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

[Dorset Seagull]

My understanding is the same as yours. This is from his speech:

"We will legislate for large companies to transfer shares into an “Inclusive Ownership Fund.” The shares will be held and managed collectively by the workers. The shareholding will give workers the same rights as other shareholders to have a say over the direction of their company. And dividend payments will be made directly to the workers from the fund. Payments could be up to £500 a year. That’s 11 million workers each with a greater say, and a greater stake, in the rewards of their labour.

Societal Dividend

But we all know it’s not just the employees of a company that create the profits it generates. It’s the collective investment in infrastructure, education and research and development that we as a society make that enables entrepreneurs to build and grow their businesses.

So we believe it’s right that society shares in the benefits that investment produces. That’s why a proportion of revenues generated by the ‘inclusive ownership funds’ will be transferred back to our public services as a social dividend. Over time, this will mobilise billions that could be spent supporting our public services and social security system."

Some "large" companies do not pay dividends to shareholders. Will they now be compelled to? What if declaring a dividend will put that business at risk? I really cannot see how this will work at all, let alone raise billions for public services.

Re-arrange these 3 words into a well known or well used phrase "Cuckoo Cloud Land"

 

[KZNSeagull]

Personally I'd propose a system, where courses that are demonstrably in the public interest (teaching, nursing, paramedics, etc) are fully funded, with a contract element that commits the recipient of the 'free' course, to working within the public sector for a set period afterwards. Have your free nursing degree, then commit to six (or whatever works) years within the NHS, before taking that lucrative job in Dubai, etc.

That people have to pay £9,000 per year to train to work in the NHS as a nurse, is a national scandal. It's no wonder we are utterly reliant on the immoral practice of importing staff that other less well-off nations have invested in training, to keep the system running.

That I agree with, but it should also be courses for jobs where a shortage has been identified as well like engineers etc. Companies should also be incentivised more to give bursaries and apprenticeships in these same areas.

 

[Simster]

That people have to pay £9,000 per year to train to work in the NHS as a nurse, is a national scandal. It's no wonder we are utterly reliant on the immoral practice of importing staff that other less well-off nations have invested in training, to keep the system running.

Sorry, there's nothing immoral about that at all. The Philippines, for example, deliberately train more nurses than they can possibly afford to pay, so that they can go abroad, earn money and bring it home. Nursing is a national export.

And this IMO, is why your idea of fully funding public interest courses wouldn't work. What would instead happen is that we'd get a ton of nurses we couldn't employ, and a bunch of students who give up half way through when they became disillusioned, costing the public purse even more.

Instead, why not just be pragmatic about the whole degree thing and announce a cap on total tuition/living expense. In our day, grants were paid AND tuition was paid. Now, neither is paid. Surely with a bit of market research undertaken by the government, a balance can be struck whereby students are expected to invest in themselves to an extent, but not so much that it puts off a huge chunk of people from going at all...

 

[exKT17]

Dianne Abbot will be making a statement shortly.

Sensible of them to get the numbers people to run through it

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Sorry, there's nothing immoral about that at all. The Philippines, for example, deliberately train more nurses than they can possibly afford to pay, so that they can go abroad, earn money and bring it home. Nursing is a national export.

And this IMO, is why your idea of fully funding public interest courses wouldn't work. What would instead happen is that we'd get a ton of nurses we couldn't employ, and a bunch of students who give up half way through when become disillusioned.

Instead, why not just be pragmatic about the whole degree thing and announce a cap on total tuition/living expense. In our day, grants were paid AND tuition was paid. Now, neither is paid. Surely with a bit of market research undertaken by the government, surely a balance can be struck where students are expected to invest in themselves to an extent, but not so much that it puts off a huge chunk of people from going at all...

You really think that nursing in the NHS is such a glamorous, lucrative career, that thousands upon thousands of surplus kids are going to sign up for the ride? Well wide of the mark, I'd suggest.

And as for the 'giving up' part - that can very easily be included within the contract / agreement that I've already mooted. Don't finish your course (or qualify and go off to work elsewhere) then you pay some / all of those fees back.

I agree about the balance though - I never once mentioned maintenance grants, did I? I'm proposing we invest in educating our young people. I'm not proposing that we fund the student lifestyle choice. If they want the 'experience' rather than studying at a local Uni, and living at home, they can find / earn / borrow that element.

 

[Deleted member 2719]

Shouldn't some of those clowns be doing a kids party or something?

 

[studio150]

Some "large" companies do not pay dividends to shareholders. Will they now be compelled to? What if declaring a dividend will put that business at risk? I really cannot see how this will work at all, let alone raise billions for public services.

At present companies are under no obligation to pay dividends, and they are free to increase or decrease dividends from previous years. They can also instead buy back shares rather than paying a dividend.

If Labour are really interested in extending share ownership and ensuring that employees benefit from the success of their employers, I won;t have thought that making the share ownership scheme that already exists better, by either increasing the maximum monthly amount that employees can contribute and/or reducing the current periods before employees are able to buy the shares

 

[Simster]

You really think that nursing in the NHS is such a glamorous, lucrative career, that thousands upon thousands of surplus kids are going to sign up for the ride? Well wide of the mark, I'd suggest.

And as for the 'giving up' part - that can very easily be included within the contract / agreement that I've already mooted. Don't finish your course (or qualify and go off to work elsewhere) then you pay some / all of those fees back.

I agree about the balance though - I never once mentioned maintenance grants, did I? I'm proposing we invest in educating our young people. I'm not proposing that we fund the student lifestyle choice. If they want the 'experience' rather than studying at a local Uni, and living at home, they can find / earn / borrow that element.

