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

[Chicken Run]

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.


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

Totally agree!

 

[Gritt23]

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

It's not about model's it about coming out and convincing me that you are appalled by what I expect you to be appalled about, and not just dance around the subject because you don't have the balls to call someone out.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Good questions. I am no expert but I know that in Germany workers generally have rights and engagement far in excess of what has become commonplace in this country.

Correct. Aside from unions there are works councils. This is the key difference to most other countries. They are in the process of setting one up in the Frau’s place of employment. It’s been interesting to hear about it. They are incredibly common and you have legal rights to set one up in any business above a certain size. They have been around for decades as well. https://www.german-way.com/german-workers-councils-demystified/

 

[Gritt23]

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

But the business hasn't been managed poorly, what I've described is just the realities of owning, managing and growing a business. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it, but it's not, you take a massive risk, often have to provide personal guarantees, and it's hugely stressful.

Incidentally, they do reward staff through bonuses, when we do well as a business, which I believe is the right way to go, but to just have a rule that says everyone must hand over a % of their hard-earned company to the staff because we say you must, is just wrong in my book.

 

[Gritt23]

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 "go with the people over Brexit" is currently to Leave. That's the only true measure we've had, because that is the only vote we've had.

How would you word the vote over the deal? Would it be to accept or reject the deal? Or do you believe the "People's Vote" is to vote on Brexit again, now that everyone has had time to think, and see how this plays out?

Trouble I see with either of these, is that I understand us to be leaving in February 2019. Not sure we can say the last minute, "nah sorry, changed our mind, can we stay now?" Also, I would imagine the "deal" is being done right up until the last minute, therefore, I'm not sure where the window for any such vote is.

And finally, if we are leaving in February, then all a "People's Vote" could be is to accept the Deal, or reject the deal, and the latter would mean we leave with No Deal. Labour have already said they will honour the vote to leave, so my guess is that the detail of their "People's Vote" could only be on leaving with, as Noel Edmunds would say, "Deal or No Deal." But there won't be enough time for any such vote anyway, as we'll still be negotiating the finer points in January, leaving no time anyway. Then Jezza isn't forced to ever explain how this vote would have worked, and can just throw his arms up in exasperation that the Tories denied us all the People Vote, which he would have given us, without ever having the embarrassment of explaining that this vote can never deliver what he's left people to believe it would.

 

[beorhthelm]

...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

its not about sharing profit though, as you note this is common already. it is sharing the equity, capital of the company regardless of profitability. some seem to forget that the reward of share owners have a risk, the capital they invested in the company and the profits are the reward of that risk. this is transfer of the capital ownership.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Prediction :

No deal Brexit.

Parliament collapses the Government because of this rank incompetence.

General election.

Labour win.

Economy collapsing and flatlining.

Emergency joining of EFTA and EEA.


Life back to normal.

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

It's not about model's it about coming out and convincing me that you are appalled by what I expect you to be appalled about, and not just dance around the subject because you don't have the balls to call someone out.

Okay then - I think that's known as the all mouth no trouser model

Visual with little substance, I'll give you a shout when I am next verbally abused. I am sure you will get it all resolved for me.

 

[Simster]

But "go with the people over Brexit" is currently to Leave. That's the only true measure we've had, because that is the only vote we've had.

How would you word the vote over the deal? Would it be to accept or reject the deal? Or do you believe the "People's Vote" is to vote on Brexit again, now that everyone has had time to think, and see how this plays out?

Trouble I see with either of these, is that I understand us to be leaving in February 2019. Not sure we can say the last minute, "nah sorry, changed our mind, can we stay now?" Also, I would imagine the "deal" is being done right up until the last minute, therefore, I'm not sure where the window for any such vote is.

And finally, if we are leaving in February, then all a "People's Vote" could be is to accept the Deal, or reject the deal, and the latter would mean we leave with No Deal. Labour have already said they will honour the vote to leave, so my guess is that the detail of their "People's Vote" could only be on leaving with, as Noel Edmunds would say, "Deal or No Deal." But there won't be enough time for any such vote anyway, as we'll still be negotiating the finer points in January, leaving no time anyway. Then Jezza isn't forced to ever explain how this vote would have worked, and can just throw his arms up in exasperation that the Tories denied us all the People Vote, when he would have given us, without ever having the embarrassment of explaining that this vote can never deliver what he's left people to believe it would.

What I'm saying is that the ONLY reason I would even consider voting Labour with this lot running the show is for them to offer a second Brexit vote, because in my opinion that whole process is going to wreck our economy. I don't think 5 years of Corbyn-led socialism will do an awful lot of good either, but IMO that is far easier repaired than Brexit. So I'm simply giving the only reason why I'd vote for them.

