Forum menu
Amber "just keep digging you odious woman" Rudd
Well at least we can all agree on Rudd.
Could a Corbynite explain why the bonds issued to nationalise the twenty odd water companies won't be government debt, I'm trying to understand McDonomics
I'm not massively versed on this but I assume they borrow at a very low rate 1.5% or so. And the yield is much higher than that. It's also infrastructure spend and not just creating debt by paying for teachers etc.
In other words youd could say it's a debt but it's a debt that creates growth and money for our own coffers and therefore an investment. The balance sheet is effectively levelled by owning the infrastructure.
The other option is a share swap for bonds but I don't know how that works.
There's always a downside - paying share holders or handing over control Chinese power companies. Pick your poison.
I'd sooner have the debt and investment.
From Craig Murray - the red line is where Theresa May took over at the Home Office.
[url= https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Screenshot-237_LI.jp g" target="_blank">https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Screenshot-237_LI.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
I just read up on the bond swap. So the shareholders are now bondholders and get paid interest.
I'm not massively versed on this but I assume they borrow at a very low rate 1.5% or so. And the yield is much higher than that. It's also infrastructure spend and not just creating debt by paying for teachers etc.
Both Corbyn and McDonnell have been on air stating they aren’t borrowing to fund this
Also can anyone answer the McDonomics question, why won’t the bonds be government debt?
as governments can borrow at the best rates
they borrow at rates according to their credit rating. We were AAA and we've been downgraded - and could happen again in the future.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/13/what-are-government-bonds
How are the water company bonds going to be structured?
Are the bond holders going to get less than their current total shareholder return?
What is the impact on UK pension funds?
Don't forget, sales of water are going to rise under Corbyn
[img] 
?w=240[/img]
Don't forget, sales of water are going to rise under Corbyn
Don't be mean
Can we go back to arguing about left wing main stream media again, it's kinder
DA is for sure costing the LP votes. I've seen Sarah Champion do well in interviews, DA
Anyone who doesn't think the media are biased or dont have an agenda are naive in the extreme. Think of how Miliband was treated in the last election.
But the main thing for me is that the BBC takes its lead from the newspapers, reporting the news in the DM etc as if it is news rather than biased tittle tattle. CH4 news manages to avoid this why cant the BBC?
CH4 news manages to avoid this why cant the BBC?
Why can't OU Conservative Association president Nick Robinson or Cameron dinner guest Sarah Montague avoid appearing biased? Hmm ... tricky one!
The BBC bias thing is one thing the left and the right seem to agree on.
With the BBC I get the impression they pick up the papers to decide what to report rather than doing there own investigating.
allthepies - MemberThe BBC bias thing is one thing the left and the right seem to agree on.
Correct- even lifelong conservative Nick Robinson agrees that the BBC is biased against Corbyn. The BBC Trust has also found Laura Kuennsberg broke their accuracy and impartiality code.
The BBC bias thing i
Yet they employed Paul Mason
Why can't OU Conservative Association president Nick Robinson or Cameron dinner guest Sarah Montague avoid appearing biased?
Ah, now where were you when Robert Peston, son of Labour peer Maurice Peston, became editor of BBC business news, or when committed Labour Party supporter Andrew Marr became political editor of BBC news?
Ah, now where were you when Robert Peston, son of Labour peer Maurice Peston, became editor of BBC business news, or when committed Labour Party supporter Andrew Marr became political editor of BBC news?
Rage at the TV and scream at the red tories
Only caught a bit of Corbyn on ITV this morning, he was adequate on the IRA questions but was well prepared with the corporation tax etc
He did seem to be a in suit too big for him
Didnt see Marr, but if its as jambs says 😉 Abbot is an easy target these days, Rudd should be getting a roasting -she was already planning further policing cuts before Manchester attack, will they still be happening?
she received the same warnings of police understaffing leaving us vulnerable as May did and chose to ignore them too
Robert Peston, son of Labour peer Maurice Peston
I bow to your knowledge of genetics. I hadn't realised that political orientation was hereditary.
