MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Just popped up as breaking news on my iPad that millibars has resigned as Labour Party leader.
Interesting about who could get it, I think Ed Balls saw himself as next in line.
[img] 
[/img]
It's no Blue Steel, but it has a certain something...
Damned autocorrect
Milliband!
Apologies for the wrong forum
Innevitable really.
The commentary I heard this morning was that the leadership contest will have to more significantly distance itself from the past, meaning that the cadidates for leader will likely skip a generation.
Chukka Umunah would be a very interesting choice.
I don't think David will have another go at it, as above it'll probably be a relatively unknown who'll bring a new generation into the Shadow Cabinet with them.
Andy Burnham.
I think Ed should have stayed for a while longer - that way he could have absorbed all the negativity like a sponge, fell on his sword and a new start from then.
Deja-vu, hora posted a pic of Chukka a few hours ago. We have too many election threads 😐
Better yet,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32633719
Nigel Farage has resigned as leader of UKIP having failed to gain the seat of Thanet South, losing out to Conservative candidate Craig Mackinlay.
But he said he would consider running for the job again when the leadership contest is held in September.
Speaking about his defeat, he insisted he had "never felt happier", with a "weight lifted off his shoulders".
Incidentally, Al Murray's reaction at the vote count was priceless. Video here:
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-05-08/pub-landlord-shocked-as-farage-misses-out-in-mp-bid/
meaning that the cadidates for leader will likely skip a generation.
Skip a generation, he was 45, are they going to appoint someone fresh from their gcse's.
They need some new blood, some from working backgrounds and normal lives who have experienced some lows instead of being on a constant career path where everything has lucked out for them.
I think Alan Johnson would be a good interim leader to rebuild the party and get back to it's roots, but he is realistically too old now to take them into another election, he would be 69 at the next one.
But he said he would consider running for the job again when the leadership contest is held in September.
Without liking the man, that seems like a crafty move from him - kept to his word about resigning, but knows the party is basically a one-man band (i.e. him) so probably a shoe-in to be re-elected come Sept.
Someone on Radio 4 was making an interesting point that Labour need a new stance not just a new leader.
They need to be more than a party of re-distribution of wealth from the rich to the masses - they need to be a party that supports creation of wealth and then its fair re-distribution...
I think that's sensible and more in touch with the times tbh...
Spot on. The old Labour has lost its relevance. The party needs a completely new stance, perhaps something to do with business with ethics.
Lord Reid nails it for me:-
"They (the public) thought we were on the wrong side of all the major arguments - our economic competence, on the question of creating wealth rather than just distributing wealth, on the question of immigration, on the question of reform of the public services,"
Social Capitalism.
An approach of awareness of the need for profit in a company in order to fulfil the duty of care that company has to it's employees first.. shareholders second.
They need some new blood, some from working backgrounds
I'm sick of this phrase "working families" (and, by extension, "working backgrounds"). It's so watered down, it's meaningless.
Which is one of the major failings of the current Labour Party. No idea who or what they stand for.
The old Labour has lost its relevance
No it is needed now far more than it has been for a long long time.
The reality is that a leader just needs to be charasmatic and pleasent on the eye, not some one who makes you want to leave the room whenver they come on TV
On the upside,
This year's Celebrity Come Dancing is going to be fantastic.
Social Capitalism.
An approach of awareness of the need for profit in a company in order to fulfil the duty of care that company has to it's employees first.. shareholders second.
Mark the spanner in the works here is that without shareholders money there would be no company. The alternative you describe is a co-operative and they are much less popular than people starting their own businesses and being in charge
The old Labour has lost its relevance
I'd say that a lot of the SNP policies that appealed to so many people were very 'Old Labour'
And without employees there would be no company. Both can be fairly treated as stakeholders in the company.
Labour would have lost with the Scottish vote as well.
I believe that most of the times Labour have won in the past, could have bee won without Scotland. Labour need to focus on winning seats in England, Scotland is a lost cause that needs to float off into the North Atlantic.
We have too many election threads 😐
Dunno what you mean. I just counted, there's only 12! TWELVE!!
You have an iPad.... cooool !
Dan Jarvis is the man.
Not a "professional" politician, real life experience.
The Tories would sh!t themselves.
[img] 
[/img]
[quote=MSP said]And without employees there would be no company.
Oh I dunno, did anyone see that Greg Wallace programme last night in the milk dairy? Robots whizzing about everywhere, replacing 300 workers in one hall alone.
There's only one man for the job. I'm off to Iona with a shovel.
Good. Useless ****
If his brother was running they might have had a fighting chance.
How can you possibly win an election when you have a face like a slapped arse?
