politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tory Brexit divide is in the cabinet – the LAB one is betw

glw said:

Omnium said:

I think you're confusing 'Leave' with a political party.

Bingo. I voted leave but would never vote for UKIP, so I feel no obligation to defend any of the nonsense they have come out with over the years.

I can honestly say I've never cast a vote for any party, cause, or candidate where I agreed with them on more than a handful of things. I've invariably voted for what I considered to be the least bad option. If I wanted a candidate I full agree with I would have to stand myself, and even then I'd have my doubts.

stevef said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Well, since Leave supporters seem unable to try to understand the concerns of Remain supporters, it’s a bit rich of them to whinge that they are misunderstood.

But Remain supporters are not entitled to use those concerns to subvert the will of the People in a democratic referendum. I have concerns about what would happen if Jeremy Corbyn was elected prime minister. Those concerns would not entitle me to launch a coup against his government.

stevef said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Well, since Leave supporters seem unable to try to understand the concerns of Remain supporters, it’s a bit rich of them to whinge that they are misunderstood.

But Remain supporters are not entitled to use those concerns to subvert the will of the People in a democratic referendum. I have concerns about what would happen if Jeremy Corbyn was elected prime minister. Those concerns would not entitle me to launch a coup against his government.

stevef said:

The point surely is not whether politicians and supporters of parties consider the vote to leave the EU right or wrong.

The point is that a majority of voters in a democratic referendum DID choose to leave the EU. And most voters chose to leave the EU in reality, not in name only which is what staying in the Single Market and Customs Union would mean.

The point is not whether the People's will is considered to be right or wrong . The point is that the will of the People should be implemented.

The point is Democracy.

stevef said:

The point surely is not whether politicians and supporters of parties consider the vote to leave the EU right or wrong.

The point is that a majority of voters in a democratic referendum DID choose to leave the EU. And most voters chose to leave the EU in reality, not in name only which is what staying in the Single Market and Customs Union would mean.

The point is not whether the People's will is considered to be right or wrong . The point is that the will of the People should be implemented.

The point is Democracy.

Mexicanpete said:

stevef said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Well, since Leave supporters seem unable to try to understand the concerns of Remain supporters, it’s a bit rich of them to whinge that they are misunderstood.

But Remain supporters are not entitled to use those concerns to subvert the will of the People in a democratic referendum. I have concerns about what would happen if Jeremy Corbyn was elected prime minister. Those concerns would not entitle me to launch a coup against his government.

However within 5 years you are entitled to change your vote from a Corbyn run Labour party to a JRM Tory Party. That is democracy. As a Leaver you will never be given the opportunity to change you mind. Leave meant leave forever! I am not sure what that is, but it doesn't seem very democratic.

stevef said:

My understanding of the Remoaner position is this:

They think the majority of voters were wrong to vote to leave the EU. Many of them were too dumb to realise that they were being lied to by Leave politicians or to realise that the Remain side was the very epitome of truth, integrity and wisdom.

Now that the referendum is lost however Remoaners are arguing that what the people actually voted for was to leave the EU in name only. The People are keen to continue to be completely under the control of the EU through the Single Market, they want the EU to continue to control our borders with freedom of movement, to impose EU laws on us and they are particularly keen that the EU should be able to forbid the UK to make its own trade deals with non EU countries. In short, the People were only voting for the UK to lose membership. They would be quite happy to continue to be a vassal state of the EU, and it is the wickedness of the Leave side which is preventing them from having their say in this matter through a second referendum.

I hope I have summed up the Remoaner argument accurately.

Barnesian said:

MikeSmithson said:

stevef said:

The point surely is not whether politicians and supporters of parties consider the vote to leave the EU right or wrong.

The point is that a majority of voters in a democratic referendum DID choose to leave the EU. And most voters chose to leave the EU in reality, not in name only which is what staying in the Single Market and Customs Union would mean.

The point is not whether the People's will is considered to be right or wrong . The point is that the will of the People should be implemented.

The point is Democracy.

Provided that Leave kept within the financial rules which still has to be resolved. Two Electoral Commission inquiries are going on. If they go against either or both main Leave organisations then that de-legitimises to result

I think the result is illegitimate in any case as the people with most skin in the game (3m EU nationals living here and 1m UK nationals living in rEU) were not allowed to vote. That is not democratic or fair - and the reason I do not respect the referendum result.

Sean_F said:

Mexicanpete said:

stevef said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Well, since Leave supporters seem unable to try to understand the concerns of Remain supporters, it’s a bit rich of them to whinge that they are misunderstood.

But Remain supporters are not entitled to use those concerns to subvert the will of the People in a democratic referendum. I have concerns about what would happen if Jeremy Corbyn was elected prime minister. Those concerns would not entitle me to launch a coup against his government.