You're deliberately ignoring the crux of my argument. You said "we are utterly reliant on the immoral practice of importing staff that other less well-off nations have invested in training", which is patently not true. It isn't immoral at all, for the reason I outlined. We can't produce qualified nurses cheaper than the Philippines any more than we can produce plastic tat cheaper than China.

My underlying point is that we shouldn't be deciding which degree courses should be fully funded at all. There is absolutely no value in doing so. What you're proposing wouldn't work. You'd get a surplus of UK trained nurses that the NHS couldn't afford to employ, and even if they could you'd find we'd be swamped with a bunch of underpaid nurses utterly demotivated because a proportion of them will have decided they don't like the job but have to stay in order to pay off the tuition costs.

 

[KZNSeagull]

At present companies are under no obligation to pay dividends, and they are free to increase or decrease dividends from previous years. They can also instead buy back shares rather than paying a dividend.

If Labour are really interested in extending share ownership and ensuring that employees benefit from the success of their employers, I won;t have thought that making the share ownership scheme that already exists better, by either increasing the maximum monthly amount that employees can contribute and/or reducing the current periods before employees are able to buy the shares

As an ex TSB/Lloyds TSB employee, I am actually rather surprised that Labour are encouraging share ownership at all considering how risky it can be. Lots of employees owning shares won't stop stupid investment decisions by the board

 

[Baker lite]

As opposed to an entire party of arms selling, bomb dropping, child molesting, anybodybutus hating scum bags like the Tories?

Oh I’m not a Tory flower,I’d rather shit in My hands and clap than vote for them *****,however the Labour conference is the subject of the thread so for now I’ll mostly be directing My fire at them,Tories can wait till next week.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[piersa]

Thank Christ for Corbs. Hope he's Labour leader for a while yet

 

[El Presidente]

Can anyone explain why free tuition fees is a thing but regressive please? Why should the bin man’s taxes pay for the bankers kids to go to uni? I just don’t get it. If people go to uni and don’t earn much afterwards then they don’t pay anything back and it is eventually just written off. Whereas if you go to uni and then earn loads you pay it back. We need to stop seeing it as fees and just for what it is I.e. a graduate tax. The difference between disadvantaged families and non disadvantaged has actually narrowed under the current government.

I don’t get why people see tuition fees as A great policy. Please can someone explain.

They’re a bad idea because they frighten off kids from working class families from going to university. The kids see the potential debt in three years and it’s a scary thought, whereas Toby and Jocasta know that their parents can pay it off.

I agree that to an extent the present arrangements are a form of graduate tax, but it’s not communicated in that way.

 

[beorhthelm]

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

I guess that, in practice, you are right, but his message was interpreted differently by many, some of whom still believe it to be policy. Its the art of soundbytes, I suppose.

actually, Corbyn made an interview with NME where he said they would look in to remove the debt and said "i'll deal with it", exceeding the scope of the manifesto. some including his own MPs took that to mean complete write off of all student debt, because how else could you interpret that? then they rowed back, pointing out that he hadnt actually said that at all, which factually was correct. by that time the votes had been cast.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

actually, Corbyn made an interview with NME where he said they would look in to remove the debt and said "i'll deal with it", exceeding the scope of the manifesto. some including his own MPs took that to mean complete write off of all student debt, because how else could you interpret that? then they rowed back, pointing out that he hadnt actually said that at all, which factually was correct. by that time the votes had been cast.

Precisely

 

[beorhthelm]

As an ex TSB/Lloyds TSB employee, I am actually rather surprised that Labour are encouraging share ownership at all considering how risky it can be. Lots of employees owning shares won't stop stupid investment decisions by the board

because their propsal is risk free from the employee point of view, they dont have to invest.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

You are so wrong!

Am I?
It's not called the Brexit Broadcasting Company for nothing. I know for a fact their news bulletins, or at least one of them was very misleading.
Several of their top people have stood for the Tories in council elections.

 

[FIVESTEPS]

They’re a bad idea because they frighten off kids from working class families from going to university. The kids see the potential debt in three years and it’s a scary thought, whereas Toby and Jocasta know that their parents can pay it off.

I agree that to an extent the present arrangements are a form of graduate tax, but it’s not communicated in that way.

I've always thought that if your so thick that you don't understand the student loan system you shouldn't be going to university.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

As an ex TSB/Lloyds TSB employee, I am actually rather surprised that Labour are encouraging share ownership at all considering how risky it can be. Lots of employees owning shares won't stop stupid investment decisions by the board

In free trading, takeovers happen, such as the utilities. In 1992, I had employee shares, but 10 years later, there was a takeover with compulsory share purchases.
Do we ban free trade?

 

[beorhthelm]

Not sure what you are suggesting is correct. I thought it was giving 10% of the already issued shares to the employees and these being held by the employees as a group, with the individual employees then receiving up to £500 per year in dividends, with any excess over £500 effectively going to central funds.

I agree with your comment thats its about taking capital, as it is effectively theft, and may well lead to less investment, companies delisting from the stock exchange, or moving head offices overseas so that they are exempt from the scheme.

Hopefully further detail will follow on these Labour proposals to clarify

reading the actual speech its more nuanced than i read into early reports, you're right. company will give away capital to a fund and the dividends from that will be dished out to employees, upto £500 each, further cash will go to the state. a bribe to little people under control (cant actually give them the shares, that wouldn't be socialist enough), and stealth tax rolled in one. makes one nostalgic and miss good old fashion policy of raising taxes.

 

[Biscuit Barrel]

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).

Its votes that matter, not party members. You and Mr Corbyn seem to be struggling with this concept.