A bit of a vote

[thebrookster]

1 hour ago, JohnD said:

I fear that the bonusses (Sp?) are a side show in lack of investment - it's the dividends paid out to shareholders that amount to many times more.  Vide, the water Cos, whose lack of investment while distributing BILLIONS to the punters who 'own' them is rebounding on them.   Thames Water anyone?

Fully agreed!

[PaulAA]

1 hour ago, thebrookster said:

Hmmmm, however exactly how many folks would we really lose?

It seems to be the oft repeated reply, we will lose the talent. But if we are in a position where losing a few top execs can scupper everything, then arguably something else is wrong.

I would argue that the people the UK would lose are the people the UK can happily manage without, but righting the wrongs of nearly half of century characterised by almost ceaselessly misguided and selfish policy will take a radical Govt and more than a four-year term. And, as Michael Heseltine points out, the omens for the outcome are not auspicious:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/27/ignoring-brexit-will-make-election-campaign-most-dishonest-in-modern-times-says-michael-heseltine

2 hours ago, JohnD said:

I fear that the bonusses (Sp?) are a side show in lack of investment - it's the dividends paid out to shareholders that amount to many times more.  Vide, the water Cos, whose lack of investment while distributing BILLIONS to the punters who 'own' them is rebounding on them.   Thames Water anyone?

Public utility privatisation must rank with Brexit as one of the most ridiculous pieces of self-harm the UK has inflicted upon itself. It's ironic that here in one of the poorer countries of Europe, our water system is publicly-owned and has seen steady and unspectacular investment over the thirty-odd years since 'the change', and is now robust and reliable. Oysters are used to verify the quality of water drawn from the river in Warsaw, and the filtration plant built by the British at the end of the nineteenth century still operates more or less as it was originally designed. Our tapwater is potable and lurgy-free.

There are people who took political decisions to knowingly sabotaged the UK, but who will never face justice.

[zetecspit]

1 hour ago, thebrookster said:

Hmmmm, however exactly how many folks would we really lose?

It seems to be the oft repeated reply, we will lose the talent. But if we are in a position where losing a few top execs can scupper everything, then arguably something else is wrong.

Lets put it this way. If your employer cuts your income in half, what would you do? 

Besides, there would be plenty of ideas to get round the issue. Simple one, set up a ltd company to do the job, which pays the CEO a "safe" wage. But the new ltd company keeps the rest, pays him in dividends, or pension, or whatever other system is in place. That may not easily work, but I bet something similar would happen. 

Remember the bankers bonus cap? they all found ways around that. 

[Nick Jones]

8 hours ago, thebrookster said:

we will lose the talent.

Right….. seems to me that for a lot of this alleged “talent”, the main talent in question is for taking very good care of themselves and a select few others and knowing when to scarper just before manure goes into windmill…. Possibly talent we neither need or want…?

As for privatised utilities, most countries simply do not allow significant control of national infrastructure and assets by foreign companies/individuals. And where they do, there are strict controls. Not so here.  Thames Water (especially but not exclusively among water companies) has been subject to massive asset stripping, primarily by McQuarie Capital.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41152516.amp
 

McQuarie still have a fair chunk of Southern Water…..

[RedRooster]

3 hours ago, zetecspit said:

Lets put it this way. If your employer cuts your income in half, what would you do? 

Besides, there would be plenty of ideas to get round the issue. Simple one, set up a ltd company to do the job, which pays the CEO a "safe" wage. But the new ltd company keeps the rest, pays him in dividends, or pension, or whatever other system is in place. That may not easily work, but I bet something similar would happen. 

Remember the bankers bonus cap? they all found ways around that. 

IR35 anyone? 

[JohnD]

RR, please interpret!  IR35??

On the election, I notice that Reform UK, that joke "party" that was "Brexit", then UKIP, but always the creature of Nigel Farage will field 300 candidates - but not Farage who has publicly said that he is saving himself for the US Presidential Election.  He would be a virgin MP if he were elected, I hope that the wedding night in Washington will not be too traumatic.   I suppose he hopes to get some rewarding White House adviser post.   Chief worm sexer, perhaps, as he will know his own.