However within 5 years you are entitled to change your vote from a Corbyn run Labour party to a JRM Tory Party. That is democracy. As a Leaver you will never be given the opportunity to change you mind. Leave meant leave forever! I am not sure what that is, but it doesn't seem very democratic.

People are free to campaign to rejoin the EU, which, I accept, would be harder than chucking out the government.

Sean_F said:

Mexicanpete said:

stevef said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Well, since Leave supporters seem unable to try to understand the concerns of Remain supporters, it’s a bit rich of them to whinge that they are misunderstood.

But Remain supporters are not entitled to use those concerns to subvert the will of the People in a democratic referendum. I have concerns about what would happen if Jeremy Corbyn was elected prime minister. Those concerns would not entitle me to launch a coup against his government.

However within 5 years you are entitled to change your vote from a Corbyn run Labour party to a JRM Tory Party. That is democracy. As a Leaver you will never be given the opportunity to change you mind. Leave meant leave forever! I am not sure what that is, but it doesn't seem very democratic.

People are free to campaign to rejoin the EU, which, I accept, would be harder than chucking out the government.

ydoethur said:

FPT

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The mantra from McDonnell is the huge profits go to billionaires when in fact the dividends from these companies are invested by pension funds to provide the future pensions of the many.

Has McDonnell answered how he will deal with the collapse in the value of workers pensions.

Pension funds will get Government bonds equal in value to the equity they give up in exchange. It is then up to pension funds to decide whether they want to keep the low risk low return bonds or sell them and purchase higher risk higher return equities in the market to balance their portfolios. Pension funds won't collapse in value!

In general I think the private sector is better placed to run businesses. It is more innovative, and there is more competition and choice. But I am not an idealogue about it. I'm not private good, public bad, (or vice versa). I'm a pragmatist.

Natural monopolies and strategic public goods (like the military, police, health, education, water, electricity and gas) are better run in the public sector for the public good. I don't mind private health or private education (or private water or electricity) for those who can afford it, but I draw the line at private armies and I'm uncomfortable with private police and prisons. I'm a wary pragmatist.

So McDonnell pays market rate to the shareholders - so for water he borrows 90 billion

Am I missing something

He issues bonds worth £90b in exchange for the equity which sits on the other side of the national balance sheet - just like the Tories have done with student loans. We've been through this.

No. This is really not comparable. Student loans are debts to the government that are repaid. What Macdonnell is proposing is making the private company the creditor, which is the polar opposite. Moreover, doing so under such circumstances as make repayment not merely unlikely but practically impossible and where the bonds in question would be worth a fraction of their total value.

AlastairMeeks said:

stevef said:

My understanding of the Remoaner position is this:

They think the majority of voters were wrong to vote to leave the EU. Many of them were too dumb to realise that they were being lied to by Leave politicians or to realise that the Remain side was the very epitome of truth, integrity and wisdom.

Now that the referendum is lost however Remoaners are arguing that what the people actually voted for was to leave the EU in name only. The People are keen to continue to be completely under the control of the EU through the Single Market, they want the EU to continue to control our borders with freedom of movement, to impose EU laws on us and they are particularly keen that the EU should be able to forbid the UK to make its own trade deals with non EU countries. In short, the People were only voting for the UK to lose membership. They would be quite happy to continue to be a vassal state of the EU, and it is the wickedness of the Leave side which is preventing them from having their say in this matter through a second referendum.

I hope I have summed up the Remoaner argument accurately.

First, if you’re wanting a civil debate, use of the word Remoaner is not conducive. Secondly, the only question on the ballot paper was whether Britain should remain in or leave the EU. You are putting your own interpretation on that question. No one appointed you sole interpreter of what you keep capitalising as the People’s will.

tlg86 said:

Barnesian said:

MikeSmithson said:

stevef said:

The point surely is not whether politicians and supporters of parties consider the vote to leave the EU right or wrong.

The point is that a majority of voters in a democratic referendum DID choose to leave the EU. And most voters chose to leave the EU in reality, not in name only which is what staying in the Single Market and Customs Union would mean.

The point is not whether the People's will is considered to be right or wrong . The point is that the will of the People should be implemented.

The point is Democracy.

Provided that Leave kept within the financial rules which still has to be resolved. Two Electoral Commission inquiries are going on. If they go against either or both main Leave organisations then that de-legitimises to result

I think the result is illegitimate in any case as the people with most skin in the game (3m EU nationals living here and 1m UK nationals living in rEU) were not allowed to vote. That is not democratic or fair - and the reason I do not respect the referendum result.

