What no jeremy cobyn thread?

[rjbell]

Was I watching the same show?

What was not to understand about the question? He wanted him to say "yes hamas are my friends" which is blinking silly and obviously not the case.

 

[dejongj]

Was I watching the same show?

What was not to understand about the question? He wanted him to say "yes hamas are my friends" which is blinking silly and obviously not the case.

Didn't you see the unreasonable outburst? Did you see the anger in his eyes? Did you see how he changed his posture in the seat and expressed aggression. That is material and behaviour that could start a world war.

The questioning wasn't tough, the environment wasn't tough, when he looses it like that in such a setting there is no hope for the guy when he has power.

A real shame, looks to me like labour doesn't have anyone suitable. That is the real shame as it isn't good for democracy to not have any opposition in my opinion.

 

[Phil V]

...
A real shame, looks to me like labour doesn't have anyone suitable. That is the real shame as it isn't good for democracy to not have any opposition in my opinion.

This saddens me too, but from a different angle (obviously).

However I don't believe for a second that there's no-one 'suitable' to lead the party, or even that there's no one suitable to run the country. But there's no one suitable to convince the electorate that they could do that (under the terms the last election was fought).

I like the fact that Corbyn has put Socialism back on the table, where many people of my generation and younger had swallowed the lie that it was dead and unworkable. That's opened up the debate in England the way the SNP did in Scotland, and just maybe we will see a steady shift from Centrist electioneering.

 

[dejongj]

This saddens me too, but from a different angle (obviously).

Absolutely, but that is why I love you as although we have different angles we can still have a mature conversation

However I don't believe for a second that there's no-one 'suitable' to lead the party, or even that there's no one suitable to run the country. But there's no one suitable to convince the electorate that they could do that (under the terms the last election was fought).

I think that is a fair distinction, even though I don't know what the terms of the last election have to do with it or make a change. I think as long as they are trying to please others instead of themselves then they'll never be happy. Bit like normal everyday life

I like the fact that Corbyn has put Socialism back on the table, where many people of my generation and younger had swallowed the lie that it was dead and unworkable. That's opened up the debate in England the way the SNP did in Scotland, and just maybe we will see a steady shift from Centrist electioneering.

I like it too, but from a different angle. I think it is good that people keep being reminded that it is dead and unworkable, it is only then in my opinion, that people realise what difficult choices need to be made.

 

[Phil V]

Absolutely, but that is why I love you as although we have different angles we can still have a mature conversation

I think love's a bit strong , I'd be happy to share a firm handshake, but I'm not having any snogging.

I think that is a fair distinction, even though I don't know what the terms of the last election have to do with it or make a change. I think as long as they are trying to please others instead of themselves then they'll never be happy. Bit like normal everyday life .

It's not the 'terms of the last election', it's modern politics, where creating a believable likeable character is much more important than intelligence or empathy or conviction.

I like it too, but from a different angle. I think it is good that people keep being reminded that it is dead and unworkable, it is only then in my opinion, that people realise what difficult choices need to be made.

Unlike that free market system that proved to be so successful
You're right about difficult choices. It must be really hard to sleep at night knowing you're cutting benefits from the poorest in society whilst financially propping up millionaires who have lifestyles unsustainable without government subsidies

 

[dejongj]

Love doesn't always have to go alongside sex @Phil V

The problem with the free market concept is that successive government, regardless of political persuasion, won't allow them to be free. Every time they "give" something to someone, it by definition means denying it from someone else.

But with regards to your last point, if that was truly what they were doing then I'd agree with you. However they are not. This last budget has hit me and my families income very hard, to be accurate will hit us very hard next year. At the bottom end we gain just like everyone else, but being a higher earner it will cost me tens of thousands more. Not what I was expecting, and we are still reviewing our options which includes leaving this country.

 

[Phil V]

Love doesn't always have to go alongside sex @Phil V

The problem with the free market concept is that successive government, regardless of political persuasion, won't allow them to be free. Every time they "give" something to someone, it by definition means denying it from someone else.

