National News Official 2019 General Election Thread

LowerSouth said:
Should income tax therefore be levied based on ones wealth and not income ?
Click to expand...
To have accrued the wealth you had to have had income... Yeah I used the wrong word and you are correct to pick me up on it ?
 
SteMerritt said:
To have accrued the wealth you had to have had income... Yeah I used the wrong word and you are correct to pick me up on it ?
Click to expand...
You might have just inherited it, like the Duke of Westminster who avoided paying any duties on his 9 billion inheritance. And then proceeded to try and evict some council tenants.
 
tonyw said:
So I guess the question would then be - what's the point?

If the UK government is planning to buy up a majority of shares in these companies, but then leave the management and operation as-is, what have you achieved?

Maybe you'd say you can institute something of a culture shift away from profit maximization towards service provision - but in that case, are the current management going to be the right people to implement such a shift?

And if not, and therefore you're going to have to bring in new individuals to manage the newly public organisations - who is to say that the government is going to do a better job of identifying, recruiting and overseeing those people than the private sector currently does?
Click to expand...

The controlling shareholder has considerable clout!

How about reinvesting some of those dividends back into the business rather than purely cashing out to shareholders? Providing decent training & work conditions for lowest paid staff? Offering a product/service that puts the customer first rather than the most cost effective?

Management can stay onboard with similar terms, add a number of non-financial metrics to their performance scorecard and away we go!
 
Foley said:
My take as well.
This huge additional spending of course will be popular with many people.
But the country could well end up hugely in debt.
Like you there is no way in my view that Johnson or Corbyn are electable- not so sure on Swinson or Lib Dems either....
Click to expand...
I think your final sentence sums up the dilemma facing a large section of the voting public, including me.
 
Navegante said:
The controlling shareholder has considerable clout!

How about reinvesting some of those dividends back into the business rather than purely cashing out to shareholders? Providing decent training & work conditions for lowest paid staff? Offering a product/service that puts the customer first rather than the most cost effective?

Management can stay onboard with similar terms, add a number of non-financial metrics to their performance scorecard and away we go!
Click to expand...


So in other words, you're not leaving the business as-is......you're essentially advocating that the government takes on the role of the Board in setting performance metrics and overseeing the performance of the management (which, as you say, would be its right as controlling shareholder).

Which is all fine if you believe that the UK public sector can capably fulfill that role.

If they can't, then you end up with a woolly strategy, you likely can't retain talented management and the performance of the company suffers - as will any entity that suffers from bad corporate governance.


Look, I'm not here saying that there's always a right answer here. That privatization or public ownership is always good/bad for a given organization. It clearly always depends on the qualities and capabilities of the individuals that are managing and overseeing these entities. I just think I marginally trust the private sector more than the public sector to find and retain the right individuals.
 
BristolOx said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1115814499821527041

A long thread on the history of Johnson if you have the time to read it (and have Twitter).
Click to expand...
Doesn’t matter. Some people will never criticise him or admit he’s a lying scumbag who has no right running a country. Nor will they ever realise that to do so does not mean to endorse others who are terrible in their own way.

I actually enjoy watching people glaze over it all now. It’s very amusing to see the lengths people will go to in order to actively defend and support this man.
 
RyanioBirdio said:
Doesn’t matter. Some people will never criticise him or admit he’s a lying scumbag who has no right running a country. Nor will they ever realise that to do so does not mean to endorse others who are terrible in their own way.

I actually enjoy watching people glaze over it all now. It’s very amusing to see the lengths people will go to in order to actively defend and support this man.
Click to expand...

Just joining. Are you on about Corbyn or Johnson?
 
MarkG said:
Just joining. Are you on about Corbyn or Johnson?
Click to expand...
Johnson.

Corbyn is a fool who I don’t want in power either but he isn’t as downright evil and sociopathic as Johnson, who somehow has an obscene amount of people not only overlooking his behaviour, but actively supporting it.
 
Finally, the latest polls and the demographics I think is really interesting.

projects.economist.com

UK general election poll tracker - Who is winning the race for 10 Downing Street?

Our statistical analysis of polling shows how Britain’s political parties are faring in the general election campaign
projects.economist.com projects.economist.com

If people have time I'd like someone to pick this apart - The majority of Younger people 18 - 34 would vote for Labour whilst an overwhelming majority of 65+ year olds would vote Conservative. The younger people are the ones who are essentially inheriting our great nation from those who have come before us. They have watched the generations before buy properties, assets and earn really good livings.
This is at a time when first time buyers is at an all-time low with tenants/landlords at an all time high. Finding well-paid/desirable jobs is increasingly difficult. Homelessness sky rocketing. Child poverty sky rocketing. Working poverty sky rocketing.
Why is it suddenly so hard for this generation to simply earn a similarly comfortable lifestyle than generations before? Because the opportunities have been dwindling. Unless a whole generation has decided to suddenly work less hard? No, only Austrians work a longer average hours 43.5 (UK 40.5) per week than anywhere in Europe.
I'm not saying it should be easy, it wouldn't have been easy for those in past generations. But why should it now be impossible for Frank who works in a shop who works his a**e off every day & puts in extra hours every week to make his way in the world?
Then we're left with essentially 2 choices - a radical change promising Socialism or a continual drive towards Conservatism.
A party offering actual change to balance the scales as they currently are - or one seemingly intent on selling our NHS, consistently trying to undermine our intelligence by proclaiming falsities & also has been empowered during a time when those at the bottom rungs of the ladder have been offered not a single helping hand, but instead have had those rungs on the ladder covered in lubricant or even removed entirely.
I want to say something stupid like Younger people should have more of a say than older people as they are the ones who actually will be paying taxes in 50 years time - but I do understand the ridiculousness of such a notion. What I almost think is ironic is that its somewhere around 55% of the NHS expenditure is on those 85+ yet it's that generation (and the one before) who are essentially going to be voting to end our free health service.