They didn't have a vote in the 2015 GE, the referendum pledge made no reference to giving those people the vote. And parliament voted through the referendum bill. Simple as that.

Barnesian said:

MikeSmithson said:

stevef said:

The point surely is not whether politicians and supporters of parties consider the vote to leave the EU right or wrong.

The point is that a majority of voters in a democratic referendum DID choose to leave the EU. And most voters chose to leave the EU in reality, not in name only which is what staying in the Single Market and Customs Union would mean.

The point is not whether the People's will is considered to be right or wrong . The point is that the will of the People should be implemented.

The point is Democracy.

Provided that Leave kept within the financial rules which still has to be resolved. Two Electoral Commission inquiries are going on. If they go against either or both main Leave organisations then that de-legitimises to result

I think the result is illegitimate in any case as the people with most skin in the game (3m EU nationals living here and 1m UK nationals living in rEU) were not allowed to vote. That is not democratic or fair - and the reason I do not respect the referendum result.

stevef said:

AlastairMeeks said:

First, if you’re wanting a civil debate, use of the word Remoaner is not conducive. Secondly, the only question on the ballot paper was whether Britain should remain in or leave the EU. You are putting your own interpretation on that question. No one appointed you sole interpreter of what you keep capitalising as the People’s will.

The word Remoaner describes that small minority of Remainers who do not accept the democratic verdict of the referendum. It is less offensive than "Mad Brexiteers"

However it is your second statement which is the nub of the matter, and which justifies my use of the word Remoaner. You are employing a very disingenuous argument. Are you seriously suggesting that when a majority of voters voted to leave the EU, they were voting to leave the EU in name only, and that they were quite content for the UK to be remain under the control of the EU without being a member? Are you suggesting that people were not voting at all for the UK to control its own borders and laws -even though Remain's own campaign literature stated that leaving the EU would mean leaving the Single Market and Customs Union. Why on earth would people vote to leave the EU and remain under its control.

Your position seems akin to a hotel writing to me and stating that when I checked out of the hotel I didnt actually specifically say that I wanted to stop paying for the room -so here is the bill.

Barnesian said:

tlg86 said:

Barnesian said:

MikeSmithson said:

stevef said:

The point surely is not whether politicians and supporters of parties consider the vote to leave the EU right or wrong.

The point is that a majority of voters in a democratic referendum DID choose to leave the EU. And most voters chose to leave the EU in reality, not in name only which is what staying in the Single Market and Customs Union would mean.

The point is not whether the People's will is considered to be right or wrong . The point is that the will of the People should be implemented.

The point is Democracy.

Provided that Leave kept within the financial rules which still has to be resolved. Two Electoral Commission inquiries are going on. If they go against either or both main Leave organisations then that de-legitimises to result

I think the result is illegitimate in any case as the people with most skin in the game (3m EU nationals living here and 1m UK nationals living in rEU) were not allowed to vote. That is not democratic or fair - and the reason I do not respect the referendum result.

They didn't have a vote in the 2015 GE, the referendum pledge made no reference to giving those people the vote. And parliament voted through the referendum bill. Simple as that.

The 2015 GE vote and any "pledge" is irrelevant to a vote on the future of the UK in the EU. I know that parliament voted through the referendum bill. So what.

My point is that it was undemocratic and unfair to exclude those people with most to lose from voting in the referendum. Period.

stevef said:

AlastairMeeks said:

First, if you’re wanting a civil debate, use of the word Remoaner is not conducive. Secondly, the only question on the ballot paper was whether Britain should remain in or leave the EU. You are putting your own interpretation on that question. No one appointed you sole interpreter of what you keep capitalising as the People’s will.

The word Remoaner describes that small minority of Remainers who do not accept the democratic verdict of the referendum. It is less offensive than "Mad Brexiteers"

However it is your second statement which is the nub of the matter, and which justifies my use of the word Remoaner. You are employing a very disingenuous argument. Are you seriously suggesting that when a majority of voters voted to leave the EU, they were voting to leave the EU in name only, and that they were quite content for the UK to be remain under the control of the EU without being a member? Are you suggesting that people were not voting at all for the UK to control its own borders and laws -even though Remain's own campaign literature stated that leaving the EU would mean leaving the Single Market and Customs Union. Why on earth would people vote to leave the EU and remain under its control.

Your position seems akin to a hotel writing to me and stating that when I checked out of the hotel I didnt actually specifically say that I wanted to stop paying for the room -so here is the bill.

williamglenn said:

Given that Cameron's renegotiation was so crucial to the Leave victory, it's worth focusing on the details of what people rejected in the referendum:

Britain will be permanently out of ever closer union - Rejected!

Never part of a European superstate - Binned!

Britain will never join the euro - Dumped!