Not a cooperative - that means shares for employees. And it doesn't exclude shareholders from a return on investment either, it just means that directors of a company, who already have a fidiciary duty to the company and shareholders laid down in law, would also have a fidiciary duty of care to their employees that was laid above that of shareholders. It's pretty simple attitude change and one that a lot of companies, with shareholders, already follow - Singletrack included. Shareholders still get a return but it generally isn't at the levels of a company that considers employees as tradable/disposable assets/expenses.
It moves a company away from the desire to make profit for the sole benefit of shareholders to making profit in order to provide stable employment and benefits to employees AS WELL AS shareholders.
End result is a more stable company, happier more secure employees, and a lower but less risky and volatile return for shareholders.
It's an ideology that can be laid down in a legislature if enough effort is put into it.
In simple terms it's a marriage of profit lead capitalism and socialist principals of workers rights. As far as I can can tell there's been too much focus on one or the other (capitalism and growth of profits and dividends or socialism that eschews profit as something bad and evil). The solution is, as it tends to be, somewhere in the middle... But not in a limp Lib Dem way 🙂
....and that's as publicly political as I am going to be today 🙂
Cougar - Moderator
On the upside,
This year's Celebrity Come Dancing is going to be fantastic.
😀
The social capitalism model (who invented that mouthful??) seems a little shortsighted especially when articulated in front of the people excluded from the definition - the customers or subscribers!
Personally, I would advocate a model that looks after customers, employees and shareholders alike. They are all key stakeholders than need investing in. Doing it in one at the exclusion of the others is folly IMHO!
Chuka! Chuka! Chuka!
You know you want to ... go on ... Chuka! Chuka! Chuka!
Chuka for the next Labour leader.
Chuka! Chuka! Chuka!
(a bit like Sontarans chant) 😆
Doing it in one at the exclusion of the others is folly IMHO!
Which is the current system.
Mark and MSP companies have those duties according to employment law and we have some of the most employee friendly employment law in the world. We could certainly do more around minimum/living wage and zero hours contracts but we already relatively uncompetitive with say, the USA and Asia certainly.
Not in my company MSP. That would kill us.
So was Edstone his Sheffiield?
Like I said, it's more of an attitude change from profit for shareholders and if that comes at the cost of employees then all is good. - It's that last bit that needs modifying. Companies exist in and because of society - in my mind that means they can show their appreciation of that society by not making dividends to shareholders the sole purpose of the company. A company's purpose is to benefit it's shareholders and that's all hunkdory, but it also exists to contribute to society by paying tax and employing people. Just a redressing of focus to the latter is all I'm saying 🙂
Lots of companies operate this way already. It's not revolutionary really.. It could just do with spreading a bit more I reckon. Become more of a trend or ideology to drive a political movement... or something.
If the headlines tomorrow don't read BALLS SACKED I'll be very disappointed.
Still no comment on the customer Mark - that is quite revolutionary! 😉
Cougar, excellent. He can market these [url= https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/bikeballs/bike-balls-bike-light ]Bike Balls[/url] 🙂
Mark, think about the guy who starts his own business. Is he running that for himself (shareholder) or as some kind of collective for his employees. i bet he thinks his hardwork and risk deserve reward and he think his employees get a job and pay for their contribution. As I said we have some of the most generous employment protection law in the world. I'm not sure where your utopia exists but if you can find it let me know.
If the headlines tomorrow don't read BALLS SACKED I'll be very disappointed.
City AM have been running this headline since this morning 🙂
Still no comment on the customer Mark - that is quite revolutionary!
Two points.
1. You are not one as you dont buy anything
2. If i can go out on a limb here I dont think he thinks we are always right 😛
Nice approach from grumpy re the business approach.
Mark, I think you've got it backwards, companies are there for one reason in most commercial situations, to make money for the owners / investors. However consideration should be given to the employees as happy, motivated employees usually mean a stronger more profitable business so everyone wins.
Any intelligent investor will want the employees to have loyalty to the company. For those too stupid / greedy / short term we have a government who should be setting the minimum standards for employee welfare. Unfortunately Cameron doesn't get that, e.g. one of the first things he did 5 years ago was to extend the period before unfair dismissal kicks in from 1 to 2 years on the grounds it would encourage employers to recruit.
Mark, think about the guy who starts his own business.
What, you mean.... like Mark, who started his own business? Called Singletrack/GoFar?
Mark, I think you've got it backwards, companies are there for one reason in most commercial situations, to make money for the owners / investors
But not at all costs. its not the ONLY thing they have to do to the extent they have few principles and justify it by saying "its only business" Which translates as morally I cannot defend this as i only did it for money
Its an attempt to strike a balance between social responsibility AND making money
When we look at the size and profit of a large number of multinationals who pay minimum wage here, use cheap far eastern labour /sweat shops and a aggressively avoid tax its very hard to justify this. this is what ONLY pursuing money gets you. Asbestos companies and tobacco companies lying about the affects of their products being another . If you cannot see an imbalance here , that needs redressing, then nothing I say will convince you.
City AM have been running this headline since this morning
Curses.