But with regards to your last point, if that was truly what they were doing then I'd agree with you. However they are not. This last budget has hit me and my families income very hard, to be accurate will hit us very hard next year. At the bottom end we gain just like everyone else, but being a higher earner it will cost me tens of thousands more. Not what I was expecting, and we are still reviewing our options which includes leaving this country.

I never said they were just taking money from the poorest, only the very rich have got progressively richer.

Because, like us daft lefties keep saying, allowing the rich to get richer doesn't create any trickle down effect, it was a myth they managed to sell, and the debt will continue to grow, no matter how little the government try to spend, because it's quite simple, you have to invest for growth.

 

[dejongj]

I never said they were just taking money from the poorest, only the very rich have got progressively richer.

Because, like us daft lefties keep saying, allowing the rich to get richer doesn't create any trickle down effect, it was a myth they managed to sell, and the debt will continue to grow, no matter how little the government try to spend, because it's quite simple, you have to invest for growth.

Agreed, you have to invest. However growth isn't unlimited either and the deficit has got to get under control. So either you reduce your outgoings to be left with more, or you increase your income. And if you can do both happy days. But hey if people like me are considering to leave and pack up under a Tory government, then I have no hope under Corbyn labour.

I do not consider it reasonable to have to hand back over half of the wealth I generate. The hard work I do and the sacrifices I make towards my family and friends in addition to the charitable work is just not worth it. But I also don't want to support a race to the bottom as I could work less and become dependant on the state. That just doesn't sit right with me at all.

 

[rjbell]

I like it too, but from a different angle. I think it is good that people keep being reminded that it is dead and unworkable, it is only then in my opinion, that people realise what difficult choices need to be made.

Works rather nicely for Europe's golden child Germany.

 

[dejongj]

Works rather nicely for Europe's golden child Germany.

Sorry I do not understand what you mean. Could you elaborate?

 

[rjbell]

Sorry I do not understand what you mean. Could you elaborate?

Go check how much is partly an solely owned by the state.

 

[dejongj]

Go check how much is partly an solely owned by the state.

???? Perhaps wait until you can write more than part of a sentence. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

 

[rjbell]

Sorry I'm trying to get the kids down. You say its unworkable its working for Germany amongst others.

 

[bindex]

???? Perhaps wait until you can write more than part of a sentence. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Perhaps this will help?

RMT has called for an urgent Parliamentary Inquiry to review this situation, whereby foreign state-owned rail companies are using profits earned through operating franchises in the UK to keep fares down and ensure rail services are better in their respective countries. That the profits have been acquired through ever increasing passenger fares and taxpayer subsidies makes the situation more in need of review and radical reform.

A German Transport Ministry spokesperson recently admitted to such a strategy in reference to its state-owned company Deutsche Bahn: “We’re skimming profit from the entire Deutsche Bahn and ensuring that it is anchored in our budget – that way we can make sure it is invested in the rail network here in Germany.”

 

[dejongj]

Perhaps this will help?

RMT has called for an urgent Parliamentary Inquiry to review this situation, whereby foreign state-owned rail companies are using profits earned through operating franchises in the UK to keep fares down and ensure rail services are better in their respective countries. That the profits have been acquired through ever increasing passenger fares and taxpayer subsidies makes the situation more in need of review and radical reform.

A German Transport Ministry spokesperson recently admitted to such a strategy in reference to its state-owned company Deutsche Bahn: “We’re skimming profit from the entire Deutsche Bahn and ensuring that it is anchored in our budget – that way we can make sure it is invested in the rail network here in Germany.”

Yes sure, fine. What is the point and how does that relate against the point that I made. I must be having a blonde moment but I really don't get the point being made. Are you suggesting we should stuff our neighbours and run their services down to pay for ours? That isn't very nice.

I'm not happy about UK railways, living in the South east they are generally way too overcrowded. Yet the empty ones are very empty, but people still queue and squash on the fast trains. There is 8 minutes between them from where I live. I'd rather take the seat instead of getting on the overfill one.

Anyway my response probably makes just as much sense as yours did to me.

 

[dejongj]

Sorry I'm trying to get the kids down. You say its unworkable its working for Germany amongst others.

What is working for the Germans? Socialism? As I said that socialism doesn't work. And last time I looked Germany is not a socialist country.

