting that single term governments are a rarity, so could well be 10 or more.
A nice tribute Mike particularly reprinting his last post. Typically acerbic and witty. He did once post a photo of himself but it was some years ago. One of my favourite posters. Unshakeable in his beliefs and never posted just for effect but could be be very cutting towards (usually Tory) poseurs who did.
As you say never afraid of a scrap and there was no one better to have on your side. A great pity that the last great political event that he witnessed was Brexit which he loathed.
For his encyclopedic knowledge of local elections and for his rugged and unique posting style he'll be missed. Certainly by me.
+1 I remember when I started posting back in 2005 under a different name, how much a stalwart he was to the Lib Dem cause , which offered balance when the site as now ,is dominated by blue on blue partisans in the main.Thanks
I don't think the site is really dominated by 'blue on blue partisans'. Certainly there are numerous Labour supporters from Justin and Jonathan to Southam Observer even if they are not all Corbynistas, of the Tory posters you can count the May loyalists on one hand ie mainly BigG. Mark's passing means 1 less LD but OGH is one and runs the site and of course we even have our SNP backers like Scotslass and MalcG
Once again you make the wrong assumption. Not being a Tory does not make me a Labour supporter.
Once again you make the wrong assumption. Not being a Tory does not make me a Labour supporter.
When did you last vote Tory then? You clearly prefer Labour governments to Tory ones
If this board is representative of public opinion (and I don't necessarily see that as desirable), some 40% of it should have voted for Corbyn's Labour party. I think that highly unlikely.
My guess would be we are over-represented on Lib Dems and Conservatives. Under-represented on UKIP and Labour.
In 2015 a poll was done here of which party PBers voted for, as I said earlier Tory and Labour voteshare almost exactly matched the UK average but as you say LDs were overrepresented and UKIP underrepresented.
Where this site is underrepresented is working class Leave voters not left-wingers
A cursory search for 'compensation' in Hansard for the 1940s shows the kinds of debates that went on about all the various factors that must be considered to decide on the 'how' and 'how much', and same debates would probably go on in any future nationalisations. The arguments back then that it would terminally damage British industry don't seem to have played out.
The world has changed enormously since then. Companies wouldn't look elsewhere and see similar market conditions in other countries. The rest of the world is not likely to follow us in the time machine back to the 1940s.
How does, say, the East Coast mainline get moved elsewhere? Or any of the UK utilities for that matter?
Obviously some assets can't be moved to escape Labour's grasp, but the message it would send out is that if the government feels like it it will seize your assets and pay you a fraction of their value. Do you really think a government behaving like that will attract much investment into UK industry?
The type of nationalisations being discussed would only bring us back into line with most of Europe, so yes I think investment into UK will be fine.
The market would sink like a stone if McDonnell got anywhere near power and private pension investments would collapse
He would also have to oversee the biggest cuts in the NHS ever. Within six months, it would be the most reviled Govt. of all time.
But maybe that is what we need to finally kill off the scourge of Socialism in this country.
Project Fear doesn't work anymore.
5 years of Corbyn and co could be fun, but worth noting that single term governments are a rarity, so could well be 10 or more.
My problem with project fear as a term is it is generally used to cast aside doubts at ones plans by suggesting it is fear mongering, but some things should provoke fear. It is the result of too much crying wolf, but people should still fear the wolf, whichever side it comes from.
Thing is, the headlines are about capping credit card fees which is the least bonkers measure announced and arguably not a dreadful idea.
So the public's message will be that those nice sensible Labour types are doing something about those vampire squid credit card companies. What's that? Free puppies also, you say? Well what's not to like?
At least it shows some awareness of the problem of personal debt. Whether it is the correct solution or not, I remain unconvinced. However the government has not shown much interest in deflating the credit bubble. In that sense, the "just put it on the credit card" attitude can be seen as free puppy.