You can argue that Labour won't be able to succeed in improving the lives the millions of people in the UK. But nobody knows, when was the last real socialist Government? 60's or 70's? A whole lot has changed since then.
What I can see as undeniable is that a Tory government and their current policies have had such a devastating impact on our country in the last 10 years - I'd be astounded to see a positive statistic that can be attributed to their governance from their time. Even 1.


1 sided debate over now - I should go to bed. I'll be back for rebuttals same time tomorrow.
 
tonyw said:
So in other words, you're not leaving the business as-is......you're essentially advocating that the government takes on the role of the Board in setting performance metrics and overseeing the performance of the management (which, as you say, would be its right as controlling shareholder).

Which is all fine if you believe that the UK public sector can capably fulfill that role.

If they can't, then you end up with a woolly strategy, you likely can't retain talented management and the performance of the company suffers - as will any entity that suffers from bad corporate governance.


Look, I'm not here saying that there's always a right answer here. That privatization or public ownership is always good/bad for a given organization. It clearly always depends on the qualities and capabilities of the individuals that are managing and overseeing these entities. I just think I marginally trust the private sector more than the public sector to find and retain the right individuals.
Click to expand...

Fair response Tony. I don't rule out the role of the free-market entirely but clearly it doesn't always know best!

There is a whole spectrum of company structures (partnerships, cooperatives, mutual societies) which could be deployed, pros and cons obviously analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

I simply question the lazy attitude of some who dismiss the possibility of alternative options where actual evidence (both in UK & abroad) suggests these could be viable!
 
YellowTaxi said:
Private companies...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1197627348620845064
Click to expand...

This is not capitalism - it's cronyism!

Water companies can take the P**s because there is limited competition (ever looked into setting up your own water company?) and it's an essential resource.

Customers have to swallow poor service and high prices because there are no real alternatives for their custom. It's a cartel.

Water company attitudes to risk (e.g. debt) differs to a car manufacturer or supermarket because if they run it into the ground they know the government will have to step in.

Perhaps it's not the free-market to blame, rather confusing a market for essential services as a free-market and treating it as such...
 
Navegante said:
What questions have I avoided? Point them out and I'll try to address them. I don't have all the answers but I do try to apply reasoned logic if unsure of all facts whilst clearly stating so.

You seem to be confusing M&As with takeovers. Following the acquisition of the controlling shares of a company there is no obligation to merge that company with another in your portfolio - it can be left as-is.
Click to expand...
tonyw got there, so I'll leave it at that. But suffice to say, it's not as simple as you think. Let alone any IP that the companies own.

It was interesting to see the anger at the Labour party on QT last night from a place like Bolton. One assumption we all make is various areas of the north are forever Labour - but seeing Burgon bluster will have hardened some views that under the Corbyn leadership, they are not so electable. It's so easy to fall for the Islington view of what is going on. The 80k tax rate is going to penalise a lot more people in the South who may not be able to afford the piece - Labour's position always assumes that people have a lot liquidity to throw about because they are RICH.

I'm not advocating the Tories are perfect either.

I did laugh at the stale and pale Labour photo on the battle bus of the shadow cabinet. Looked like something out of Russia in the 60s. Are there are Asian members of the shadow cabinet? Or male minorities? Labour's front bench is not that diverse is it?
3169995_Labour-manifesto-bus.JPG
 
Why do people keep posting Tweets like it is some sort of nailed on fact?
Surely if you participate in such you will only follow those of the same mindset?
You therefore get fed stuff you think is "right" which just fuels your own insecurity.

There will always be rich people at the top of the pile, its been pretty much like that since Ug sold a stone axe to Berg for 2 bundles of firewood.
 
Gary Baldi said:
tonyw got there, so I'll leave it at that. But suffice to say, it's not as simple as you think. Let alone any IP that the companies own.

It was interesting to see the anger at the Labour party on QT last night from a place like Bolton. One assumption we all make is various areas of the north are forever Labour - but seeing Burgon bluster will have hardened some views that under the Corbyn leadership, they are not so electable. It's so easy to fall for the Islington view of what is going on. The 80k tax rate is going to penalise a lot more people in the South who may not be able to afford the piece - Labour's position always assumes that people have a lot liquidity to throw about because they are RICH.

I'm not advocating the Tories are perfect either.

I did laugh at the stale and pale Labour photo on the battle bus of the shadow cabinet. Looked like something out of Russia in the 60s. Are there are Asian members of the shadow cabinet? Or male minorities? Labour's front bench is not that diverse is it?
3169995_Labour-manifesto-bus.JPG
Click to expand...
If you think The people on a Question Time audience are an accurate reflection of the opinions of the people in the area no wonder you’re so poorly informed about the views in the country and think everyone shares your opinion.
 
YellowTaxi said:
If you think The people on a Question Time audience are an accurate reflection of the opinions of the people in the area no wonder you’re so poorly informed about the views in the country and think everyone shares your opinion.
Click to expand...
I did have to laugh at the bloke who admitted he earned over £80k and thought he was nowhere near the top 5% of earners...how did he arrive at that conclusion :unsure:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

brassmonkey
General Official eurovision match day thread
2 3
Replies
40
Views
3K
Concretebob
C
Back
Top Bottom