 

[bindex]

I was just pointing out that it seems ok that German state owned companies are making profit from UK railways but that it seems that the UK state can't, it must be privatised.
We're obviously never going to agree but I'll never fall out with you about it!

 

[rjbell]

Sorry trying to get the kids to sleep.

What is working for the Germans? Socialism? As I said that socialism doesn't work. And last time I looked Germany is not a socialist country.

Much more so than us, and way more than corbyn could ever take us.

Despite whatever your newspapers are telling you corbyn isn't calling for far left socialist model. He's calling for some nationalisation much like Germany's been doing over the last decade or so while we've been flogging everything.

 

[dejongj]

I was just pointing out that it seems ok that German state owned companies are making profit from UK railways but that it seems that the UK state can't, it must be privatised.
We're obviously never going to agree but I'll never fall out with you about it!

Yes fair enough point, don't understand how it relates to the context of the point I was making and rjbell responded to though. And no, I don't think it is right in principle for the German State to interfere and make profit of UK services. So I agree with that. But I think you are missing very bid point, Deutsche Bahn is privatised It is a corporation, and run as a corporation. I have no issue with the state investing their surpluses in profit making ventures. But lets not be mistaken, it is very different from your typical civil servant run organisation, do you really think the Arriva train drivers in this country are German civil servants?

I do not believe in a large Government Administration, there is no need for that. Investment however, no there is nothing wrong with that.

Sorry trying to get the kids to sleep.

Much more so than us, and way more than corbyn could ever take us.

No way, Germany is not a socialist country. Heck it is being run by the CDU. Sure they may have some policies that socialist may like, not being socialist doesn't mean you can't be social

Despite whatever your newspapers are telling you corbyn isn't calling for far left socialist model. He's calling for some nationalisation much like Germany's been doing over the last decade or so while we've been flogging everything.

I'll believe it when I see it, the 'nationalisation' in Germany is one that doesn't involve civil servants. Somehow I don't think Corbyn means incorporation and a run for profit organisation. I happily stand corrected, but considering his comments about the rich I find it hard to believe or assume. Further more, if you look at the German state invested model, the CEO is good for about 2.4M per annum, and even the Arriva UK rail boss is good for about 1.1M per annum. I'm quietly confident that is not part of his plan, but happily stand corrected and if so, and if I was allowed to vote I may be persuaded if he can control that aggressive streak.

 

[rjbell]

I was referring to much of the economic structure such as the nationalisation and codetermination, which are core socialist ideals, rather than which direction the political winds blowing in a given year.

The guy from what i've read isn't a marxist. He's not calling to abolish capitalism. He want some nationalisation and tax reform inline with just about any country i can think of. Our lack of state owned companies is a rarity rather than the norm in the developed world. He's not asking for something radical here.

 

[dejongj]

Sure as I said I am not against investment in private companies. But doing so doesn't make it a socialist country, especially not when the bosses are rewarded millions, the workers like in Arriva are on minimum wage etc. Hey if that is socialism in your world, then sure I'll have some please.

 

[rjbell]

Well it a broad church isn't it. It never a great idea to look at extremes. You can not look at far left socialism like communist Russia and its failings to form your opinions on the left, anymore than you should the right wing nazi party for you right wing opinions.

 

[dejongj]

I still can't see that as the version of nationalisation by the Labour Party full stop. Further more, where are they going to get the money from to buy out the other shareholders? And what if they don't want to sell?

 

[rjbell]

Well currently we are losing a estimated £50bn a year in corporate tax revenue. Then it's £100bn on trident. £2bn in oil and gas company subsidies annually. Whatever revenue the 50p tax would bring. Don't forget this country has printed £350bn in quantitative easing.

I think we are going around in circles here and mirroring the election friend comments. It save to say we don't agree, and never will.

The way i see it. As long as we have bailouts and company subsidies. Working tax credits further subsiding, others getting away with not paying taxes, we do not have a free market anyway.

As Owen Jones wrote Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest of us.

 

[Llamaman]

And what if they don't want to sell?

I imagine something analogous to CPOs will be introduced.