The HissTories meanwhile are on the rocks for candidates.  78 sitting MPs, the latest the Govester, will not stand for election to their own posts, to the devastation of their Constituencies, who had no successors in waiting.  I predict a lot more Portillo moments, not for the wasp chewing incumbent, but for the amazed winners, who yesterday were junior Labour councillors and leaflet pushers.

John

[RedRooster]

IR35 basically the tax man screwing you over if you are self-employed. 

[Escadrille Ecosse]

Not going to get into the politics of IR35

However the only people who ever felt the need to take 'reform' seriously are the Tory right wing extremists. No-one else does.

[Nick Jones]

Could this be an explanation of Sunaks recent antics? Must admit I’d said something similar to SM this morning…..

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/27/is-rishi-sunak-actively-trying-to-lose-the-election

[thebrookster]

11 hours ago, Nick Jones said:

Could this be an explanation of Sunaks recent antics? Must admit I’d said something similar to SM this morning…..

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/27/is-rishi-sunak-actively-trying-to-lose-the-election

I'd put it down to him simply accepting he wasn't going to win. However I can accept it being deliberate, he has lost a large chunk of his party over the last week so even if he did win, he's lost a lot of the experience out of his party.

Edited May 28 by thebrookster

[zetecspit]

12 minutes ago, thebrookster said:

I'd put it down to him simply accepting he wasn't going to win.

yep, and a bit of "2+2=5"

I was thinking about how he has performed as PM. Not exciting, after all we had enough of that after Boris and Truss. But as a safe pair of hands he has been fine. Brought some stability and sense after the disasters. 

No idea who came up with the national service idea. Some of it seems to be a good idea, but using the name is a real gaff. Almost like he is being set up. Or maybe doing us all a favour by proving it is a crap idea. 

It could have been a very different story if he had picked up from Boris without Truss being involved, but as always, we are where we are. Keir is another "safe pair of hands" and I don't think there will be anything too much for the "Humphries"  in the civil service to be concerned about. It did amuse me that they plan a security audit. I bet the security services are rolling their eyeballs. But on the plus side so different to Diane Abbott wanting to get rid of MI5 etc

I really need some other stuff to think about.... 

[thebrookster]

Well, I see that Starmer is quickly cementing Labour in as a Tory Party clone, now banning Diane Abbott from standing.

I can't say I particularly like his methods of running a party, which appear to be to boot anyone whose politics/views differ from his.

It's a rather scary thought when you realise that England currently does not have a left leaning party at all these days. Unless the Lib Dems make a come back, which I can't see happening currently. Smacks of American politics, where the only discernible difference is the party name.

There is distinct lack of balance left in Westminster, and that doesn't bode well for the mere mortals like us.

[zetecspit]

Abbott is a nightmare. SHe was firmly in the Corbyn camp, and had dangerous ideas. 

Starmer knows that labour will be better off without her. She was ridiculed for her appauling  appalling maths. But worse she wanted to dismantle our security services. Goodness knows why. 

As I have said before, I am glad politics is returning to the centre ground. It makes me feel safe!

Edited May 29 by zetecspit

[JohnD]

Hmmmmmmmmmmm?  Spelling too?    Appalling.

[zetecspit]

37 minutes ago, JohnD said:

Hmmmmmmmmmmm?  Spelling too?    Appalling.

Ha, fair point.

But you can bet your bottom dollar that if I was appearing in an interview about a key policy, I would not get it wrong! She is a liability to the Labour party. 

[JohnD]

Name a HisTory politician who is not a liability to their party.

Did you know that Sunak went to the King to tell him that he was about to announce the Election, BEFORE discussing it in Cabinet?   Even the PM doesn't trust any of his colleagues.

John

[thebrookster]

2 hours ago, zetecspit said:

As I have said before, I am glad politics is returning to the centre ground. It makes me feel safe!

Yeah, except Labour, since Tony Blair was in power, has been anything but centre, let alone left leaning! The droves of ex-Tory MP's that have defected over to Labour is by itself testament to that.

For some reason, we in the UK have lost sight of what the political spectrum used to be. We have the Tories, who are now generally held to be bordering on Fascist (albeit Sunak has moved them back over a wee bit), then we have Labour, occupying the ground that the Tories used to hold, and we have the Lib Dems, who have managed to hold onto their centre-left values. And yet in the UK we seem to be incapable of accepting that our politics have trended to the right over the last 20 years.

