Current Affairs The Labour Party

[Number_25]

Partially. I’m not adverse to rail renationalisation being made when the contracts expire. I’m not keen on shares being issued to workers which are then controlled by the government and workers only seeing a slight amount of their actual dividend value.

This is an argument against the founding goals of the Labour Party then, isn't it?

The party was formed to minimize the disparity between Labour and Capital. The policy of returning a relatively small share of an organisations capital back to the workers does exactly that.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

"Following on from the previous question, does the Chancellor have any concerns that any other bank, along the lines of Northern Rock, has borrowed excessively on the inter-bank market and therefore put itself and its customers in some danger? Does he have any proposals to change legislation in that respect?"

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2007-11-19/debates/0711196000003/NorthernRock?highlight=northern rock#contribution-0711196000244

And I'm not sure if the "The Northern Rock plc Transfer Order 2009" was voted on, as I can't find anything about it:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/3226/contents/made

Yes, I couldn't find any vote on it, or indeed on quantitative easing more broadly.

 

[zzr45]

This is an argument against the founding goals of the Labour Party then, isn't it?

The party was formed to minimize the disparity between Labour and Capital. The policy of returning a relatively small share of an organisations capital back to the workers does exactly that.

No it isn’t. There’s a difference between reform making the workplace fairer and barefaced theft dressed as helping the workers. Neither is it a ‘victimless’ crime as people have pointed out, pensions dependant on share returns would be affected.

Labour really does hate pensions, was that in the founding statement?

 

[tsubaki]

Well one could disagree politically with the policy, but as far as I am aware, some consideration was paid in the transactions.

So no. Not really similar at all.

Not really, at least in the medium term.

Since railways were mentioned as an example earlier if you look at what the state sold off (the ROSCOs for instance) the Government have paid out to those firms far more than those firms originally paid the state. Defence housing is an even worse example, I think the NAO found the losses were above four billion on that deal.

 

[roydo]

Not really, at least in the medium term.

Since railways were mentioned as an example earlier if you look at what the state sold off (the ROSCOs for instance) the Government have paid out to those firms far more than those firms originally paid the state. Defence housing is an even worse example, I think the NAO found the losses were above four billion on that deal.

Consideration. You can argue the toss if it was the right or wrong amounts, or if the policy is a good or bad one, but it isnt theft.

Taking 10% of a company's share issue, for no consideration in return for the shareholders, is theft.

 

[tsubaki]

Consideration. You can argue the toss if it was the right or wrong amounts, or if the policy is a good or bad one, but it isnt theft.

Taking 10% of a company's share issue, for no consideration in return for the shareholders, is theft.

Of course it is, if you give the asset away knowing it is below its true value and for your own reward.

In fact it’s a lot closer to the actual definition of theft than a government elected fairly implementing a manifesto commitment would be.

 

[roydo]

Of course it is, if you give the asset away knowing it is below its true value and for your own reward.

In fact it’s a lot closer to the actual definition of theft than a government elected fairly implementing a manifesto commitment would be.

We wont agree mate, so I will leave it at that.

 

[zzr45]

Of course it is, if you give the asset away knowing it is below its true value and for your own reward.

In fact it’s a lot closer to the actual definition of theft than a government elected fairly implementing a manifesto commitment would be.

Using the MOD example though, most of it was sold in the belief it was ready to be torn down, rents would remain stable and numbers wouldn’t reduce too dramatically. The problem is that none of it transpired. The really poor work by the MOD that was capitalised on by people who knew the stock the MOD were selling better than they did. Massively undervalued, but to say it was a massive ruse to defraud the country takes some doing.

 

[tsubaki]

Using the MOD example though, most of it was sold in the belief it was ready to be torn down, rents would remain stable and numbers wouldn’t reduce too dramatically.

No it wasn't. The need for defence housing is (or at least should be) obvious and was always going to be something that the state needed to be involved in; the best thing that you can say about the rationale would be that it might have been an attempt to make the balance sheet then look good and sod the people who would inherit the mess in 2021.