It's more likely than catching it at a dinner party 😉
[quote=DrJ said]
I bow to your knowledge of genetics. I hadn't realised that political orientation was hereditary.
Indeed, perhaps he's seen the error of his fathers ways.
I bow to your knowledge of genetics. I hadn't realised that political orientation was hereditary
As well as being non-hereditary you are more likely going to have an opposing view to your parents in your formative years which may well stay with you.
Hilary Benn eg.
Hilary Benn eg.
Yes exactly, a good example of different views to their parents.
(intended)
BBC have a duty to report the facts and its a fact that Corbyn is unelectable with a long track record of stuff shich makes him so. The BBC are falling over themselves to be impartial its just impossible or Corbyn to come over as anything but inept.
@big_n_daft McDominics - brilliant 🙂 it's not debt on planet LoneyLeft because John McD says so. Also many equity funds can't own bonds or have holding limits by asset class so couldn't keep any bonds exchanged for shares. It's a right mess and I have been on the other side when bonds I owned in a fund I managed which could only hold bonds where converted to equity and I was a forced seller at the worst time/price.
People have posted here a 250bn borrowing number for Labour but its way way more than that, its 250bn for the Investment Bank alone, plus nationalisations of water at unknown prices, extra borrowing for operating costs/capital spending on nationalised railways plus all the other borowing required when their tax proposals bring in much less than they estimate (as the IFS pointed out).
John McD has claimed that borrowing for investment somehow "doesn't count" but I can tell him that as a fund manager we absolutely take into account all borrowing when calculating debt sustainability and thus the interest rate we will require. As for governments being able to borrow at the lowest rate, thats only true for strong and credit worthy governments, once the wheels come off rates go up very quickly. See Denis Healy having to go to the IMF
@kimbers et al what I don't understand is why Corbyn / Abbott etc can't just flat out say, "we apologise, we where totally wrong" Diane's hair-do analogy was clearly scripted I can't imagine what she was thinking. The list of Islamic Jihadi groups she voted against declaring terrorist organisations was staggering (I think all Islamic/Jihadi apart from Kurdistan Workers Party). She made the appalling statement that some of those on the list where simply "dissidents" but then of course refused to say which.
Go on, admit it. Your a little bit worried that May will **** this up so badly corbyn might actually get in...
Yes Tories will just flat out lie if it makes the interview easier.
Funny how Tories per year in office borrow more than Labour isn't it?
they borrow at rates according to their credit rating. We were AAA and we've been downgraded - and could happen again in the future.
I reckon we'll be down again post-Brexit.
The BBC are falling over themselves to be impartial its just impossible or Corbyn to come over as anything but inept.
Erm... Yeah sure.
I have to completely agree with Jambalaya's last comment. Why Corbyn and Abbott can't just give a straight apology is beyond me.
Maybe they're just being honest.
Maybe they're just being honest.
Yep, you mean like Jez saying,
I’ve been involved in opposing anti-terror legislation ever since I first went into Parliament in 1983
Or his ex, who is angling to be the Home Sec lest we forget, saying,
Every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us
Or, Jonny M saying he's a Marxist.
They're just being honest. Good for them.
I wonder when weak&wobbly is going to apologise to the victims of the bombs raining down in Yemen?
Why Corbyn and Abbott can't just give a straight apology is beyond me.
The cynic in me thinks that is explained by this:
Also many equity funds can't own bonds or have holding limits by asset class so couldn't keep any bonds exchanged for shares. It's a right mess and I have been on the other side when bonds I owned in a fund I managed which could only hold bonds where converted to equity and I was a forced seller at the worst time/price.People have posted here a 250bn borrowing number for Labour but its way way more than that, its 250bn for the Investment Bank alone, plus nationalisations of water at unknown prices, extra borrowing for operating costs/capital spending on nationalised railways plus all the other borowing required when their tax proposals bring in much less than they estimate (as the IFS pointed out).