The only stuff that Starmer provides that is in anyway "centre" is the snippets he gives to keep the Unions supporting him, and I am truly baffled as to why they keep supporting him.

For all their bad points, I am very glad we still have the SNP up here in Scotland, as they do tend to trend towards not privatising everything and trying to keep an NHS that is truer to its original core values. They leave a lot to be desired for, but I dread to think where we would be at had they not been in power this last decade.

[JohnD]

Phil,

Do you really see that Labour has been centrist since Blair?  Allowing various (and some right wing) Histories to cross the floor of the House?    But certainly since Corbyn, the leadership and policies have been thoroughly, and election losingly, left wing.     Starmer has steered it back towards the centre.

IMHO our political system is thoroughly outdated. Our "first-past-the-post" elections tend towards whitewash results that allow parties to trend to the wings as they cannot be challenged, or else hung parliaments with no overall majority.    In the last case, although as in 2010 this has required coalitions, politics is too used to steamrollering policies to really cooperate and the major member is completely dominant.  This situation is completely out of trend with the rest of Europe - the whole of Europe, not just the EU.   OF the 43 nations within geographical Europe, only two others do not have some form of proportional representation - Byelorus, which may be excepted as a near dictatorship and France, where the right wing keeps on rearing its ugly head, for similar reasons.

A PR electoral system would allow more far right wing candidates into Parliament, but they would be under their own, recognisable flag, rather than hiding within the various factional groups within the Histories (or Labour!).    Moreover, to achieve Government, there would have to be cooperation, watering down excessive movement towards the wings.

It is sometimes argued that PR prevents stable government, with frequent changes in the ruling party or PMs to lead one.     After four History PMs in the last five years, that argument must fall!

John

 

[thebrookster]

4 hours ago, JohnD said:

Do you really see that Labour has been centrist since Blair?  Allowing various (and some right wing) Histories to cross the floor of the House?    But certainly since Corbyn, the leadership and policies have been thoroughly, and election losingly, left wing.     Starmer has steered it back towards the centre.

Since Blair rebranded Labour as "New Labour", as a party they have espoused a neoliberal stance since. Since this basically promotes corporations and individuals over the workers, it cannot be anything other than right wing. The Tories are far more extreme with this admittedly, but I have yet to see any substantial policy of Starmer's that in any way reins this approach back in.

That coupled with his approach of removing left leaning people out of Labour suggests an ever increasing movement to the right.

Corbyn attempted to move Labour back to the left, however he was never the guy to lead the party. I would be hesitant to say that the public rejected left wing politics simply due to the one election. The Tories were still on a high, and Corbyn lacked the charisma to beat that. People abhor change, unless things get really bad.

However, one of the things people tend to overlook is the other effect Corbyn (and the SNP) had on politics, which was to create a huge upswing in grassroots politics, and fresh blood coming in. 

4 hours ago, JohnD said:

It is sometimes argued that PR prevents stable government, with frequent changes in the ruling party or PMs to lead one

On the basis that Scotland has had a mixture of PR and FPTP for several elections, I don't see that we have a particularly unstable government? Okay, the last decade is a touch of a misnomer there, seeing as the massive SNP popularity overcame the system, however it worked before that happened as well.

[PaulAA]

3 hours ago, thebrookster said:

However, one of the things people tend to overlook is the other effect Corbyn (and the SNP) had on politics, which was to create a huge upswing in grassroots politics, and fresh blood coming in.

Very true. I sometimes wonder whether Corbyn had any real desire for Government, or whether his real objective was indeed primarily to energise and radicalise grassroots politics.

As a distant observer, it strikes me that Labour has largely lost its purpose and has not found a leader to galvanise it behind a cause. Starmer is a centrist technocrat, but he is not the man of the moment. The lack of decisive clarity on the EU, wavering on condemnation of Netanyahu, the expulsion of left wingers for holding opinions, and currying favour with The City, all indicate a Tory Lite govt ahead and the strong likelihood that it will be a one-term administration, paving the way for the Tories (or whatever Party they reinvent themselves as) to return regrouped and reestablished for more of their foul ethos.

I stumbled across the film Children of Men the other day. Made in 2005, it is remarkably precient in its distopian projection of a crumbling Britain under an authoritarian right-wing government, which had identified its bogeyman and poured its resources into eliminating it. The Populist idyll.

