Forum menu
Pienaar mentioned they’d need £300bn for “expropriation” of shares, and she then didn’t mention it in her response, she talked about the costing of their housing upgrade programme.
Ok, my memory of the show isn't that good but £300bn would be the cost if the govt bought the shares, but the policy posted above in text it's clear the govt aren't paying and the FT analysis makes it clear the govt aren't paying and RLB didn't take the chance to point out they'd be paying. Plus if they *were* paying the 300bn that would make this one policy 8 times more expensive then their entire 2017 manifesto. [1] So there's really no doubt what this policy is doing.
[1] As you know they've already made 60bn spending commitments on day one of the election when last time they made 48bn in the whole campaign!
martin hutch ^^^ re momentum twitter post about johnson & guppy; you do know the call from guppy took place in 1990?
I do, I actually observed part of Darius Guppy's fraud trial at Snaresbrook CC. Obviously Boris was not as significant a figure in those days, just some louche journalist with a burgeoning reputation for making shit up.
Have you listened to the audio? The man who is now our PM says he is working to provide the home address of a fellow journo to Darius Guppy in the clear knowledge that the bloke is going to be physically attacked or at the very least threatened.
There is no statute of limitations on that kind of behaviour - it speaks to his character and (lack of) integrity then and now, and is, if anything, more relevant today because of the office of state he holds.
Happy to mention it whenever even a tenuous opportunity arises. 🙂
He tries to wriggle out of it in this interview with Eddie Mair.
China
Have you ever been to Shenzhen? The bits of China that have economic success have done it by going full on capitalist! Christ, Shenzhen is an amazing place but it's raw capitalism. Mind you you're still better off being poor in Shenzhen than you are in the country where communism still rules. Much like you're better off being poor in West Germany than you were in East Germany, or poor in South Korea than North Korea.
Shenzhen isn't even socialist let alone communist, the businesses are privately owned.
Once again OOB - its not 10% the moment they gain power - its 1% a year for ten years
I am certain I saw that they were offing a fair price on this but of course not being able to find it somewhat negates this 😉
I have also seen a few other suggestions as to how they are going to pay for it from articles a while ago. It makes it pretty clear that they are not going to just take 10% of the companies and give them to the workforce but will pay for them in some form
Maybe hold off your condemnation until we actually have a bit more detail?
So there’s really no doubt what this policy is doing.
Of course there is. You need to open both your eyes not just one. Confiscating assets is illegal, and RLB was very clear to rule out doing anything illegal, obviously. So it has to be paid for. If you are just imagining a Labour government turning into some kind of rogue criminal enterprise then.. well.. I dunno. You need a bit of a sit-down I think.
It would be interesting to read the FT article but I'm not going to subscribe just for this.
Shenzhen isn’t even socialist let alone communist, the businesses are privately owned.
That is a matter of debate with quite a few of them but thats a separate discussion.
How about, rather than ranting, you manage to answer the question.
What specific variant of economic liberalism are you referring to?
Confiscating assets is illegal, and RLB was very clear to rule out doing anything illegal, obviously. So it has to be paid for.
The government can seize control and ownership of any industry simply by passing the legislation that allows it to do it, so if something it fancies doing is technically illegal, it will pass laws that make it legal. However, that's a side issue, as I don't see the government either physically grabbing the shares or coming up with some cut-price 'fair price' offer to buy them up. They certainly can't afford 30bn a year for 10 years to do it at market value.
The way I've seen it phrased suggests that individual companies will be expected to take action to sequester these shares in a fund so they can start coughing up the dividends to workers (but mainly to the Exchequer). This is obvious because while the government could legislate to nationalise an entire company, or even an industry, doing it to many thousands of firms simultaneously is impractical, and how would you select which private shareholders to force to sell up, or administer the process?
So companies might have to provide or buy the shares back themselves via the market. Which sounds fine, because they would have to pay market price for them, so shareholders don't lose out. Except they might not have the cash to do this - not many companies have vast reserves of cash, or at least, they don't hold it for this purpose.
So their option might be to issue another x thousand shares so the new shares could be placed directly in the fund. Naturally, this would have the effect of diluting the dividend earnings per share for everyone, so not only would individual shareholders lose out, but the value of the shares would fall to reflect this - most likely in anticipation of policy coming into place.
Fresh share issues aren't always a bad thing, normally because they might signal the company raising capital for a new venture or investment, which might increase profits. In normal circumstances, that might keep the share price up, but not here, because the company is receiving no extra cash to fuel growth - the money is being used to give a small amount to each worker and a fistful to the government.