However, in the case of railways there is no need. Just let the contracts lapse and bring them all back into public ownership gradually.

 

[dejongj]

Hmm that is quite a jump from the German model. Under the German model you would suggest we kept the shares in RBS. Remember how people were complaining about heir remuneration package. You can't have it both ways.

Corporation Tax requires an international change, not something the UK can easily do on their own without causing serious damage to our economy.

 

[dejongj]

I imagine something analogous to CPOs will be introduced.

However, in the case of railways there is no need. Just let the contracts lapse and bring them all back into public ownership gradually.

But that is not the model at all that is being put forward by rjbell. The corporation is private, and run as a private company.

 

[rjbell]

I wasn't aware i was putting any model forward. Simply pointing out some nationalisation isn't some out there radical lefty communist proposal. I'm not aware corbyn has gone into much detail about the mechanics, that i'm aware of anyway.

 

[dejongj]

Ok fair enough, all I'm saying that if it is the later the where do I sign up I'm not holding my breath though.

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

Hmm that is quite a jump from the German model. Under the German model you would suggest we kept the shares in RBS. Remember how people were complaining about heir remuneration package. You can't have it both ways.

Corporation Tax requires an international change, not something the UK can easily do on their own without causing serious damage to our economy.

Well, I'd keep them until we weren't going to make a loss anyway. Do you know how much you get charged for owning shares?

Of course, it'll be labours fault they flogged them off at a loss somehow.

 

[dejongj]

Well, I'd keep them until we weren't going to make a loss anyway. Do you know how much you get charged for owning shares?

Of course, it'll be labours fault they flogged them off at a loss somehow.

Why would it be labours fault? The current chancellor instigated this sale. Unfortunately with shares it just isn't guaranteed that they go up at any point, holding on to them longer just doesn't mean they'll become worth more. I sort of can see why they've done this initial small release, and in order to judge the overall value should be taken into account.

I also think people should remember why they were bought, whether you agree or not to have bought them is irrelevant. They weren't bought as an investment to make money. Now I didn't like it out of principle that they artificially stopped it from going under but that is irrelevant. However, I don't understand why people expect to make money from the ownership, that was never the goal.

 

[Llamaman]

Why would it be labours fault?

Surely you've been on the internet long enough to realize that everything to do with the economic crash and its aftermath is Labour's fault?

 

[Phil V]

Why would it be labours fault? The current chancellor instigated this sale. Unfortunately with shares it just isn't guaranteed that they go up at any point, holding on to them longer just doesn't mean they'll become worth more. I sort of can see why they've done this initial small release, and in order to judge the overall value should be taken into account.

I also think people should remember why they were bought, whether you agree or not to have bought them is irrelevant. They weren't bought as an investment to make money. Now I didn't like it out of principle that they artificially stopped it from going under but that is irrelevant. However, I don't understand why people expect to make money from the ownership, that was never the goal.

I understand it wasn't the goal, but it's worth asking; did we buy for the right price? Did we sell for the right price?
Who were we appeasing when we negotiated a purchase price? And who's making s profit on their newly purchased shares?

And the answer to those questions should be important to all of us.

 

[dejongj]

I understand it wasn't the goal, but it's worth asking; did we buy for the right price? Did we sell for the right price?
Who were we appeasing when we negotiated a purchase price? And who's making s profit on their newly purchased shares?

And the answer to those questions should be important to all of us.

Of course it should, but judgement should only be made when all shares have been sold. Sometimes you need to kickstart the interest, let investors get in cheap. Once large institutions are getting involved then it is likely that the interest gets followed and the price will start increasing.

Well that is one theory of course. Hindsight will be wonderful in the years to come.

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

Why would it be labours fault? The current chancellor instigated this sale. Unfortunately with shares it just isn't guaranteed that they go up at any point, holding on to them longer just doesn't mean they'll become worth more. I sort of can see why they've done this initial small release, and in order to judge the overall value should be taken into account.

I also think people should remember why they were bought, whether you agree or not to have bought them is irrelevant. They weren't bought as an investment to make money. Now I didn't like it out of principle that they artificially stopped it from going under but that is irrelevant. However, I don't understand why people expect to make money from the ownership, that was never the goal.

