Current Affairs The Labour Party

[Number_25]

Labour's objective is to shorten the distance between capital and labour.

Great day for all workers.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Labour's objective is to shorten the distance between capital and labour.

Great day for all workers.

Great day for some workers who happen to be in professions Labour approve of you mean?

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

So why say this?



As @edge says above, it comes across as though they're people you dislike enormously. I've no doubt there are bad landlords (just as there are bad tenants). That's just life isn't it? Some people are rubbish.

Not me brining in Devil comparison, that's youl. Also I make no comment on your particular personal circumstances.

Its a case of acknowledging the UK in the midst of a housing crisis or I'm alright Jack on this issue.

And If some people want to play it's just envious socialist policymakers, think that says more about them.

 

[The binman chronicles]

Labour's objective is to shorten the distance between capital and labour.

Great day for all workers.

It really isn't as Labour won't be getting hold of the reins anytime soon.

 

[tsubaki]

Wew.

It is kind of sad how many people can take a "review" of Labour policy by the FT and Clifford Chance and think that it is an honest look at what Labour policy is. I mean ffs they even talk about Labour "expropriating" £300 billion pound - rather than stock in a firm being transferred to its workers, which is somehow absolute communism here but emphatically isn't when stock options form part of a very large number of management and executive renumeration packages in the City.

My favourite bit though is how they illustrate the article with a scarily red-tinted image - which has a background of a train (built by nationalized British Rail, running on a network that is nationalized in all but name, both of which were sold off cheaply at one stage), the national grid (originally put together by a nationalised body, since sold off cheaply), the Bank of England (nationalised) and the City (remind me again who in this country gets the tax breaks)?

As an aside, I personally disagree with the landlords policy - it will just stoke up opposition to little benefit. They would be far better just building lots and lots and lots of new social housing, which will have much the same effect - in terms of lowering rents and boosting tenants - as what they want to do, but will generate a lot more money for the Exchequer as well.

 

[Charlie Sweet]

Wealth distribution is not about seeing some people as the devil, it's just about improving people's lives. Says more about people who wish to turn this into God v Devil debate...

I'm all for better opportunities for all but that needs to be earned rather than handed down on a plate.

 

[roydo]

I mean ffs they even talk about Labour "expropriating" £300 billion pound - rather than stock in a firm being transferred to its workers, which is somehow absolute communism here but emphatically isn't when stock options form part of a very large number of management and executive renumeration packages in the City.

If this the same plan they mooted a while back, then my reading of it is pretty much that mate. Firstly, "stock in a firm" isnt owned by the firm. Its owned by thousands and thousands of shareholders. Some big, some small, in pension funds, ISAs, all sorts. The plan was to give 10% of that to "The workers", then cap the dividends they receive at sommet like £500. (Not 100% on the limit, but there is one). The dividends over that limit will be retained by Government. Thats where the £300 Billion figure come from.

As for shares being part of executive pay deals, you are indeed correct. There are also millions of workers who partake in a number of share ownership schemes as part of their pay deal as well. 10% of their shares, (and dividends) will be given to other workers with no recompense.

I called it theft the first time round. I still do.

 

[magicjuan]

I'm all for better opportunities for all but that needs to be earned rather than handed down on a plate.

Or allowed to 'trickle down'?

 

[Charlie Sweet]

Or allowed to 'trickle down'?

I think the opportunity should definitely be there for an employee in any business to earn a proportion of equity - based on performance

 

[magicjuan]

If this the same plan they mooted a while back, then my reading of it is pretty much that mate. Firstly, "stock in a firm" isnt owned by the firm. Its owned by thousands and thousands of shareholders. Some big, some small, in pension funds, ISAs, all sorts. The plan was to give 10% of that to "The workers", then cap the dividends they receive at sommet like £500. (Not 100% on the limit, but there is one). The dividends over that limit will be retained by Government. Thats where the £300 Billion figure come from.

As for shares being part of executive pay deals, you are indeed correct. There are also millions of workers who partake in a number of share ownership schemes as part of their pay deal as well. 10% of their shares, (and dividends) will be given to other workers with no recompense.

I called it theft the first time round. I still do.

You an translate that to society itself, that all members have a 'share' in, if they're allowed to.
When public institutions were sold off and privatised you needed a sizeable disoosable income to take advantage.
Almost 40 years on and I still haven't met anyone who could afford to buy shares in the infrastructure their taxes had contributed to, and are now fleeced st every opportunity.

 

[magicjuan]

I think the opportunity should definitely be there for an employee in any business to earn a proportion of equity - based on performance

Do you also believe an employer should be able to create competitive divide on employees that could be influenced by external and uncontrollable factors?

 

[Charlie Sweet]

Do you also believe an employer should be able to create competitive divide on employees that could be influenced by external and uncontrollable factors?

What do you mean competitive divide?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

You an translate that to society itself, that all members have a 'share' in, if they're allowed to.
When public institutions were sold off and privatised you needed a sizeable disoosable income to take advantage.
Almost 40 years on and I still haven't met anyone who could afford to buy shares in the infrastructure their taxes had contributed to, and are now fleeced st every opportunity.

When BT was privatized, the public ended up owning over 1/3 of the company, with each share costing the apparently sizable sum of £1.30. Had you spent buying the princely sum of £135 worth of shares in BG at the time of their privatisation, that would be worth about £2,000 now.

 

[tsubaki]

If this the same plan they mooted a while back, then my reading of it is pretty much that mate. Firstly, "stock in a firm" isnt owned by the firm. Its owned by thousands and thousands of shareholders. Some big, some small, in pension funds, ISAs, all sorts. The plan was to give 10% of that to "The workers", then cap the dividends they receive at sommet like £500. (Not 100% on the limit, but there is one). The dividends over that limit will be retained by Government. Thats where the £300 Billion figure come from.

As for shares being part of executive pay deals, you are indeed correct. There are also millions of workers who partake in a number of share ownership schemes as part of their pay deal as well. 10% of their shares, (and dividends) will be given to other workers with no recompense.

I called it theft the first time round. I still do.

I don't think it is, at least based on that front page. They claim the total value of the firms involved is £3 trillion, 10% of which is £300 billion - the state taking dividends above £500 is not counted (which is probably the FT recognizing that firms would deliberately not go over that threshold, they'd do something with the money instead; indeed that may well be the point of the policy).

 

[roydo]

I don't think it is, at least based on that front page. They claim the total value of the firms involved is £3 trillion, 10% of which is £300 billion - the state taking dividends above £500 is not counted (which is probably the FT recognizing that firms would deliberately not go over that threshold, they'd do something with the money instead; indeed that may well be the point of the policy).

With respect, I think you are confusing the way dividends are calculated/paid, and this limit I raised.

If I owned 10 shares, and the company declared a dividend of X% per share, I would get that, times 10. And I would continue to receive it until the company stopped paying a dividend, or I sold my shares.

Under this idea, if those 10 shares had been given to me from other shareholders, (for free), I would be paid the same dividend, until I had received the limit of say £500. The company would still pay a dividend to shareholders, but not me now. That would now go to HMG.

I have seen far more detailed analysis than the FT up there about this, and the money diverted to HMG is billions and billions.