Time to bring out the 1992 'Labour tax bombshell' posters from the CCHQ basement
It was a Conservative tax bombshell being hidden at the last election.
No the main one was the visible dementia tax which the Tories have now scrapped
No -- the Conservative manifesto dropped the tax pledge, and there had already been an attempt to raise NI in the budget. This is why Hammond was hidden away during the election campaign, and why CCHQ did not start a fight with Labour on tax.
Thing is, the headlines are about capping credit card fees which is the least bonkers measure announced and arguably not a dreadful idea.
So the public's message will be that those nice sensible Labour types are doing something about those vampire squid credit card companies. What's that? Free puppies also, you say? Well what's not to like?
The fact that the price of credit is correlated with its availability?
Meanwhile the BoE is bleating about "ballooning consumer debt", so obviously no one has told them about the correlation.
A cursory search for 'compensation' in Hansard for the 1940s shows the kinds of debates that went on about all the various factors that must be considered to decide on the 'how' and 'how much', and same debates would probably go on in any future nationalisations. The arguments back then that it would terminally damage British industry don't seem to have played out.
The world has changed enormously since then. Companies wouldn't look elsewhere and see similar market conditions in other countries. The rest of the world is not likely to follow us in the time machine back to the 1940s.
How does, say, the East Coast mainline get moved elsewhere? Or any of the UK utilities for that matter?
Obviously some assets can't be moved to escape Labour's grasp, but the message it would send out is that if the government feels like it it will seize your assets and pay you a fraction of their value. Do you really think a government behaving like that will attract much investment into UK industry?
The type of nationalisations being discussed would only bring us back into line with most of Europe, so yes I think investment into UK will be fine.
The market would sink like a stone if McDonnell got anywhere near power and private pension investments would collapse
He would also have to oversee the biggest cuts in the NHS ever. Within six months, it would be the most reviled Govt. of all time.
But maybe that is what we need to finally kill off the scourge of Socialism in this country.
Project Fear doesn't work anymore.
5 years of Corbyn and co could be fun, but worth noting that single term governments are a rarity, so could well be 10 or more.
The last leader to lose his first general election and become PM as Corbyn is trying to do was Heath in 1970 whose government lasted a single term
Once again you make the wrong assumption. Not being a Tory does not make me a Labour supporter.
When did you last vote Tory then? You clearly prefer Labour governments to Tory ones
If this board is representative of public opinion (and I don't necessarily see that as desirable), some 40% of it should have voted for Corbyn's Labour party. I think that highly unlikely.
My guess would be we are over-represented on Lib Dems and Conservatives. Under-represented on UKIP and Labour.
In 2015 a poll was done here of which party PBers voted for, as I said earlier Tory and Labour voteshare almost exactly matched the UK average but as you say LDs were overrepresented and UKIP underrepresented.
Where this site is underrepresented is working class Leave voters not left-wingers
That makes sense to me. I think the proportion of left-wingers on this board who dislike Corbyn/won't vote for him is probably quite a bit higher than nationally.
Comments
What is everyone talking about? A sing song before a kick around.
If Uber continue to flout the rules - then I would imagine they will be banned properly at some point. This gives them notice that we actually expect them to follow the rules. As the BBC article notes - TfL are lobbying to close that loophole I mentioned.
You could argue Khan should have been harsher I suppose but I think this course of action is okay. It's likely to bring in competitors, give sufficient warning to Uber (they have apologised already), and avoid inconveniencing consumers in the meantime.
Lots of people find them a real laugh, socially (and to be fair, they can be) with a few good
fringe events, but I found them expensive and dominated by lobbyists, journalists, aspiring candidates and wannabes.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/25/uber-tfl-concerns-vows-keep-operating-london-licence
To a large extent, our foreign-owned media failed to notice.
Listening to Macca is pretty scary stuff.
Parliament (and in reality likely a govt) deciding how much a govt should pay for private assets is about as far away from capitalism as is possible to conceive in this country.