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pms-statement-following-european-council-meeting-19-february-2016

The people made the right choice. Who'd want to be stuck in the slow lane forever?

Omnium said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Omnium said:

AlastairMeeks said:

stevef said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Well, since Leave supporters seem unable to try to understand the concerns of Remain supporters, it’s a bit rich of them to whinge that they are misunderstood.

But Remain supporters are not entitled to use those concerns to subvert the will of the People in a democratic referendum. I have concerns about what would happen if Jeremy Corbyn was elected prime minister. Those concerns would not entitle me to launch a coup against his government.

You would, however, be within your rights to seek to frustrate and mitigate the impact of the government by any means at your disposal.

Would you?

Why?

I accept that this is the way in which protest expresses itself in a democracy, but I fail to see a 'right' that it should be so. Certainly 'by any means at your disposal' needs to be revised Mr Meeks.

The word “lawful” is implicit.

No one is expecting the Conservatives to wave a programme of nationalisation through Parliament for a newly elected Corbyn government. Are they?

So failure to agree naturally translates to "frustrate and mitigate the impact of the government by any means at your disposal"?

What other things are implicit? "Subject to the wishes of the Party"? "If it's Tuesday"?

AlastairMeeks said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

AlastairMeeks said:

stevef said:

My understanding of the Remoaner position is this:

They think the majority of voters were wrong to vote to leave the EU. Many of them were too dumb to realise that they were being lied to by Leave politicians or to realise that the Remain side was the very epitome of truth, integrity and wisdom.

Now that the referendum is lost however Remoaners are arguing that what the people actually voted for was to leave the EU in name only. The People are keen to continue to be completely under the control of the EU through the Single Market, they want the EU to continue to control our borders with freedom of movement, to impose EU laws on us and they are particularly keen that the EU should be able to forbid the UK to make its own trade deals with non EU countries. In short, the People were only voting for the UK to lose membership. They would be quite happy to continue to be a vassal state of the EU, and it is the wickedness of the Leave side which is preventing them from having their say in this matter through a second referendum.

I hope I have summed up the Remoaner argument accurately.

First, if you’re wanting a civil debate, use of the word Remoaner is not conducive. Secondly, the only question on the ballot paper was whether Britain should remain in or leave the EU. You are putting your own interpretation on that question. No one appointed you sole interpreter of what you keep capitalising as the People’s will.

You seem to have ignored my post on the previous thread.

I voted remain having listened to the arguments on both sides. I accept Farage (I cannot stand the man) overstepped the line but lies, if you want to call them, came from both sides.

David Cameron. Osborne and others made it absolutely clear that there would be no second referendum, that leaving meant exciting the single market and customs union, and that he would serve A50 immediately.

I was following the debates closely as I was unsure of my vote but in the end I elected for the status quo

The vote has taken place and we must respect the result.

I have, from even before the referendum result, said that if Leave won that needed to be pursued to its conclusion. That doesn’t mean that I need to like it, think it is a good thing or respect those who argued for it.

Charles said:

MikeSmithson said:

stevef said:

The point surely is not whether politicians and supporters of parties consider the vote to leave the EU right or wrong.

The point is that a majority of voters in a democratic referendum DID choose to leave the EU. And most voters chose to leave the EU in reality, not in name only which is what staying in the Single Market and Customs Union would mean.

The point is not whether the People's will is considered to be right or wrong . The point is that the will of the People should be implemented.

The point is Democracy.

Provided that Leave kept within the financial rules which still has to be resolved. Two Electoral Commission inquiries are going on. If they go against either or both main Leave organisations then that de-legitimises to result

When are the LibDems going to return Michael Brown's donation of stolen money?

This isn't a question of the narrow scope of the EC investigation (whether the LibDems had carried out sufficient checks to determine that Michael Brown UK entity was entitled to donate) but what is the right thing to do.

Otherwise, under your argument, everything the Lib Dems have done or said since has been de-legitimised

Big_G_NorthWales said:

In truth I wish the EU would come to their senses and make a generous offer that could ease the way to a new relationship.

Barnesian said:

MikeSmithson said:

stevef said:

The point surely is not whether politicians and supporters of parties consider the vote to leave the EU right or wrong.

The point is that a majority of voters in a democratic referendum DID choose to leave the EU. And most voters chose to leave the EU in reality, not in name only which is what staying in the Single Market and Customs Union would mean.

The point is not whether the People's will is considered to be right or wrong . The point is that the will of the People should be implemented.

The point is Democracy.

Provided that Leave kept within the financial rules which still has to be resolved. Two Electoral Commission inquiries are going on. If they go against either or both main Leave organisations then that de-legitimises to result

I think the result is illegitimate in any case as the people with most skin in the game (3m EU nationals living here and 1m UK nationals living in rEU) were not allowed to vote. That is not democratic or fair - and the reason I do not respect the referendum result.

