[Politics] *** Labour Party Annual Conference, 23-25 September 2018, ACC Liverpool ***

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

After recent Anti-Semitism stuff, shouldn't it be 'For the many, but not the Jew?'

Do you think that the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance rules were not enough. Do you think the government perhaps should also adopt these in law or do you think we need even more stringent measures.

 

[BLOCK F]

Nor is Teresa May, but somehow she is in control of a country and a party (albeit it with a membership a fraction of Labour's membership).

Well, with the worst election campaign in history, she still managed to beat the 'People's PM in Waiting'.
If Labour had a half decent leader and not a couple of Marxists at the top, yes they would almost certainly become the next Government. Instead, we have a hard left bunch including Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott etc. supported by the likes of Dinosaur McCluskey, Communist Andrew Murray, devious shifty Seamus Milne and schoolboy cheerleader Owen Jones.
God help us if they ever get into power. I should think MI5 would have to spend as much time monitoring the Government and 'associates' as they do the usual threats to our security and well-being.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

McCluskey, McDonnell. and Corbyn, what a dream team for the UK.

John McDonnell is about to speak. Live on youtube. Looking forward to a reasoned debate about his policy proposals.

 

[Gritt23]

there was some more detail on one of the news websites: companies with more than 250 employees would have to pass 1-10% of thier equity to a holding account for the benefit of employees, i.e. they get any dividends. nothing mentioned about directors, just the redistribution of company capital to employees. the point you make about directors is very interesting one as i recall May attempted to steal the "employee on the board" idea and shelved it because of the legal implications of responsibility this would impose on the nominated employee. im sure Labour will push for a special form of director with a vote but no responsibility, maybe as nominal head of the aforementioned employee capital trust. but policy is light on such detail. because they only think through the initial populist angle.

Would that be fair?

I work for an owner-managed business. His late father started the company, and he took over with his siblings after his fathers untimely death about 20 years ago. Between the brothers it's cost them their own relationships with each other, marriages, stress related illnesses, and goodness knows how many sleepless nights, and ruined weekends or holidays due to the pressures of building up the company.

To then be told they must give away 1-10% because someone is trying to use their money to buy some votes doesn't seem right to me. There needs to be a quid quo pro, such as the tax break I suggested, that would have people volunteering to do this in greater numbers than currently. Forcing this on people who have given their lives to building their company up, wouldn't sit well with me.

Let's see what the details are.

 

[BLOCK F]

John McDonnell is about to speak. Live on youtube. Looking forward to a reasoned debate about his policy proposals.

Moshe, I hope you enjoy it.
Sadly I shall not be in to watch, have got to go round to my daughter's house.
No doubt I shall see the highlights on the news and read about it in The Times, tomorrow!

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

Well, with the worst election campaign in history, she still managed to beat the 'People's PM in Waiting'.

Well she believed, she would have a 100 seat majority. We will have to see if that one manifests again after the next election. Luckily she could spend a lot of the governments (our) money on Northern Ireland .

 

[Gritt23]

Do you think that the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance rules were not enough. Do you think the government perhaps should also adopt these in law or do you think we need even more stringent measures.

No.

The problem is that both John and Jeremy are always so reluctant to denounce anyone. Always seems to come back to them trying to be everyone's friend, and never actually calling out a group and saying "they are wrong." The squirming yesterday with Andrew Marr was just pitiful. Needs to be stronger about the anti-semitism stuff that comes his way, and that will put it to bed - unless there IS some truth to it. All the time you don't want to remove protest art here there and everywhere, all sounds very liberal, but say the example being pulled up is a disgusting piece of work that was only being done to offend and outrage, and there is absolutely no place for it, and that you are categorically in favour of that being taken down. Show some balls man!

 

[Gritt23]

Well she believed, she would have a 100 seat majority. We will have to see if that one manifests again after the next election. Luckily she could spend a lot of the governments (our) money on Northern Ireland .

Northern Ireland is also us. So, by your logic she's spending our money, on erm, us.

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

Northern Ireland is also us. So, by your logic she's spending our money, on erm, us.

On certain parts of us (not Scotland, Wales, Yorkshire, Kent) above what a government already spends on us.

Like you I am not bemoaning spending money on the areas that need it.

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

No.

The problem is that both John and Jeremy are always so reluctant to denounce anyone. Always seems to come back to them trying to be everyone's friend, and never actually calling out a group and saying "they are wrong." The squirming yesterday with Andrew Marr was just pitiful. Needs to be stronger about the anti-semitism stuff that comes his way, and that will put it to bed - unless there IS some truth to it. All the time you don't want to remove protest art here there and everywhere, all sounds very liberal, but say the example being pulled up is a disgusting piece of work that was only being done to offend and outrage, and there is absolutely no place for it, and that you are categorically in favour of that being taken down. Show some balls man!

So what model do you favor, I think even the model that Labour are adapting could criminalise the original posters comments.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Would that be fair?

I work for an owner-managed business. His late father started the company, and he took over with his siblings after his fathers untimely death about 20 years ago. Between the brothers it's cost them their own relationships with each other, marriages, stress related illnesses, and goodness knows how many sleepless nights, and ruined weekends or holidays due to the pressures of building up the company.

To then be told they must give away 1-10% because someone is trying to use their money to buy some votes doesn't seem right to me. There needs to be a quid quo pro, such as the tax break I suggested, that would have people volunteering to do this in greater numbers than currently. Forcing this on people who have given their lives to building their company up, wouldn't sit well with me.

