Current Affairs The Labour Party

[roydo]

View attachment 50138o

"Give" workers a share in their company. Dont make me laugh Anyone not seeing through the pure theft that actually is, is a fool.

 

[Number_25]

"Give" workers a share in their company. Dont make me laugh Anyone not seeing through the pure theft that actually is, is a fool.

The founding goal of the Labour Party was to lessen the disparity between labour and capital.

"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."

 

[roydo]

The founding goal of the Labour Party was to lessen the disparity between labour and capital.

"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."

As laudable that may be, the way he is proposing to do it is both theft, and a total betrayal of ^^^^^ that to boot. The workforce will not own, have access to, nor be able to sell, "their" shares.

You just cant see it. Or dont want to.

edit. Oh yeah, successive governments have introduced a myriad of share ownership schemes for employees for ages. And 1000's of companies do it already. Difference is, the employees do actually own their own shares, and receive 100% of their entitled returns. Unlike his "idea"

 

[Number_25]

As laudable that may be, the way he is proposing to do it is both theft, and a total betrayal of ^^^^^ that to boot. The workforce will not own, have access to, nor be able to sell, "their" shares.

You just cant see it. Or dont want to.

We're not a revolutionary party, nor have we ever been. These sorts of changes can only happen progressively, so I see this policy as a forward step in the right direction

 

[roydo]

We're not a revolutionary party, nor have we ever been. These sorts of changes can only happen progressively, so I see this policy as a forward step in the right direction

I have to ask, have you actually read the proposal past the flag waving headlines?

And if so, how is this different/better than any current employee share ownership scheme already in place?

And can you explain how a non revolutionary, progressive political party think resorting to theft is in any way Good?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

John McDonnell has sent a memo to all MPs, reminding them that:

"If there's a picket line in your constituency it is your responsibility to join it."

Sad that this is even needed to be said.

Kinda goes against the Labour mantra of being for the many rather than the few though doesn't it? The 'many' in this equation are the customers who will not be served whilst the 'few' employees go on strike. I get that Labour are the party of workers and so this is true to their value, but it runs counter to their mantra entirely.

 

[roydo]

Kinda goes against the Labour mantra of being for the many rather than the few though doesn't it? The 'many' in this equation are the customers who will not be served whilst the 'few' employees go on strike. I get that Labour are the party of workers and so this is true to their value, but it runs counter to their mantra entirely.

Worked a dream in the 70's that.

 

[Number_25]

I have to ask, have you actually read the proposal past the flag waving headlines?

And if so, how is this different/better than any current employee share ownership scheme already in place?

And can you explain how a non revolutionary, progressive political party think resorting to theft is in any way Good?

As for the "employee share ownership scheme"(s):

"Lawyers have suggested that the employee-owner scheme could have significant unintended consequences as, under the existing proposal, it may be possible for entrepreneurs to set themselves up as employee owners in order to avoid capital gains tax. In practice, those entrepreneurs will be far more 'owner' than 'employee' and the employment rights they will be giving up are likely to be of much less value to them than to ordinary employees and so the tax advantages would be of far greater value to them than to ordinary employees."

I think the fundamental issue here is that I don't see it as theft.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Worked a dream in the 70's that.

It kinda makes a mockery of the plans to nationalise everything that moves really, as history has shown us that in such circumstances it isn't ever the customer that wins but rather the worker who use their newfound monopoly status to bend a compliant government over a barrel. 'Investment' might go up, but it usually goes straight into the back pocket of workers.

 

[Number_25]

It kinda makes a mockery of the plans to nationalise everything that moves really, as history has shown us that in such circumstances it isn't ever the customer that wins but rather the worker who use their newfound monopoly status to bend a compliant government over a barrel. 'Investment' might go up, but it usually goes straight into the back pocket of workers.

"Nationalise everything".

Your ideological dogma is really something.

 

[roydo]

As for the "employee share ownership scheme"(s):

"Lawyers have suggested that the employee-owner scheme could have significant unintended consequences as, under the existing proposal, it may be possible for entrepreneurs to set themselves up as employee owners in order to avoid capital gains tax. In practice, those entrepreneurs will be far more 'owner' than 'employee' and the employment rights they will be giving up are likely to be of much less value to them than to ordinary employees and so the tax advantages would be of far greater value to them than to ordinary employees."

I think the fundamental issue here is that I don't see it as theft.

I think the fundamental issue here is that you dont understand how it works.

Lets try a realistic analogy, and tell me if it is theft or not.

Worker in medium sized company, on a modest wage, in a low skill position, (hate that phrase personally, but hey ho), has, via the various tax incentives, employer assisted schemes, has, over 20 years of loyal service, accrued shares in the company, that down partly to his hard work, are now worth £20,000.

He is retiring soon, and is looking forward to enjoying the fruits of his labour with his part time working, cleaner, wife.

Then he gets told that £2000 of his shares are not his anymore. "Why not?", he asks. "They are now owned by everyone else in the company mate, and they say thanks for your gift"

"What gift?, I scrimped and saved for those shares, and worked really hard to make the share price go up"


"Sorry mate, they aint yours any more"

"So can the other staff get a benefit at least? That would make it a bit better I guess"

"No mate, this company has had a non dividend paying policy since day 1. All the profit is invested in the company, you know, so the share price goes up, and your shares cant be sold by their new owners"

"So I loose £2000, for nothing in return?"

"Yep"

"But thats theft"

"Nah, redistribution of capital and Labour, so I was told anyrate"

Thoughts? Cos that is the proposal.

 

[Number_25]

I think the fundamental issue here is that you dont understand how it works.

Lets try a realistic analogy, and tell me if it is theft or not.

Worker in medium sized company, on a modest wage, in a low skill position, (hate that phrase personally, but hey ho), has, via the various tax incentives, employer assisted schemes, has, over 20 years of loyal service, accrued shares in the company, that down partly to his hard work, are now worth £20,000.

He is retiring soon, and is looking forward to enjoying the fruits of his labour with his part time working, cleaner, wife.

Then he gets told that £2000 of his shares are not his anymore. "Why not?", he asks. "They are now owned by everyone else in the company mate, and they say thanks for your gift"

"What gift?, I scrimped and saved for those shares, and worked really hard to make the share price go up"


"Sorry mate, they aint yours any more"

"So can the other staff get a benefit at least? That would make it a bit better I guess"

"No mate, this company has had a non dividend paying policy since day 1. All the profit is invested in the company, you know, so the share price goes up, and your shares cant be sold by their new owners"

"So I loose £2000, for nothing in return?"

"Yep"

"But thats theft"

"Nah, redistribution of capital and Labour, so I was told anyrate"

Thoughts? Cos that is the proposal.

It's not theft.

I'll elaborate further.

It's an argument that's not too dissimilar to "taxation is theft", whereas (as any honest accountant will tell you) in reality you don't actually own your pre-tax income.

 

[roydo]

It's not theft.

What would you tell my low paid working class mate who has been told to give £2000 of his hard earned shares away then?

edit. And if the Tories proposed it, you would obviously support it with vigour?

 

[Number_25]

What would you tell my low paid working class mate who has been told to give £2000 of his hard earned shares away then?

The Labour Party will ensure that he will be looked after in ill health later in life, and that his grandchildren will live in a fairer meritocratic country.

 

[roydo]

The Labour Party will ensure that he will be looked after in ill health later in life, and that his grandchildren will live in a fairer meritocratic country.

Think he will punch you on the nose mate.

Not one red cent will be raised by him having his £2000 stolen. Nor will any of his co workers get a bean either.

I edited after you responded; you would obviously support this if the Tories proposed it?