Barnesian said:

Mr McDonnell told BBC Radio 4's Today programme taking services into public ownership would not ultimately increase the burden on taxpayers because government bonds could be swapped for shares in a revenue-producing company.

It depends whether the government bonds are tradeable gilts (worth the usual market rate) or water company bonds issued by the nationalised company (which I think is your assumption).

I think McDonnell means the former. But even if he means the latter, then the bonds will still have their market value backed by the government. There is no risk of default and they will have a coupon rate.

williamglenn said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

In truth I wish the EU would come to their senses and make a generous offer that could ease the way to a new relationship.

They could offer the use of their central bank?

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

@Barnesian FPT

Pension funds will get Government bonds equal in value to the equity they give up in exchange. It is then up to pension funds to decide whether they want to keep the low risk low return bonds or sell them and purchase higher risk higher return equities in the market to balance their portfolios. Pension funds won't collapse in value!

I'm sorry, but your analysis is completely flawed. It's difficult to even know where to begin.

Fundamentally, the value of the equity is the value of the expected future cashflows that will be generated by the business (after tax and interest).

If the government gives the owners of the equity bonds of equal value then there simply will not be any surplus cash to generate a return for the government. Moreover you are assuming that the government will be able to run the utilities as efficiently as the private sector - in theory they might be able to, but governments face competing demands and, I suspect, might be likely to give higher pay rises to employees (union pressure) or to invest more in schools'n'hospitals than in water pipes. Either way, over time, the efficiency of the network will degrade.

Moreover, there are the secondary effects to consider: if investors and lenders believe that the government is willing to expropriate assets with compensation set by primary legislation (as McDonnell has suggested) then you can bet that the stock markets will collapse and government borrowing rates will go up

@Charles I'm surprised at you. The value of the equity is the DISCOUNTED expected future cash flows of the business. The discount for equity is typically 7% real, say 10% nominal. This compares with government debt rate of say 0% real, 3% nominal. You know this.

The problem for McDonnell is a potential RISE in water shares in the expectation that shareholders will get bonds to the value of the inflated share price. Plenty of scope for games playing.

In answer to your second point, I said below :

In general I think the private sector is better placed to run businesses. It is more innovative, and there is more competition and choice. But I am not an idealogue about it. I'm not private good, public bad, (or vice versa). I'm a pragmatist.

Natural monopolies and strategic public goods (like the military, police, health, education, water, electricity, gas, roads and rail) are better run in the public sector for the public good.

Sean_F said:

Barnesian said:

MikeSmithson said:

stevef said:

The point surely is not whether politicians and supporters of parties consider the vote to leave the EU right or wrong.

The point is that a majority of voters in a democratic referendum DID choose to leave the EU. And most voters chose to leave the EU in reality, not in name only which is what staying in the Single Market and Customs Union would mean.

The point is not whether the People's will is considered to be right or wrong . The point is that the will of the People should be implemented.

The point is Democracy.

Provided that Leave kept within the financial rules which still has to be resolved. Two Electoral Commission inquiries are going on. If they go against either or both main Leave organisations then that de-legitimises to result

I think the result is illegitimate in any case as the people with most skin in the game (3m EU nationals living here and 1m UK nationals living in rEU) were not allowed to vote. That is not democratic or fair - and the reason I do not respect the referendum result.

The standard franchise was used.

Omnium said:

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

@Barnesian FPT

Pension funds will get Government bonds equal in value to the equity they give up in exchange. It is then up to pension funds to decide whether they want to keep the low risk low return bonds or sell them and purchase higher risk higher return equities in the market to balance their portfolios. Pension funds won't collapse in value!

I'm sorry, but your analysis is completely flawed. It's difficult to even know where to begin.

Fundamentally, the value of the equity is the value of the expected future cashflows that will be generated by the business (after tax and interest).

If the government gives the owners of the equity bonds of equal value then there simply will not be any surplus cash to generate a return for the government. Moreover you are assuming that the government will be able to run the utilities as efficiently as the private sector - in theory they might be able to, but governments face competing demands and, I suspect, might be likely to give higher pay rises to employees (union pressure) or to invest more in schools'n'hospitals than in water pipes. Either way, over time, the efficiency of the network will degrade.

Moreover, there are the secondary effects to consider: if investors and lenders believe that the government is willing to expropriate assets with compensation set by primary legislation (as McDonnell has suggested) then you can bet that the stock markets will collapse and government borrowing rates will go up

@Charles I'm surprised at you. The value of the equity is the DISCOUNTED expected future cash flows of the business. The discount for equity is typically 7% real, say 10% nominal. This compares with government debt rate of say 0% real, 3% nominal. You know this.