It would see business investment collapse.
This is a really interesting debate on modern society. Some on the left are blindly following the Black Cab union, and some on the right are thinking that capitalism should favour a loss-making corporatist bully with an army of lawyers and PRs. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
Would that include Britain being outside Europe?
Cons have got four years to find their unicorn; I wouldn't bet on them succeeding.
Otherwise known as printing money.
What next after utilities and water?
Larger houses?
Where we are today, a significant nationalisation programme at less than market prices will cause a run on the pound and the stock market before it even happens, and several large pensions providers will find themselves bankrupt and in need of nationalisation themselves.
More than ever in the next few years, and despite what we all think of them and their previous record, expect political opinion polling to influence the stock market quite significantly.
Take back control...
RIP Mark Senior, I only met him here, but seemed a good bloke.
I suspect it is more that an election seems years away, so why worry, as an investor.
We can protect industries from this, but at a cost to the consumer. Globalisation in a nutshell.
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/912094173687373825
Either way - I'm unconvinced that market value alone at one point in time is the fairest way to balance the interests of owners and taxpayers.
Market value of water companies now doubles/trebles/quadruples as they have a guaranteed buyer.
Is that value for money for the taxpayer?
I think not.
I listened to the Shadow Chancellor this morning and just about kept control of the car, as I did..
Now don't get me wrong I can be persuaded that water of itself does not sit happily in the private sector like supermarkets or car makers or hairdressers do, but saying Parliament will decide the price is pretty much disapropriation.
"We've had a vote in our household Mr McDonnell and I've decided your house is worth £5K and I'm going to give you, by way of recompense, an IOU I've just printed, of unknown maturity, interest rate, and exchangeability. OK?". Thought not.
It's the effect it has in confidence in everything else that's the killer. I see he mentioned (if by accident?) "construction" as one of his personal priorities, so if you've got shares in any building groups, or your pension scheme that you're relying on for your dotage does - take note.
PB is now well enough established that it has a sense of prior generations - and they were both prominent members of an earlier generation and well worth honouring.
Just one note on Germany - talk of Angela Merkel's demise is premature for a couple of reasons. Firstly the coalition options would always have been GroKo (Grosse Koalition - or crocodile for short) or Jamaica. Although the numbers have changed - fewer CDU than expected - the fundamentals of needing to deal with both FDP and die Gruene are just the same as if she had 50 more seats. And secondly much of the loss was due to the sister CSU party in Bavaria, who prevaricated their support then swung behind her. Sounds like they annoyed both Merkel fans and skeptics in doing so and lost support - but Merkel is insulated from these losses to an extent.
Question - how many black cab drivers do we reckon declare all their 'sorry mate, cash only' earnings?
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/912282072747782149
But maybe that is what we need to finally kill off the scourge of Socialism in this country.
Good afternoon, everyone. Very glad I was in time for this thread.
So the public's message will be that those nice sensible Labour types are doing something about those vampire squid credit card companies. What's that? Free puppies also, you say? Well what's not to like?
My guess would be we are over-represented on Lib Dems and Conservatives.
Under-represented on UKIP and Labour.
The fact you may have voted LD or Green in the Blair years does not change that, many current Labour voters did too
5 years of Corbyn and co could be fun, but worth noting that single term governments are a rarity, so could well be 10 or more.
http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/ryanair-cabin-crew-move-europe-germany-holland-six-weeks-lose-pay-east-midlands-airport-a7961456.html
Where this site is underrepresented is working class Leave voters not left-wingers
4 years in the sunlight wont do Jezza any favours either.
May could start by ditching Hammond - serial troublemaker with no upside.
In that sense, the "just put it on the credit card" attitude can be seen as free puppy.
Meanwhile the BoE is bleating about "ballooning consumer debt", so obviously no one has told them about the correlation.
I think the proportion of left-wingers on this board who dislike Corbyn/won't vote for him is probably quite a bit higher than nationally.