Let's see what the details are.

The flip-side is, if they manage the business poorly (and it doesn't sound like they've had a happy time doing it) then it will be the staff that also suffer by not earning enough, or perhaps losing their jobs, or working conditions may be sub-optimal. Therefore they do have a vested interest in how the company is run and where money is invested. It may be that this particular company already has full dialogue with the employees, but it is never guaranteed anywhere and thus a place in the management structure is the important thing here, more than the share of the profits. For that part of the equation, many companies will already have profit-sharing schemes in place in the form of bonuses, and a shareholding would merely serve to formalise this. [and perhaps they wouldn't have suffered so much stress in building up the business if they'd have had more hands to help them?]

It all seems very sensible, but tricky to enforce it though without coming across all socialist-commie, although I guess that boat has already sailed

 

[Gwylan]

im sure Labour will push for a special form of director with a vote but no responsibility, maybe as nominal head of the aforementioned employee capital trust. but policy is light on such detail. because they only think through the initial populist angle.

... or maybe because

... as i recall May attempted to steal the "employee on the board" idea ...

I think it's pretty sensible for any opposition party to keep their cards close to their chest before an election.

It could be, however, like Miliband's musings about good and bad capitalists. It sounded like a fascinating idea to develop further ... but it never was. McDonnell's proposals could go the same way

 

[Two Professors]

After recent Anti-Semitism stuff, shouldn't it be 'For the many, but not the Jew?'

Just seen similar on BBC hys; For the many,not the few,unless your working class or Jew.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

In amongst the rhetoric I'll try and distil what I think relates to key concrete policies:

Trade Union rights for workers from day one.
A real living wage of £10 an hour.
A third of every board of directors to be from the workforce (not sure about how this one works but is based on a German model)
Workers to have shares in their companies. Social dividend from these shares for public services.
Water, energy, railways and Royal Mail back into public ownership.

 

[Chicken Run]

I personally cannot wait for the Labour Party to win the next election, listening to that speech the future is bright, they will be able to deliver all those goodies right?

 

[tigertim68]

I personally cannot wait for the Labour Party to win the next election, listening to that speech the future is bright, they will be able to deliver all those goodies right?

Yep and the country will be bankrupt again , just like the last time Labour were in power

 

[beorhthelm]

Would that be fair?

well of course not, unless you are using the alternative version of "fair" where the people must share everything. Marx would be proud.

 

[father_and_son]

Hopefully this thread might allow some reasoned discussion of Labour's policy proposals "for the many not the few".

McDonnell's "stakeholder economy" ideas seem to be a very appealing combination of ideas about widening share ownership and ideas about workers sharing in decision making that have been very successful in the democratic economic powerhouse of Germany.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the great share sell-offs of the 80s/90s have resulted in bugger all widening of share ownership. The people who had the spare cash bought shares or carpet-bagged the building societies and then almost all have, since then, ditched their shares (mostly for a profit) and the companies are now in the hands of institutional investors... just like the utility companies, train companies, etc are now.

Wouldn't it be much more cost effective to just give everyone who has at least £1000 in savings £300 (obviously saddling the country with huge debts to fund it)? Same end result, quicker and at less cost.

 

[Simster]

McCluskey, McDonnell. and Corbyn, what a dream team for the UK.
People's Prime Minister, my arse.
More like an incompetent student politician and friend to any number of useless and or nasty organisations and political nutters.
The man is not fit to run the Labour Party, let alone the country.

I think you'll find 70% of the population agree with you. I think [MENTION=272]Gritt23[/MENTION]'s first post just about sum's up this shower of shit* for what they are - untrustworthy, full of inconsistencies, and as usual merely happy to lap up applause from the already on-board. Meh, good luck with getting elected with that. What is also clear is how frustrated Corbyn & McDonnell get with elements of their party that won't tow the line and simply don't want him running the show - this from people who have spent their entire political career sniping at and disagreeing with their own leaders, leading to the piss poor lack of judgement that saw them cavorting with terrorists. Given that, the hypocrisy of them trying to push out moderates absolutely beggars belief.

However, that same 70% would probably also suggest that the fckwits in charge of the Conservative party are equally unfit to govern. Everything they've done has screamed totally incompetence. I tend to agree with The Economist on this, who in their editorial about 3 weeks ago scathingly decided we have never, ever seen both main political parties so utterly inept at the same time. They are absolutely spot on. Two utterly shit shit shit front benches.

For all of that, I'll vote Labour if they promise a people's vote. I'll stomach 5 years of their unworkable socialism if they go to people over the Brexit shambles.

But I'm not voting for them if they instead push for a GE after no-deal. Or the Tories. Have I mentioned they're both fcking GASH, useless and incompetent?

* sorry, I should say "people's shower of shit"

 

[beorhthelm]

In amongst the rhetoric I'll try and distil what I think relates to key concrete policies:

Trade Union rights for workers from day one.

A third of every board of directors to be from the workforce (not sure about how this one works but is based on a German model)

German model of company ownership and governance is different, so would have to change that too for this to resemble the German model. as it is, as noted, the elected board members would be jointly liable for actions of the business, so may find not so much interest in taking on that board post. while we're in a mood to replicate the Germans though, how about recognition of work councils instead of unions, a better solution to employee/employer relations?