The problem for McDonnell is a potential RISE in water shares in the expectation that shareholders will get bonds to the value of the inflated share price. Plenty of scope for games playing.

In answer to your second point, I said below :

In general I think the private sector is better placed to run businesses. It is more innovative, and there is more competition and choice. But I am not an idealogue about it. I'm not private good, public bad, (or vice versa). I'm a pragmatist.

Natural monopolies and strategic public goods (like the military, police, health, education, water, electricity, gas, roads and rail) are better run in the public sector for the public good.

Have you ever looked at the stock market pricing? The value of an equity is just what is is.

RobD said:

Barnesian said:

Sean_F said:

Barnesian said:

MikeSmithson said:

stevef said:

The point surely is not whether politicians and supporters of parties consider the vote to leave the EU right or wrong.

The point is that a majority of voters in a democratic referendum DID choose to leave the EU. And most voters chose to leave the EU in reality, not in name only which is what staying in the Single Market and Customs Union would mean.

The point is not whether the People's will is considered to be right or wrong . The point is that the will of the People should be implemented.

The point is Democracy.

Provided that Leave kept within the financial rules which still has to be resolved. Two Electoral Commission inquiries are going on. If they go against either or both main Leave organisations then that de-legitimises to result

I think the result is illegitimate in any case as the people with most skin in the game (3m EU nationals living here and 1m UK nationals living in rEU) were not allowed to vote. That is not democratic or fair - and the reason I do not respect the referendum result.

The standard franchise was used.

It wasn't a "standard" vote.

Yeah, it was. If people wanted to play a part in the democratic process at a national level, they should have become citizens.

williamglenn said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

williamglenn said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

In truth I wish the EU would come to their senses and make a generous offer that could ease the way to a new relationship.

They could offer the use of their central bank?

Why not try to make a constructive suggestion to address leave concerns

There’s perhaps one structural issue to do with free movement that could be addressed, namely different rules for acquiring citizenship in different member states. It was very common to see people claim that Merkel was going to hand out German passports to all the refugees so they could come here immediately. Having some common criteria would help reassure people that having EU citizenship was a privilege.

AlastairMeeks said:

Good to see that Leavers accept this was a standard vote. Let’s have no more nonsense that the vote was in any way holy writ.

AlastairMeeks said:

Good to see that Leavers accept this was a standard vote. Let’s have no more nonsense that the vote was in any way holy writ.

AlastairMeeks said:

Good to see that Leavers accept this was a standard vote. Let’s have no more nonsense that the vote was in any way holy writ.

Mortimer said:

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

williamglenn said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

In truth I wish the EU would come to their senses and make a generous offer that could ease the way to a new relationship.

They could offer the use of their central bank?

Why not try to make a constructive suggestion to address leave concerns

There’s perhaps one structural issue to do with free movement that could be addressed, namely different rules for acquiring citizenship in different member states. It was very common to see people claim that Merkel was going to hand out German passports to all the refugees so they could come here immediately. Having some common criteria would help reassure people that having EU citizenship was a privilege.

Surprised you didn't advocate scrapping national citizenship. Although standardising criteria for getting it is a small stepping stone along the way...

I actually assumed that was william's point, perhaps uncharitably.

Or perhaps not...?

RobD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Good to see that Leavers accept this was a standard vote. Let’s have no more nonsense that the vote was in any way holy writ.

Indeed. I wouldn't object to Remainers getting another shot in 30 years.

rcs1000 said:

RobD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Good to see that Leavers accept this was a standard vote. Let’s have no more nonsense that the vote was in any way holy writ.

Indeed. I wouldn't object to Remainers getting another shot in 30 years.

If the LibDems were to be elected in 2022 with 65% of the vote, on a platform of rejoining the EU, I think we would have to (reluctantly) agree.

For the record, I don't think that likely.

williamglenn said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

williamglenn said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

In truth I wish the EU would come to their senses and make a generous offer that could ease the way to a new relationship.

They could offer the use of their central bank?

Why not try to make a constructive suggestion to address leave concerns

There’s perhaps one structural issue to do with free movement that could be addressed, namely different rules for acquiring citizenship in different member states. It was very common to see people claim that Merkel was going to hand out German passports to all the refugees so they could come here immediately. Having some common criteria would help reassure people that having EU citizenship was a privilege.

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

@Barnesian FPT

Pension funds will get Government bonds equal in value to the equity they give up in exchange. It is then up to pension funds to decide whether they want to keep the low risk low return bonds or sell them and purchase higher risk higher return equities in the market to balance their portfolios. Pension funds won't collapse in value!