So, yes, it will have to be paid for, the question as always is by who?
Are we having a sweep on which Tory MP is the next to make a massive gaffe/get caught shagging rent boys/skeleton come rattling out of the closet?
I'm going for Boris
get caught shagging rent boys
Is Keith Vaz standing?
On a related note, I see that Chris Williamson's re-election road show wassuccesful....in deselecting Chris Williamson.
get caught shagging rent boys/skeleton
Depends - male or female skeletons?
I’m going for Boris
Surely he has to be blocked from any sweepstake. There has to be an element of chance involved.
I think most of Boris skeletons are out in the open.
I'm going for Raab, there is no way he doesn't have bodies buried somewhere
Pienaar mentioned they’d need £300bn for “expropriation” of shares,
Even a very quick look at the Top 10 companies only comes to £95Bn as 10% of market capitalisation...
https://www.ig.com/uk/news-and-trade-ideas/top-10-largest-uk-companies-by-market-cap-190715
stevextc – bit of a humble brag there about your spending
Yeah, trying to cut back ... but you know what it's like.
So, yes, it will have to be paid for, the question as always is by who?
Actually, it's by whom.
But as above. Labour are here to try and make things better for ordinary people. That's it. They won't achieve this by robbing ordinary people's pensions, and they're not stupid enough to try because it would be the biggest vote lose ever if nothing else.
If a company buys back its shares and then gives them away that has the similar dilutive effect as a share issue to new shareholders for nil consideration. A simple example shows this:
Company with 100 shares and EV of 100, buys backs 10% for 10 i.e. MV, shares bought back given to staff.
Value of 50 shares pre transactions, 50
after buy back transaction assuming pro rata buy back own 45 share worth 40.5 plus cash of 5 so value of 4.5 has been lost.
In a bonus issue to give new shares holders 10%, approx 11.1 shares need to be issued, value of existing holder of 50 shares is 50/111.1 x 100 = 45 so 5 is lost.
The difference between the two is because in the buyback the company is "smaller" before the give away.
The shareholder always pays.
Seemed like from what Corbyn said today the Private School policy will be scaled back to just taking away their charitable status.
Cool. Labour only have to make one or two policies more “realistic” and their manifesto could be met with near universal approval. Should result in a jump in the polls when the manifesto come out, if people can accept ignoring the Brexit issue, and un hear lots of things said in the last few years.
————
As I predicted earlier, the Brexit Party have just announced that they will not have a manifesto… are we still only going to hold parties to account for what is in their manifesto, or be suspicious of polices they’ve floated recently but not committed to on paper in this election?
————
Interesting – she was a very odd choice!
Odd in what way? Not pro-Brexit?
The man-frog has just announced that the Brexit party will not be launching any kind of manifesto
And some people are so unbelievably stupid, they'll actually vote for that.
Actually, thats fine with me. They'll all be gammony Brexiteers who would have no doubt voted for Boris
If a company buys back its shares and then gives them away that has the similar dilutive effect as a share issue to new shareholders for nil consideration. A simple example shows this:
That too. Still trying to visualise this policy as something that makes any kind of sense other than a massive redistribution of wealth from shareholders to the public purse.
Actually, it’s by whom.
I feel suitably chastened.
They won’t achieve this by robbing ordinary people’s pensions, and they’re not stupid enough to try because it would be the biggest vote lose ever if nothing else.
This remains to be seen. Perhaps they'll either drop it quietly, or still try to dress it up as some sort of 'standing up for the workers against corporate fat cats', even when every other voice is telling them that small investors and pension funds will be among those paying for it.
It'll get diluted, modified or dropped, for sure.
It would be interesting to read the FT article but I’m not going to subscribe just for this.
It wasn't behind a paywall for me and doesn't seem to have been for anyone else. If it is behind a paywall sorry for posting, that was bad form.
Here it is again:
https://www.ft.com/content/dc17d7ee-ccab-11e9-b018-ca4456540ea6
Even a very quick look at the Top 10 companies only comes to £95Bn as 10% of market capitalisation…
Assuming Pienaar is quoting the FT the 300m comes from confiscating 10pc of every UK firm over 250FTEs.
Here's the sum the FT did from the link above:
the FT and law firm Clifford Chance have sought to gauge the size of the policy by extrapolating data from the Office for National Statistics.
The ONS estimates that financial and non-financial corporations have a book value of £5.5tn. The national accounts do not separate out large companies, but 57 per cent of overall corporate turnover derives from large companies, according to the ONS. On that basis the value of large private sector companies is about £3tn — meaning Labour would expropriate £300bn.
