You make a good point - if they had to ally with the SNP or LD's, it *would* keep their worst excesses in check.

 

By excesses you mean investing in the country and making sure everyone has a chance to strive without falling away as the ladder is pulled up by the free market!

BBTory bias SCANDAL as they hired an ACTOR to portray a pro Brexit pro Mad May/ Tory vicar!! Absolute DISGRACE.

By excesses you mean investing in the country and making sure everyone has a chance to strive without falling away as the ladder is pulled up by the free market!

 

There's nothing wrong with *investing* but that's hardly a word i'd use about re-nationalising...

BBTory bias SCANDAL as they hired an ACTOR to portray a pro Brexit pro Mad May/ Tory vicar!! Absolute DISGRACE.

 

I'm presuming that you've not watched the segment in question, because if that was the case, then if you thought she was "hired" to make the Brexit deal look good (which the BBC firmly denies), then they definitely did not earn her "money" - I'd even be tempted to suggest that she was hired to do the opposite (but I won't, because I consider this allegation to be nothing but conspiratorial nonsense).

 

She is a pastor, albeit of an strange evangelical prosperity gospel-esque denomination.

There's nothing wrong with *investing* but that's hardly a word i'd use about re-nationalising...

 

Nationalising is investing though because you make it publicly owned so we can judge the job that was done in a GE so they have people to answer for not the blind invisible board members of big corporations like it is now under a so called free market or as I like to call it the monopoly!

Nationalising is investing though because you make it publicly owned so we can judge the job that was done in a GE so they have people to answer for not the blind invisible board members of big corporations like it is now under a so called free market or as I like to call it the monopoly!

 

But we can no more remove the board members of a nationalised company via a general election, than we can a private company, so what's the diff?

It makes the minister in charge make sure things are properly run - there's something that makes the general public feel more control at least in comparison to the free market where the vulnerable feel powerless. Not saying it's perfect but there's a source of accountability at least.

Oh my GOD. INVESTING IN PUBLIC SERVICES IS INVESTING. NATIONALISE NOW!!! IT. IS. FREE. TO. DO. SO. The French government owns some of our national infrastructure and profits from it!!!! Jesus Vidcapper.

 

Also the BBC is defending using a paid actor. More establishment media are reporting that social media users are defending thr BBTory. Who do they quote? Oh, general Joe Bloggs, like former Newsnight editors and BBTory reporters!!!!!

 

 

So a single ticket, Manchester to London, costs more than RETURN FLIGHTS TO NEW YORK!!! DISGRACE. This is the capitalist system you worship, Vidcapper.

So a single ticket, Manchester to London, costs more than RETURN FLIGHTS TO NEW YORK!!! DISGRACE. This is the capitalist system you worship, Vidcapper.

 

Yet again you make an erroneous claim about me - I don't think you understand me at all!

Your views are extremely capitalist and are also right wing. You are not left wing at all.

Your views are extremely capitalist and are also right wing. You are not left wing at all.

 

Than you for proving my previous point.

 

I was happy to be a Labour member under Blair, but Corbyn is just too left-wing for me to stomach.

Edited November 30, 20186 yr by vidcapper

Going to reply to the adults in the room.

 

Nationalising is investing though because you make it publicly owned so we can judge the job that was done in a GE so they have people to answer for not the blind invisible board members of big corporations like it is now under a so called free market or as I like to call it the monopoly!

 

 

But we can no more remove the board members of a nationalised company via a general election, than we can a private company, so what's the diff?

 

I would take exception to describing the board members of corporations as "blind invisible" - it is fairly easy to see who sits on the board of directors of companies, especially in the United Kingdom. You can do a free search on the Companies House to find out who sits on what boards, and see if someone sits on more boards than once. I've had lots of fun looking through that website for published accounts for companies - I found the annual accounts for Suede (and discovered than only 4 of their 5 members are actually directors of their holding companies!), plus I discovered the real name of J. Wilgoose Esq. of Public Service Broadcasting, among other great finds. It's a great resource, which I'm surprised is not as highly publicised as I would like it to be, it's a real treasure trove.