John McD has claimed that borrowing for investment somehow "doesn't count" but I can tell him that as a fund manager we absolutely take into account all borrowing when calculating debt sustainability and thus the interest rate we will require. As for governments being able to borrow at the lowest rate, thats only true for strong and credit worthy governments, once the wheels come off rates go up very quickly. See Denis Healy having to go to the IMF
The terrorism stuff makes them look dreadful but maybe they think it's far less of a vote loser than more analysis of the policy which is clearly impossible unicorn promising. There won't be enough money, and there won't be enough parliamentary time. (Brexit will surely involve every government department.)
So perhaps Labour (perhaps reasonably) think floating voters won't think Labour are going to seriously support terrorism against Britain while in office. But they (perhaps reasonably) think floating voters could easily be persuaded that Labour will will chase a load of wealthy people and businesses abroad and leave us with an unsustainable debt to service at a time when the UK is not a popular place to lend to.
So perhaps Labour think every uncomfortable minute fielding questions on terrorism is a minute they don't have to talk about policy.
Funny how Tories per year in office borrow more than Labour isn't it?
So which party should a floating voter who wants a higher government spend vote for?
Re the BBC. The right always say it's left biased and the left always say it's right biased. Has there ever been an objective study to work out if there *is* bias there - it seems pretty straight down the middle to me. There is "misleadingness" that that seems to be to make a non-story seem interesting rather than to support a particular viewpoint.
Yep, you mean like Jez saying,I’ve been involved in opposing anti-terror legislation ever since I first went into Parliament in 1983
I can't see the problem with that. Anti-terror legislation has been used to deny the most basic rights which have existed for hundreds of years. Anti-terror legislation has been used to justify internment without trial and the Diplock courts. And of course unsurprisingly it has led to the most appalling miscarriages of justice of modern time, ie, completely innocent people being framed.
If internment without trial and the Diplock courts were such a good idea why aren't they being introduced now?
Or don't we have a terrorist threat now?
David Davies stood down iirc.
If you want an increased govt spend on services vote Labour, if you want increased govt borrowing vote Tory.
The terrorism stuff makes them look dreadful but maybe they think it's far less of a vote loser than more analysis of the policy which is clearly impossible unicorn promising. There won't be enough money, and there won't be enough parliamentary time. (Brexit will surely involve every government department.)So perhaps Labour (perhaps reasonably) think floating voters won't think Labour are going to seriously support terrorism against Britain while in office. But they (perhaps reasonably) think floating voters could easily be persuaded that Labour will will chase a load of wealthy people and businesses abroad and leave us with an unsustainable debt to service at a time when the UK is not a popular place to lend to.
So they perhaps Labour think every uncomfortable minute fielding questions on terrorism is a minute they don't have to talk about policy.
nah I think they have a geninene belief that the Tory model of cutting your way to growth hurts the poorest and ultimately costs you more in the long term as society is damaged , eg health, education, policing, security all the things that the Tories traditionally neglect
That said Brexit is obviously going to make things tough, raising corp tax as we desperately try to keep business here post brexit it only makes sense if were to e kept in the single market & customs union
likewise we cant afford the 6bn a year hit to our economy of Mays (never gonna keep it anyway) 10k immigration fuzzy promise
Not to mention things like an investment bank have long term returns
@ernie good to see you back. The civil liberties argument has merit, as I posted above sometimes (imo) you have to forgoe civil liberties for security, eg search warrants or being arrested on suspicion of committing a crime we have accepted those. Its a genuine trade off and worth a discussion. Where Corbyn et al have dug themselves a massive hole is trying to block the classicifation of organisations as terrorist, describing defeats for the UK Government at the hands of terrorists as desirable, of siding with the objectives of terrorists in the midst of a violent campaign (reunification of Ireland, troops out), of describing the death by hunger strike of Bobby Sands as a contribution towards peace etc etc.
The "rap sheet" goes on and on. It's a lifetime's worth of taking sides against the government of the day including your own party. When you want to be the Government that's going to come back and haunt you.
