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

[clapham_gull]

Yes, I know, but the QT breakdown is interesting. It's often been commented on NSC, that the panel is unrepresentative especially when UKIP don't have any sitting MPs whereas Green has one.

It's not interesting it's fake.

Looks to me that feed is there to draw in remainers and make them look stupid.

Job done...

Have a look at what else they claim on there.

Sent from my BLA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[beorhthelm]

A bit like you did with your informed decision to vote for Brexit you mean?

i've long ago conceded on brexit, i back it on the basis those leading it would have planned for the implemention. in this i was woefully wrong, that doesnt mean in principle it was necessarily wrong to leave, the arguments for and against are still there.

Labours economic policy is deeply flawed in conception as it is about redistributing capital, a Marxist-socialist economy, with state control replacing markets. for all the problems in the country, this is not the solution, as demonstrated by all the other times this has been tried.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

For some. You said "Most politicians are in it for themselves" - I think that most are the complete opposite. Most have no hope of reaching the top of the political ladder, and have no ambition to get there. They work mainly for the benefit of their constituency, whilst retaining some regard for the country as a whole.

You have a lot more faith in MPs than I do.

 

[ManOfSussex]

i've long ago conceded on brexit, i back it on the basis those leading it would have planned for the implemention. in this i was woefully wrong, that doesnt mean in principle it was necessarily wrong to leave, the arguments for and against are still there.

Labours economic policy is deeply flawed in conception as it is about redistributing capital, a Marxist-socialist economy, with state control replacing markets. for all the problems in the country, this is not the solution, as demonstrated by all the other times this has been tried.

Perhaps. I have to say though that indifference would be the politest word I can think of to describe my feelings toward the opinion of any Brexit voter on the rights or wrongs of Labour's or any party's economic policies now though.

Still, if they do ever get in and it is as deeply flawed as you think at least you'll be able to console yourself that you in part helped to sow the seeds in 2016 to the chain of events that actually made it happen, inadvertently or not, though you and your missus's options of countries to move to may be a bit more restricted from April next year.

 

[BLOCK F]

Nick Ferrari does pretend to be even handed, but he hates the left

Don't think James O'Brien even tries to be even handed, and he appears to thoroughly dislike the right!

 

[Falmer Flutter ©]

Yes, I know, but the QT breakdown is interesting. It's often been commented on NSC, that the panel is unrepresentative especially when UKIP don't have any sitting MPs whereas Green has one.

Yes, but your breakdown didn't show that. The chart that you posted as FACT showed that there have been more UKIP panelists on QT than both Conservative and Labour, which considering both main parties have one panelist on every episode, hence having an equal percentage of 21% (ie one-fifth of the normally five panelists), is just nonsense.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I suspect plenty of people understand it well enough.
They certainly understand very well who the current government represent and work for.
example,
.
Corbyn’s nationalisation policies, monstered by Conservative HQ and in the Tory press, are consistently popular with voters. A YouGov poll found 54% of voters back Labour’s new share ownership policy, with just 17% opposed.

I'm amazed that 71% of people can understand it enough to form a judgement. I've worked in the employee share plans industry, and I'm not sure I get it.

Certainly, the bulk of that 71% would not understand the workings of any viable scheme, nor probably would any of them claim to.

You'd need to see the wording of the question for the results of that poll to mean anything at all. I'd guess that it was something very broad, like, "Do you agree or disagree, with the concept of workers being granted shares in the company they work for?"

Most people like broad egalitarian ideas, in principle.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Listening to LBC this morning, not one person who phoned in agreed with Corbyns ideas, it says it all really.

Haha.

You think that the collective views, of a group of people, who choose to listen to a radio station that employs Nigel Farage and Katie Hopkins, 'says it all'?

Brilliant.

 

[Bozza]

Certainly, the bulk of that 71% would not understand the workings of any viable scheme, nor probably would any of them claim to.

You'd need to see the wording of the question for the results of that poll to mean anything at all. I'd guess that it was something very broad, like, "Do you agree or disagree, with the concept of workers being granted shares in the company they work for?"

Most people like broad egalitarian ideas, in principle.

I had: "Labour have proposed making companies with over 250 employees put 10% of their shares into a workers fund, which would pay dividends out to the company's employees. Do you think this is a good or bad idea?"

Source: https://yougov.co.uk/opi/surveys/re...d8ede366-bfd8-11e8-b2fd-d185bd10f20a/politics

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Haha.

You think that the collective views, of a group of people, who choose to listen to a radio station that employs Nigel Farage and Katie Hopkins, 'says it all'?

Brilliant.

Hopkins was sacked in May 2017. At first, she was good for listening figures, but she went too far over the line.