My wider observation is exactly the same as yours - we simply don't really know what they stand for on anything, as they are wrapped up in policy-free, woolly rhetoric. In fact to highlight this fact, I'll bet that on the issue of their Brexit position, we are no nearer understanding what they stand for after this conference than we do now. And that is despite the McDonnell bluster this morning where he waffled on about democratically handing the party back to its members.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

Just more and more "vote winning" promises to lump on top of free University education and the repayment of student debt. All very noble on paper, but completely unworkable and unfinanceable unless, of course, the worlds biggest diamond mine has just been found in Islington North. Corbyn & Co are desperate to win power, not for the many, but for the few, the few being them.

 

[wealdgull]

Incidentally, they do reward staff through bonuses, when we do well as a business, which I believe is the right way to go, but to just have a rule that says everyone must hand over a % of their hard-earned company to the staff because we say you must, is just wrong in my book.

Having run a company that gave out chunks of shares to its employees it is also not nearly as easy as it sounds to find a "fair" solution.

Give 10% of your company to your employees? Great, they're happy.

Then you hire someone new. Give them shares as well? But then either the % ownership of your existing employees goes down, and they are no longer happy, or your employees in aggregate have more than 10%.

And what happens when the employee leaves after six months? Does the company get the shares back, does the ex-employee keep them? What if they leave after two years? Five?

Want to take in outside investment? The % ownership of your employees goes down to below 10%. Do you have to give them more shares to get it back up to 10%, even though their existing shares are now worth more money thanks to the investment?

An employee wants to sell their shares. But you're a private company. Do you have an obligation to purchase the shares back? At what price?

Rewarding employees is part of the balance of running a company; too much and they get rich and leave (or bankrupt you), too little and they get poor and leave. It's a delicate business, and not one that particularly suits having a poorly-thought out government diktat as a requirement.

 

[KZNSeagull]

£500 a year in dividends? That's a lot of free shares being given away. What about employees of companies that don't pay dividends? Is he going to force them to pay one? Typical conference bs policy soundbite that won't go anywhere.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Perhaps a tax incentive? Maybe a company pays 15% CT (instead of 19%) if they have an employee share ownership scheme which does as above.

I'd suggest that any 'tax incentive' from the Labour Party is highly unlikely, seeing as their last manifesto pledged to increase CT to 26%

 

[Dorset Seagull]

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.

This is the whole point for me. Large companies start as small companies generally started by an individual or small number of individuals. This means that there are risk takers ie business starters, and those that take no risks ie employees. It seems that most left wing supporters seem to resent the risk takers from reaping any kind of reward for taking the risks, and creating jobs, in the first place. As you mention there is a lot of stress and family pressures involved in building a business and so the rewards should be forthcoming. If the poor downtrodden worker wants the same rewards as the entrepreneur then they need to take the risks and start their own business rather than expect other people to do it for them.

 

[Gwylan]

Just more and more "vote winning" promises to lump on top of free University education and the repayment of student debt.

Free university education is a Labour policy, repayment of student debt is not.

 

[Pavilionaire]

This is the whole point for me. Large companies start as small companies generally started by an individual or small number of individuals. This means that there are risk takers ie business starters, and those that take no risks ie employees. It seems that most left wing supporters seem to resent the risk takers from reaping any kind of reward for taking the risks, and creating jobs, in the first place. As you mention there is a lot of stress and family pressures involved in building a business and so the rewards should be forthcoming. If the poor downtrodden worker wants the same rewards as the entrepreneur then they need to take the risks and start their own business rather than expect other people to do it for them.

I agree. In many respects employees have never had it so good with a whole host of EU rights, National Minimum Wage, National Living Wage, auto-enrolment pension contributions. Wealdgull is spot on re the logistical nightmare of maintaining 10%, communicating with shareholders throughout. Labour's proposals would mean a lot more red tape.

And is there any evidence that workers - or employers - want this policy?

This is exactly the sort of nonsense that turns business off from the Labour Party.

 

[Gritt23]

Okay then - I think that's known as the all mouth no trouser model

Visual with little substance, I'll give you a shout when I am next verbally abused. I am sure you will get it all resolved for me.

Not at all, it's about showing some courage in your convictions. It's not me who can't shake the anti-semitism tag in my party, so there must be something he is doing wrong, or are you just going to say it's all the media's fault?

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

Not at all, it's about showing some courage in your convictions. It's not me who can't shake the anti-semitism tag in my party, so there must be something he is doing wrong, or are you just going to say it's all the media's fault?

I don't understand why their adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance terms is the media fault.

 

[beorhthelm]

I don't understand why their adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance terms is the media fault.

prehaps it was there insistence not to adopt it for a few months was the problem?

 

[clippedgull]

Point of Order!

Conference runs until 26th September (not 25th as titled) when Jeremy will give his speech