The problem is that none of it transpired. The really poor work by the MOD that was capitalised on by people who knew the stock the MOD were selling better than they did. Massively undervalued, but to say it was a massive ruse to defraud the country takes some doing.

If it was a one off, I would agree with you that it would be a stretch to claim it defrauded the country. The issue is that it isn't a one off, in fact it is pretty much what we have spent the past forty years doing.

 

[zzr45]

No it wasn't. The need for defence housing is (or at least should be) obvious and was always going to be something that the state needed to be involved in; the best thing that you can say about the rationale would be that it might have been an attempt to make the balance sheet then look good and sod the people who would inherit the mess in 2021.

If it was a one off, I would agree with you that it would be a stretch to claim it defrauded the country. The issue is that it isn't a one off, in fact it is pretty much what we have spent the past forty years doing.

It is something the state will always be a part of. When the initial tranche of MOD housing was sold off, it was sold in the belief it was more beneficial to get a private company to tear down the existing homes and build new ones, then rent them back. This was based on the MOD’s belief you couldn’t do much with them. People who knew the market better than the MOD took advantage of it and profited handsomely. It’s where the undervalued by billions comes from (if you also add in growing rents and the military not reducing to the figures originally thought)

Again like you say it’s something that’s repeated across multiple domains, the problem is the civil servants who tend to work on this kind of deal aren’t the best and brightest.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Again like you say it’s something that’s repeated across multiple domains, the problem is the civil servants who tend to work on this kind of deal aren’t the best and brightest.

That's perhaps a bit unfair, but many have spent their careers in an entirely uncommercial environment, so it's just a very different mindset. Having worked in government, big corporates and startups, all have smart people, but the cadence of working life is hugely different across all three.

 

[zzr45]

That's perhaps a bit unfair, but many have spent their careers in an entirely uncommercial environment, so it's just a very different mindset. Having worked in government, big corporates and startups, all have smart people, but the cadence of working life is hugely different across all three.

Yeah I should of caveated it with ‘on those types of deals.’

 

[tsubaki]

Again like you say it’s something that’s repeated across multiple domains, the problem is the civil servants who tend to work on this kind of deal aren’t the best and brightest.

Is it? I mean for that to be true you’d have to condemn successive governments for missing / not fixing it and also ignore the revolving door between ministerial / head of department civil service levels and the businesses that benefit from this supposed incompetence.

I forget his name but last year an Italian author called the UK the most corrupt nation on the planet, and it is hard to disagree with him.

 

[zzr45]

Is it? I mean for that to be true you’d have to condemn successive governments for missing / not fixing it and also ignore the revolving door between ministerial / head of department civil service levels and the businesses that benefit from this supposed incompetence.

I forget his name but last year an Italian author called the UK the most corrupt nation on the planet, and it is hard to disagree with him.

It is a problem that transcends which ever party is in control it seems. A decent overview is provided here - https://www.civilservant.org.uk/csr-blunders.html

While there have been a couple that have gone into the private sector o don’t think it’s exactly so open and shut that these CS are selling stuff off cheap to jump over and take a cut. The problem is that we think the system should be perfect and any deviation from it must be from undue influence rather than standard human error or gross misunderstanding.

An Italian calling the U.K. corrupt is certainly drole.

 

[davids]

It is a problem that transcends which ever party is in control it seems. A decent overview is provided here - https://www.civilservant.org.uk/csr-blunders.html

While there have been a couple that have gone into the private sector o don’t think it’s exactly so open and shut that these CS are selling stuff off cheap to jump over and take a cut. The problem is that we think the system should be perfect and any deviation from it must be from undue influence rather than standard human error or gross misunderstanding.

An Italian calling the U.K. corrupt is certainly drole.

The UK is every bit as corrupt as any of the Southern European Countries (if not more).Just better camouflaged.