 

[wellquickwoody]

When you have a private income, the money is nothing, but the power is the ambition. See Boris.

One example, care to give about 635 others sitting right now?

 

[Jim D]

I suspect plenty of people understand it well enough.
They certainly understand very well who the current government represent and work for.
example,
.
Corbyn’s nationalisation policies, monstered by Conservative HQ and in the Tory press, are consistently popular with voters. A YouGov poll found 54% of voters back Labour’s new share ownership policy, with just 17% opposed.

Of course, if you're offered free money, you'll take it. At the moment nobody understands how this will work. I am assuming that workers won't be getting actual shares but just the benefits (ie dividends) of having the shares? If so, how will this work with multinationals - will their non-British workers have the same deal? If 'no' then a relatively small number of UK employees will scoop 10% of the share dividend. If we take BP as an example: last year their net profit was about £5B, so 10% would be £500m. They have approx 15000 UK employees, so each would get £33k? Of course they wouldn't, they'd get £500 (total £7.5m) and the rest would go to the government - and that would happen every year. And that's on top of corporation tax. Also, this 10% take would be on top of the dividend payout to existing shareholders, who would see their payouts decline by the same amount (including UK pension funds and savers). How long do you think that the shareholders would allow this to happen before the company registered itself outside the UK (and probably relocate a good number of it's high earning staff out of reach of the taxman)? It's the same 'big carrot' approach as they put out over student loans and it will go the same way.

 

[Bozza]

Of course, if you're offered free money, you'll take it. At the moment nobody understands how this will work. I am assuming that workers won't be getting actual shares but just the benefits (ie dividends) of having the shares? If so, how will this work with multinationals - will their non-British workers have the same deal? If 'no' then a relatively small number of UK employees will scoop 10% of the share dividend. If we take BP as an example: last year their net profit was about £5B, so 10% would be £500m. They have approx 15000 UK employees, so each would get £33k? Of course they wouldn't, they'd get £500 (total £7.5m) and the rest would go to the government - and that would happen every year.

Indeed, although a bigger question for me is what happens to companies with UK subsidiaries with large workforces, the likes of Amazon and Starbucks - companies people love to hate, yet use in their millions. I can't see how UK plc could essentially seize shares and associated rights from overseas companies in the way they seem to be proposing they would do with UK-based companies.

And if they can't, as you say, UK companies can headquarter overseas to avoid what seems to be a not very stealthy tax on enterprise.

 

[Jim D]

Indeed, although a bigger question for me is what happens to companies with UK subsidiaries with large workforces, the likes of Amazon and Starbucks - companies people love to hate, yet use in their millions. I can't see how UK plc could essentially seize shares and associated rights from overseas companies in the way they seem to be proposing they would do with UK-based companies. And if they can't, as you say, headquarter overseas to avoid what seems to be a not very stealthy tax on enterprise.

If this ever came to anything it would challenge corporate lawyers for all of about 10minutes - while they completed the paperwork to enact a transfer of domicile outside of the UK.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I had: "Labour have proposed making companies with over 250 employees put 10% of their shares into a workers fund, which would pay dividends out to the company's employees. Do you think this is a good or bad idea?"

Source: https://yougov.co.uk/opi/surveys/re...d8ede366-bfd8-11e8-b2fd-d185bd10f20a/politics

Thanks.

Sounds lovely. Sign me up.

(who wouldn't agree to that in principle - with none of the possible downsides spelled out?)

 

[Jim D]

Wholly UK companies would also be looking to purchase a non-UK 'shell' to back themselves into.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Hopkins was sacked in May 2017. At first, she was good for listening figures, but she went too far over the line.

Thanks for the clarification. Point stands though - people who are (or in this case, were) attracted to this station, by the likes of Farage and Hopkins, are unlikely to be calling up their phone-ins to shower plaudits on a string of socialist proposals!

 

[borat]

Now name the employees with past links to the Labour party for balance.

Sent from my BLA-L09 using Tapatalk

Im not doing your homework. I think you might struggle to find many Labour voices in key roles. The Tory names I mentioned are make key editorial decisions or are the main political presenters/commentators.

I will add to that list Alison Pedley who decides who the audience is at BBC Question Time - whilst not a Tory, she has shown support of Britain First, UKIP and Britain Patriot Front. More right leaning influence.

Look forward to seeing your Labour list of political editors and presenters at the BBC......

 

[Bozza]

Thanks.

Sounds lovely. Sign me up.

(who wouldn't agree to that in principle - with none of the possible downsides spelled out?)

Which was my point - the statistic is meaningless as people are agreeing to something they don't understand. A bit like leaving the EU.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Which was my point - the statistic is meaningless as people are agreeing to something they don't understand. A bit like leaving the EU.

Absolutely.