@kimbers the Tories have been trying to "cut their way" to a sustainable level of spending. An analysis of the Labour manifesto showed they will keep 78% of the Tories spending cuts. Spending money is easy, raising it is much more difficult.
sometimes (imo) you have to forgoe civil liberties for security
Not to.mention for the trains running on time. Really - how did that philosophy work out in N Ireland?
The "rap sheet" goes on and on. It's a lifetime's worth of taking sides against the government of the day including your own party. When you want to be the Government that's going to come back and haunt you.
You mean like when Theresa May voted 49 times aginst Labour's anti terrorist legilation?
sometimes (imo) you have to forgoe civil liberties for security
[img]
[/img]
nah I think they have a geninene belief that the Tory model of cutting your way to growth hurts the poorest and ultimately costs you more in the long term as society is damaged
...although they're not reversing the cuts to any large degree, are they?
sometimes (imo) you have to forgoe civil liberties for security,
and sometimes (imo) you have to forgo security for civil liberties. Difficult isn't it?
Or, Jonny M saying he's a Marxist.
As a matter of interest, Cap'n, which specific writings of Marx do you take issue with? Or are you just, y'know, spouting crap?
The "rap sheet" goes on and on. It's a lifetime's worth of taking sides against the government of the day including your own party.
Or is it sticking up for your principles?
The sharing fairly bit?
Or is it sticking up for your principles?
Good old Marxist principles
John McD has claimed that borrowing for investment somehow "doesn't count" but I can tell him that as a fund manager
Surely managing investment funds is not the same as running a country?
Borrowing for infrastructure means the money stays in the economy and grows it, so it's different. Even I know the difference between operational and capital expenditure.
May has managed to reduce a 20 point lead down to 5 in just 3 weeks
this against a terrorist loving, marxist, allotment dweller with a numerically dyslexic shadow home sec, that 9 out of 10 media barons are trying to hatchet...
Yeah May will win, but its a shite state of affairs when we have someone so painfully incompetent running the show 😯
Or is it sticking up for your principles?
They were more than his principles, they were the founding principles and values of the Labour Party.
For many years Tony Blair and his self-serving cronies ceased to be Labour politicians, during that period Corbyn (and a few others in the PLP) remained Labour politicians.
Castigating Corbyn for remaining loyal to Labour is as absurd as castigating him for being right about the way to achieve lasting peace in Northern Ireland.
Surely managing investment funds is not the same as running a country?Borrowing for infrastructure means the money stays in the economy and grows it, so it's different. Even I know the difference between operational and capital expenditure.
I think even as a country you still have to make the repayments, or people stop lending to you.
As a country you can play tricks like printing money with which to pay off your debts, but you can only do that so many times before even fund managers start to notice that they're being taken for a ride.
I think even as a country you still have to make the repayments, or people stop lending to you.As a country you can play tricks like printing money with which to pay off your debts, but you can only do that so many times before even fund managers start to notice that they're being taken for a ride.
the whole point of investing in infrastructure is that it pays back itself, obviously it has to be enough to cover the original investment
The biggest problem with using infrastructure spending as an investment vehicle is any payoff is going to be a long term thing, but with the current state of our debt/defecit, we need much quicker results.
Plus its a gamble, and trying to gamble your way out of a sticky spot is extremely dicey, and the results of it going wrong would be extremely unpleasant.
Investment in infrastructure is necessary. Energy, transport, housing, health and social care all need investment. If by spending money on these things the economy grows (as history suggests) then ****ing great.
Why is austerity not a gamble? I'd rather have my money in a well managed investment fund than in a savings account that pays 0.5%
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
ID not confirmed, but it looks suspiciously like a certain person
For many years Tony Blair and his self-serving cronies ceased to be Labour politicians,
What you mean the Labour party were electable?
Is it just me or judging by the postings on this thread are the right wing freaks here become little bit scared?
[img] 
[/img]
Don't worry ninfan we can knock one up of CMD and a pig if you want.