Because that's the default Tory line to anything people aren't happy with? I can just imagine them rolling out "Well, if Labour hadn't bought them, we wouldn't have been able to offload them to hedge funds, so it's their fault".

And yes, it may never make a profit, however, since we'd be getting dividends for keeping hold of them, it'd be better to keep them as a long term investment than to sell them off at a massive loss. Regardless of your opinion on whether we should have bought them in the first place, which there are good arguments either way for.

 

[dejongj]

Because that's the default Tory line to anything people aren't happy with? I can just imagine them rolling out "Well, if Labour hadn't bought them, we wouldn't have been able to offload them to hedge funds, so it's their fault".

And yes, it may never make a profit, however, since we'd be getting dividends for keeping hold of them, it'd be better to keep them as a long term investment than to sell them off at a massive loss. Regardless of your opinion on whether we should have bought them in the first place, which there are good arguments either way for.

Well, in my opinion that stance was fair enough when they came in and got to grips with the scale of the cleanup operation. They've had five years to do that in a coalition, and now the mandate to do it by themselves. No excuses for the current actions.

Sure if there is redistributable profit left then all shareholders can receive dividends in return. Naturally the value of those dividends should be offset against the deficit that was run up during the labour years. Regardless of whether it makes money on an individual level, there could be more money in it by paying off debts and reducing the deficit.

It is a very complex situation and I think it is too simplistic to purely look at the share price for a small part of RBS in isolation.

 

[Llamaman]

And yes, it may never make a profit, however, since we'd be getting dividends for keeping hold of them, it'd be better to keep them as a long term investment than to sell them off at a massive loss.

The argument is that growth is stifled by being government held and that profitability will grow quicker in public ownership. That growth will then generate tax returns through CT, bank levy, IT & NI etc.

That's the theory. The reality is a cheap sell-off to help their mates in the City meet their bonus targets. Trebles all round!

 

[dejongj]

The argument is that growth is stifled by being government held and that profitability will grow quicker in public ownership. That growth will then generate tax returns through CT, bank levy, IT & NI etc.

That's the theory. The reality is a cheap sell-off to help their mates in the City meet their bonus targets. Trebles all round!

Out of interest, how does the ownership of the share impact on the performance of the business? This is not a trick question, I just do not know why that matters.

I think the last comment is unfounded conjecture, something that we've been doing so well to avoid in this thread so far. Shame.

Anyway why not buy them yourself if they are such a good deal. Isn't that exactly the point to stimulate interest in them?

 

[Llamaman]

Out of interest, how does the ownership of the share impact on the performance of the business? This is not a trick question, I just do not know why that matters.

Because Ministers can't help interfering in things for which they are held accountable.

I think the last comment is unfounded conjecture, something that we've been doing so well to avoid in this thread so far. Shame.

It's not totally unfounded when one considers the royal mail sell-off, where that is exactly what happened.
And it's not as if there's been no suggestion of impropriety about the sale, has there?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...llions-at-the-taxpayers-expense-10441505.html
Shorting the shares shortly before a closed sale? I'm sure it can't be true.

Anyway why not buy them yourself if they are such a good deal.

I am not a hedge fund.

 

[dejongj]

Because Ministers can't help interfering in things for which they are held accountable.


It's not totally unfounded when one considers the royal mail sell-off, where that is exactly what happened.
And it's not as if there's been no suggestion of impropriety about the sale, has there?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...llions-at-the-taxpayers-expense-10441505.html
Shorting the shares shortly before a closed sale? I'm sure it can't be true.


I am not a hedge fund.

Sure ministers can do that, how do they do that as shareholders. How have they've done that. How do they do that in Germany which started this side conversation so far away from Corbyn now.

There can be so much suggestion in hind sight, that doesn't mean there was, just like there wasn't.

So why wouldn't you want to get in if this is so easy to make money on. If it is such a sure fire bet then why not?

So what about Corbyn then. It sounds like by all the doubts being raised here that nobody thinks he will not should follow the German model for nationalisation. I mean after all that is just trebles all round for the boys isn't it