3 hours ago, thebrookster said:

On the basis that Scotland has had a mixture of PR and FPTP for several elections, I don't see that we have a particularly unstable government? Okay, the last decade is a touch of a misnomer there, seeing as the massive SNP popularity overcame the system, however it worked before that happened as well.

There are 29 Parties represented in the Polish Parliament, spanning a wide range of mainstream and minority groups. It sounds unworkable, but as with government by coalition in most PR electoral systems throughout Europe, it enables concensus to be formed and broader, more inclusive policy to be established. We moved from a single-party quasi religious hegemony in last year's elections, to a broad base of forward-looking parties, which has brought the country back to the centre of Europe. From being the country that argued with everybody six months ago, we are now the country that is leading defence policy, long-term energy planning and forming the core resistance bloc to the upsurge in the far right. Yes, PR works.

[mossmonaco]

Commentators have been puzzling over the timing of the election and Ive noticed a couple of things.

1. Our Glorious Leaders have spaffed a huge amount of our money on the (seemingly) utterly non-sensicle Rawanda policy

2. Basic human decency should ensure that we as a civilised democracy would not illegally ship refugees to an unsafe third world country.Our Glorious Leaders have given Rawanda a pile of cash in return for which the Rawandans have promised that they will mend their ways and treat arrivals well (presumably the two governments have come to an agreement about what they mean by 'basic human decency'). Although Our Glorious Leaders have changed the law to try and restrict the courts, it's generally accepted that the planned mass deportations will not happen.

3. Even though there are likely to be no passengers, Our Glorious Leaders have spaffed more money on chartering aircraft to Rawanda. More has been spent on building accomodation. 

4. According to the goverment's own figures the costs amount to just under TWO MILLION per refugee.

5. It' well known that rats leave sinking ships

6 Our Glorious Leaders seem to be deliberately trying to loose the election.

 

 

The obvious conclusion is that the money has been spent on building luxury hotels and the entire government is planning on buggering off to africa on an all-expenses paid 1.8 million pound per person 4 year long summer holliday. the timing of the election was dictated by the available flight dates. 

[BiTurbo228]

Is it worth reassessing some of the thoughts here now the budget has finally been revealed, and is way more left wing than I was expecting. Took me by surprise as I was expecting more Tory-in-a-red-tie (though I'll take that over the 'borderline-fascist-masquerading-as-a-legitimate-party' or 'outright-fascist-asset-strippers' alternatives).

It's a mixed thing for me. Budget very encouraging. Making the right noises about healthcare as far as I'm standing. Continued support of Israel less encouraging. Understand what they're trying to do with the farmers inheritance stuff, but lacks the required nuance to not piss people off (and they don't seem to be making the right noises about listening to people). Also starting to see some noise about Brexit being a bad idea economically, which is a positive step, though not sure if that's just pundit speculation.

[Nick Jones]

The support for Israel in their ethnic cleansing / genocide of Palestinians in Gaza is a dark stain on the whole of the western world, not just our government. Just shameful.

The farmer inheritance tax thing is extraordinarily ill-judged in my opinion.  Not going to raise much money and it really is going to be a show stopper for a lot family farms.  Threshold set WAY too low just for a start.

[thebrookster]

55 minutes ago, Nick Jones said:

The farmer inheritance tax thing is extraordinarily ill-judged in my opinion.  Not going to raise much money and it really is going to be a show stopper for a lot family farms.  Threshold set WAY too low just for a start

Yeah, this one for me smacks of "Tory-in-a-red-tie", as it all it will really achieve is driving farmers off their land which then becomes prime targets for rich investment bankers. Just a slightly better cloaked approach.

[Nick Jones]

Trouble is, they might get away with it as the general urban population doesn’t /can’t distinguish between plain rich and asset-rich, cash poor and regards farmers as rich.  Trying to argue (rightly in my view) that expecting farmers to sell land to pay death duties is skin to asking them to sell a room of their house, doesn’t seem to cut through.

Lots of townie Guardian readers (I’m a Guardian reader, but not a townie) bleating about stupid farmers always voting Tory anyway….. well, actually not do much these days, more Lib Dem after serious betrayals by the Tories, but anyway you can see why they might not be enthusiastic about a party that pulls stupid and destructive stunts like this, after promising not to….