Is that the former MP for Belfast west in front of him? How history might have been different if we could have found a road to peace earlier.
ID not confirmed, but it looks suspiciously like a certain person
george best?
Pinochet, good comparison, murdered about the same as the IRA, tortured a lot more though
and of course Thatcher actually lobbied for him not to be tried for War Crimes, although thatcher was unrepentant to her grave and never condemed him, to be fair he was a great proponent of the free market, so exceptions can obviously be made
Thatcher isn't the one standing for PM funnily enough.
allthepies - Member
Thatcher isn't the one standing for PM funnily enough.
She isn't, damm that is confusing. However I would assume the usual suspects will be along to condemn the behaviour of meeting, harbouring and protecting such people when they should have been dealing with their crimes.
This for me is morally wrong and there is plenty the UK could be doing here
[img]
[/img]Liam Fox’s declaration of “shared values” with Rodrigo Duterte, the Philippines leader whose war on drugs has killed 7,000 people, has prompted dismay about the government’s approach to human rights as it seeks post-Brexit trade deals.The international trade secretary, who will also visit Malaysia and Indonesia on his trip, said in an article published in local media that he wanted Britain to build a stronger relationship with the Philippines based on “a foundation of shared values and shared interests”.
As Fox visited the Philippines, Theresa May was in Saudi Arabia as part of a wider government effort to shore up the UK’s trading position after Brexit. Speaking to the BBC, she refused to criticise the government’s bombardment of Yemen, which is estimated to have killed more than 10,000 civilians and displaced more than 3 million people.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/04/liam-fox-meets-philippine-president-rodrigo-duterte
While reassuring them that they have his full backing, Duterte told the troops he is ready to bear the consequences of fighting the extremists.Then the president went on to remark: "You can each rape three women and I will protect you".
He also told the troops that they were free to arrest any person or search any house if necessary.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/35672663/philippines-president-rodrigo-duterte-shocking-rape-comments-to-filipino-troops/#page1
How can this be defended?
[quote=mikewsmith said]
She isn't, damm that is confusing.
Well it seems to be confusing a few.
How do you square the current government pandering to Saudi and the Rodrigo Duterte given his current comments that it's OK to rape 3 women and he has the soldiers backs, he has boasted of offing people and sanctioned executions without trial?
just pointing out hypocrisy allthepies
eg
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/09/saudi-arms-sales-lawyers-warn-break-international-law-yemen
[img] 
[/img]
of course our involvment in Middle Eastern wars is keeping us safer and has no blowback for the UK 🙄
Rodrigo Duterte given his current comments that it's OK to rape 3 women and he has the soldiers backs,
but we have shared values with the man!
well Im sure liam fox does
Not to mention that Maybot voted agianst Labours Terror laws 49 times, thats on par with Corbyn 😉
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10426/theresa_may/maidenhead/divisions?policy=1053
Communist
IRA
Terrorist
GOTO Start
Error Error Error
Bot broken
Has anyone managed to explain McDonomics and why the bonds issued to buy the Water Companies won't be debt as stated by both JC and JM?
No because it clearly is. John McDonnell is far from stupid (unlike Corbyn), so I can only assume he's working on the premise that most people don't understand bonds and finance.
Not read it fully. But as a point I don't care as to how it's described, I think those policies are worth a serious look at the moment.
I'd like to see the full breakdowns of current investment and profits made in order to see how it was all performing. Prior to formalising how to bring it back into public ownership a detailed review of the structures in place and efficiencies that can be achieved should be done. That should identify the scope and costings available.
If you maintained the current pricing with zero savings you could repay debt and maintain investments levels while acquiring an asset for the tax payer. Any efficiency from unifying billing and regulatory work would either allow more investment or repayments as it would not be going into private companies.
Not read it fully.
You are Diane Abbott and I claim my £5
Butt as a point I don't care as to how it's described, I think those policies are worth a serious look at the moment.
What problem are you trying to fix?