I'm sorry, but your analysis is completely flawed. It's difficult to even know where to begin.

Fundamentally, the value of the equity is the value of the expected future cashflows that will be generated by the business (after tax and interest).

If the government gives the owners of the equity bonds of equal value then there simply will not be any surplus cash to generate a return for the government. Moreover you are assuming that the government will be able to run the utilities as efficiently as the private sector - in theory they might be able to, but governments face competing demands and, I suspect, might be likely to give higher pay rises to employees (union pressure) or to invest more in schools'n'hospitals than in water pipes. Either way, over time, the efficiency of the network will degrade.

Moreover, there are the secondary effects to consider: if investors and lenders believe that the government is willing to expropriate assets with compensation set by primary legislation (as McDonnell has suggested) then you can bet that the stock markets will collapse and government borrowing rates will go up

@Charles I'm surprised at you. The value of the equity is the DISCOUNTED expected future cash flows of the business. The discount for equity is typically 7% real, say 10% nominal. This compares with government debt rate of say 0% real, 3% nominal. You know this.

The problem for McDonnell is a potential RISE in water shares in the expectation that shareholders will get bonds to the value of the inflated share price. Plenty of scope for games playing.

In answer to your second point, I said below :

In general I think the private sector is better placed to run businesses. It is more innovative, and there is more competition and choice. But I am not an idealogue about it. I'm not private good, public bad, (or vice versa). I'm a pragmatist.

Natural monopolies and strategic public goods (like the military, police, health, education, water, electricity, gas, roads and rail) are better run in the public sector for the public good.

rcs1000 said:

Elliot said:

williamglenn said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

williamglenn said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

In truth I wish the EU would come to their senses and make a generous offer that could ease the way to a new relationship.

They could offer the use of their central bank?

Why not try to make a constructive suggestion to address leave concerns

There’s perhaps one structural issue to do with free movement that could be addressed, namely different rules for acquiring citizenship in different member states. It was very common to see people claim that Merkel was going to hand out German passports to all the refugees so they could come here immediately. Having some common criteria would help reassure people that having EU citizenship was a privilege.

I imagine Malta would block that. Their country is run off flogging EU citizenship to anyone that can afford it.

I thought we and Portugal were the two countries that had the lowest requirements for citizenship? (In terms of investor visa -> citizenship.)

Barnesian said:

Omnium said:

Barnesian said:

Omnium said:

Barnesian said:

@Charles I'm surprised at you. The value of the equity is the DISCOUNTED expected future cash flows of the business. The discount for equity is typically 7% real, say 10% nominal. This compares with government debt rate of say 0% real, 3% nominal. You know this.
The problem for McDonnell is a potential RISE in water shares in the expectation that shareholders will get bonds to the value of the inflated share price. Plenty of scope for games playing.

In answer to your second point, I said below :

In general I think the private sector is better placed to run businesses. It is more innovative, and there is more competition and choice. But I am not an idealogue about it. I'm not private good, public bad, (or vice versa). I'm a pragmatist.

Natural monopolies and strategic public goods (like the military, police, health, education, water, electricity, gas, roads and rail) are better run in the public sector for the public good.

Have you ever looked at the stock market pricing? The value of an equity is just what is is.

I know that. I have substantial equity investments that I keep an eye on. @Charles was making a theoretical point about valuation of equities (NPV of future after tax earnings) and I was reminding him of the significance of the discount factor.

He actually said the value of expected future cashflows. That's right. Nailed on right. What you said isn't right.

DISCOUNTED value of expected future cash flows. Read what I said about the significance of the difference between discount rates for equities and bonds, I know what I'm talking about and so does Charles even if he made a slip in this instance.

Charles said:

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

@Barnesian FPT

Pension funds will get Government bonds equal in value to the equity they give up in exchange. It is then up to pension funds to decide whether they want to keep the low risk low return bonds or sell them and purchase higher risk higher return equities in the market to balance their portfolios. Pension funds won't collapse in value!

I'm sorry, but your analysis is completely flawed. It's difficult to even know where to begin.

Fundamentally, the value of the equity is the value of the expected future cashflows that will be generated by the business (after tax and interest).

Moreover, there are the secondary effects to consider: if investors and lenders believe that the government is willing to expropriate assets with compensation set by primary legislation (as McDonnell has suggested) then you can bet that the stock markets will collapse and government borrowing rates will go up

@Charles I'm surprised at you. The value of the equity is the DISCOUNTED expected future cash flows of the business. The discount for equity is typically 7% real, say 10% nominal. This compares with government debt rate of say 0% real, 3% nominal. You know this.