Seemed like from what Corbyn said today the Private School policy will be scaled back to just taking away their charitable status.
That's a lot less mental. Still a bit mental because it's still gonna close a lot of struggling schools and those kids become the state's problem overnight.
I understand why you are so vexed by this, OOB. The FT have analysed a policy they havent seen and decided it is a seizure, confiscation, expropriation.
The only people using that language are them. They aren't quoting from the policy, nor any Labour sources. They have decided that it is because they believe it is. So it's based on ideology, not any actual facts.
It would be just as legitimate to say that Tory social policy is to execute benefit claimants. More legit, actually, because you can at least find a Tory saying that and quote him.
For the record, I don't think the Tories are going to "put down" benefit claimants. I think they are going to gradually strip away their dignity, humanity, and necessities of life just like they always have and in a new twist will blame them for not having enough common sense.
Matt Kilcoyne, of the Adam Smith Institute, called the share move “expropriation”
So yeah, basically it's political opponents putting the boot in. No surprise they are producing hysteria about it.
TBH McDonnell always comes across as a very reasonable and rational man in interviews, so I've no concern that he's going to go nuts if he gets into power.
A few more sources:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45627146
It is undoubtedly true that the prospect of handing over 10% of the company will be unappealing to current investors. (Their ownership stake would be diluted, or cut slightly, as the shares are issued to workers).
https://www.ft.com/content/4cad1c50-bf59-11e8-8d55-54197280d3f7
Every company with more than 250 staff would have to set up an “inclusive ownership fund”, or IOF, holding 10 per cent of its equity on behalf of workers. The stake would be built up gradually, with a company handing over 1 per cent of its equity a year over a decade.
Well spotted, that article really spells it out:
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/labours-private-tenants-right-buy-and-workers-shares-plans
Mr McDonnell also detailed a plan for mass transfer of company shares to workers.
Labour in government would transfer some £300 billion of shares in 7,000 large companies to workers in those firms in “inclusive ownership funds.”
It would be one of the largest private-sector transfers seen in a western democracy
Well spotted, that article really spells it out:
Well aside from all it is doing is reporting the FT one. So doesnt answer cromolyolly's observations. Although well done to Mefty for an inspired smear.
Beaten to it by Kimbers^^^.
Any plausible reason offered by Watson?
But advocates of greater employee ownership told Newsnight that the devil would be in the detail. How you structure this type of policy affects whether you reap the wider potential benefits in terms of improved productivity and longer-term thinking.
So we don't really know how it's going to work. So like I said - hold your fire.
Well spotted, that article really spells it out:
Not sure if this is sarcasm or not but it does nothing of the sort. It doesn't mention the crucial factor of compensation for the people who already own the shares, which is precisely what you're worried about.
I would imagine he's probably nervous about being in a potential Labour government.
And now remain/ref is on the table he can't keep attacking Labour for not offering it.
Not as good as his last resignation letter:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jul/04/tom-watson-resignation-letter-ed-miliband-full-text
Struggling to see a smear - but obviously there is a different definition for Corbyn because referring to things he said constitutes a smear.
Russel Howard vocalising a lot of peoples thoughts on JRM
https://twitter.com/russellhoward/status/1192022998632599552?s=21
Bit vague.
It needs to be. He wants Labour to win.
One for the Boris lovers - a handy fact check from his latest speech:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50317404
a handy fact check from his latest speech:
Did he manage to say anything truthful?
Good to see he is copying Farage with his military talk "go to the barricades". I assume he is planning to die on them as well?
Watson lists a whole load of stuff he wants to do all of which looks credible to me especially the young family bit.
Who the hell wants to miss their kid's childhood in exchange for 5 years in opposition or potentially in a minority government? Very best case scenario is they'll be handling Brexit which is a total poison chalice.
He's not exactly popular with Momentum and he takes a lot of abuse on twitter but even without that there's easily enough there to warrant him jacking it in for positive reasons.
EDIT: Ahhh, WBE is 68pc leave which offers a more immediate motive:
http://democraticdashboard.com/constituency/west-bromwich-east
Which I guess is why is George Galloway is standing there.
Hancock has had to delete a tweet after being found out lying. another liar outed. Its good to see folk calling them out for lies.
Its really not been a good couple of days for the tories. Makes me smile.
Watson - time he went. He has caused a lot of damage as well as doing some good. I am not sorry to ssee him go.
Johnson also outed as lying for his 20 000 more police. Tee Hee
Haha squeaky bum time for John Redwood
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1192187159324844032?s=19