I'd like to see the full breakdowns of current investment and profits made in order to see how it was all performing.
You can see it now, there is a full review every five years, and they publish the data, you have a number of Quango's that regulate all facets of the industry
Prior to formalising how to bring it back into public ownership a detailed review of the structures in place and efficiencies that can be achieved should be done. That should identify the scope and costings available.
If you haven’t done already how do you know there are efficiencies?
If you maintained the current pricing with zero savings you could repay debt and maintain investments levels while acquiring an asset for the tax payer.
On what basis? How are the “not debt” bonds structured?
Any efficiency from unifying billing and regulatory work would either allow more investment or repayments as it would not be going into private companies.
Is it one billing system or nine? Who pays for the new system? Who pays for the write off of the existing billing systems?
How much do you think the reduction in regulatory work would reduce the average customers bill by?
You can see it now, there is a full review every five years, and they publish the data, you have a number of Quango's that regulate all facets of the industry
That one in 15 reported rising profits and falling investment. Great for the consumer.
How much do you think the reduction in regulatory work would reduce the average customers bill by?
Is that the full aim? How about delivering a fit for the future service and infrastructure.
As for acquiring assets and paying off debts it's a profit making business so diverting the profit into general government debt reduction does contribute.
I see you are comply opposed to public ownership though. If it's a sweetener somebody could flog it again later and a small group of people could make a killing on the privatisation 🙂
small group of people could make a killing on the privatisation
Osborne had more than one best man? 😯
I saw a bit of peston yesterday and was impressed by the way Corbyn actually answered the questions.
He came across as a an educated , honest man.
Still wouldn't vote for him but he is far less punchable than may.
Both on telly tonight aswell.
Anyone remember the equivalent debate last time with Milliband getting the audience members name wrong 3 times lol!
John McDonnell is far from stupid (unlike Corbyn), so I can only assume he's working on the premise that most people don't understand bonds and finance.
Same with corporation tax. I suspect a large number of Corbyn's supporters are blissfully unaware that corporation tax isn't set in isolation. (We reduced ours because "Japan, Spain, Israel, Norway and Estonia had all lowered their tax rates for corporate profits in 2015. Meanwhile, future reductions had been announced by Italy, France and the UK, while Japan planned further cuts." ( https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/22/corporation-tax-downward-trend-oecd-gdp-growth) We basically had to reduce the rate to try to increase revenue. It's simple supply and demand.)
Either they don't understand, or regard taxing wealthy people and businesses to force them abroad as a good thing. They can't possibly believe that there's a massive untapped source of cash available that no other government noticed.
pandering to Saudi and the Rodrigo Duterte
Of course Corbyn is seeking the job which involves pandering to Saudi and the Rodrigo Duterte. Have a read of Robin Cook's book - even if you start out wanting an ethical foreign policy it doesn't survive. In Cooks case it fell apart when 10,000 uk jobs in the same constituency relied on a sale of aircraft dashboards to Israel via the USA.
I must confess, if Corbyn wins I'm going to love all the photos of him shaking hands with Saudi Royals and turning up at Nato meetings. Plus you know all that bad press Southern Trains get? Well if Corbyn nationalizes it all that press is going to be aimed direct at him. Every late train will be the government's fault.
More and more I think Labour are fuelling all this IRA stuff to keep policy out of the press. Their source of cash is a total fiction, and there isn't parliamentary time for all these promises. The "every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us" stuff is far less of a vote loser than having to explain the unexplainable: why bonds aren't borrowing or why increasing corporation tax will reduce revenue.
impressed by the way Corbyn actually answered the questions
I think (apart from policy) he's played a blinder in this campaign. Pretty sure his performance has surprised the Tories, his own party, and probably himself. Smooth talking aint going to polish the turd of his policy though, but I don't think his core vote really care about that. Trump got in with a similar "I'm going to borrow a ton of money and make everything better without anyone ever needing to pay for it" message, I'm convinced this is going to be close. (Warning: My political predictions are always wrong.)