The problem for McDonnell is a potential RISE in water shares in the expectation that shareholders will get bonds to the value of the inflated share price. Plenty of scope for games playing.

In answer to your second point, I said below :

In general I think the private sector is better placed to run businesses. It is more innovative, and there is more competition and choice. But I am not an idealogue about it. I'm not private good, public bad, (or vice versa). I'm a pragmatist.

Natural monopolies and strategic public goods (like the military, police, health, education, water, electricity, gas, roads and rail) are better run in the public sector for the public good.

Nah. Let’s say the current equity is 100 and the dividends are 8 each year.

You’re going to have to give them 8 of income each year. You can’t give them 3 of income and say “trust us it’s worth more”

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

@Barnesian FPT

Pension funds will get Government bonds equal in value to the equity they give up in exchange. It is then up to pension funds to decide whether they want to keep the low risk low return bonds or sell them and purchase higher risk higher return equities in the market to balance their portfolios. Pension funds won't collapse in value!

I'm sorry, but your analysis is completely flawed. It's difficult to even know where to begin.

Fundamentally, the value of the equity is the value of the expected future cashflows that will be generated by the business (after tax and interest).

Moreover, there are the secondary effects to consider: if investors and lenders believe that the government is willing to expropriate assets with compensation set by primary legislation (as McDonnell has suggested) then you can bet that the stock markets will collapse and government borrowing rates will go up

@Charles I'm surprised at you. The value of the equity is the DISCOUNTED expected future cash flows of the business. The discount for equity is typically 7% real, say 10% nominal. This compares with government debt rate of say 0% real, 3% nominal. You know this.

The problem for McDonnell is a potential RISE in water shares in the expectation that shareholders will get bonds to the value of the inflated share price. Plenty of scope for games playing.

In answer to your second point, I said below :

In general I think the private sector is better placed to run businesses. It is more innovative, and there is more competition and choice. But I am not an idealogue about it. I'm not private good, public bad, (or vice versa). I'm a pragmatist.

Natural monopolies and strategic public goods (like the military, police, health, education, water, electricity, gas, roads and rail) are better run in the public sector for the public good.

Nah. Let’s say the current equity is 100 and the dividends are 8 each year.

You’re going to have to give them 8 of income each year. You can’t give them 3 of income and say “trust us it’s worth more”

Current UK dividend yields are about 3.5%. 30 year gilts are about 2%.

The difference is the risk premium. Equities are seen as more risky than gilts so investors expect a higher return.

In your example with actual rates, investors will be giving up a more risky equity investment of 100 at say 3.5% div yield for a less risky gilt yield of 2.0%. If they prefer riskier equity investment for the higher return they can sell their gilts for a 100 in a very large liquid market and buy into an equity fund and get their 3.5%. You know all this.

PS Don't let me put you off your sea bass.

Charles said:

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

@Barnesian FPT

Pension funds will get Government bonds equal in value to the equity they give up in exchange. It is then up to pension funds to decide whether they want to keep the low risk low return bonds or sell them and purchase higher risk higher return equities in the market to balance their portfolios. Pension funds won't collapse in value!

I'm sorry, but your analysis is completely flawed. It's difficult to even know where to begin.

Fundamentally, the value of the equity is the value of the expected future cashflows that will be generated by the business (after tax and interest).

@Charles I'm surprised at you. The value of the equity is the DISCOUNTED expected future cash flows of the business. The discount for equity is typically 7% real, say 10% nominal. This compares with government debt rate of say 0% real, 3% nominal. You know this.

The problem for McDonnell is a potential RISE in water shares in the expectation that shareholders will get bonds to the value of the inflated share price. Plenty of scope for games playing.

In answer to your second point, I said below :

In general I think the private sector is better placed to run businesses. It is more innovative, and there is more competition and choice. But I am not an idealogue about it. I'm not private good, public bad, (or vice versa). I'm a pragmatist.

Natural monopolies and strategic public goods (like the military, police, health, education, water, electricity, gas, roads and rail) are better run in the public sector for the public good.

Nah. Let’s say the current equity is 100 and the dividends are 8 each year.

You’re going to have to give them 8 of income each year. You can’t give them 3 of income and say “trust us it’s worth more”

Current UK dividend yields are about 3.5%. 30 year gilts are about 2%.

The difference is the risk premium. Equities are seen as more risky than gilts so investors expect a higher return.

In your example with actual rates, investors will be giving up a more risky equity investment of 100 at say 3.5% div yield for a less risky gilt yield of 2.0%. If they prefer riskier equity investment for the higher return they can sell their gilts for a 100 in a very large liquid market and buy into an equity fund and get their 3.5%. You know all this.

PS Don't let me put you off your sea bass.

Yields on infrastructure are far higher