 

As to whether you can hold the directors to account of private companies, you most definitely can, as long as you are a shareholder in the company. As a shareholder, you are entitled to go to the company's annual general meeting (AGM) and make your concerns known, and if you can convince enough people at the meeting of your concerns, you could even force a vote to remove the directors of the company if you do not feel they are acting in the best interests of the board. There have been quite a few cases recently where "activist investors" have bought 1 share in a publicly traded company (probably costing them around a fiver), then attended the AGM to put across their concerns, largely about environmental issues, in some cases leading to changes in how the business operates. You might be at the very far end of the table, but at least you can get a seat at it.

 

In terms of my own economic leanings, I would say that I lean towards a mixed economy. I don't believe that a socialist government can work, I am yet to see one that has worked successfully, but I do believe that there should be greater redistribution in the economy (especially when the redistribution benefits families with children), and I am in favour of greater nationalisation of industries. However, I take a very different approach to how socialists would like to see things nationalised, in that I would like to see the government being involved in competition with private companies, so that consumers can decide whether they want to go with the nationalised entity or the non-nationalised entity. In industries where deregulation of the markets have hit consumers the hardest, such as in gas & electric, this would have the biggest impact. By having this competition between the two, it brings out the best of each, as it means that the government-run companies will not have the same inefficiencies as state monopolies, and it means that the private companies will not solely be guided by profit and will need to spend more to keep its staff happy and be more competitive on price.

 

I recently read the book "The Value of Everything" by economist Mariana Mazzucato. She's very much a left-leaning economist, and has been advising John McDonnell on economic policy in the past few years. In all honesty, I didn't understand half of the book and disagreed with a large majority of the rest, but she did make one good point about the role of government in investing. She pointed out that it seems to be the habit of the government either offering grants or interest free loans to start-up companies in order to get them up and running, in the hope of making money further down the line through taxes once the businesses are well established. She states the problem that she has is that if the business fails, then the government loses its investment, but if the company is successful, it only gets back what it has put in to the company (she cites Tesla, which is now a multi-billion company that enjoyed millions of dollars in government grants as an example). Instead, she says that instead of loans or grants, the government should instead take equity stakes in start-up companies, which means that if they do end up investing in the next Tesla, then the state coffers will benefit quite substantially. Indeed, I am aware that the UK government is going to be doing something similar in the future, where it is due to invest a 9-figure sum into a Private Equity Fund which will invest in companies that are involved with electric cars, which will have a positive benefit on the UK economy, as well as government funds, if they pull it off.

 

Does anyone have anything intelligent to add to this discussion?

GET THE TORIES OUT NOW!!

 

MCDONNELL HAS JUST SAID REMAIN WILL BE ON A LABOUR 2ND REFERENDUM! GET THE RIGHT WING RADICAL BREXITERS OUT OF GOVERNMENT FOREVER!!

GET THE TORIES OUT NOW!!

 

MCCONNELL HAS JUST SAID REMAIN WILL BE ON A LABOUR 2ND REFERENDUM! GET THE RIGHT WING RADICAL BREXITERS OUT OF GOVERNMENT FOREVER!!

 

Who cares about a 2nd Referendum, Labour have even less clue how to deal with Brexit than the Tories. The FT headline about Corbyn is so true.

 

Anyway it looks like the more liberal Tories are putting together a last stand for either a 2nd referendum or a Norway+ deal. No way we can thrash out the latter, but it could be drawn in to the EU agreement to negotiate.

Going to reply to the adults in the room.

I would take exception to describing the board members of corporations as "blind invisible" - it is fairly easy to see who sits on the board of directors of companies, especially in the United Kingdom. You can do a free search on the Companies House to find out who sits on what boards, and see if someone sits on more boards than once. I've had lots of fun looking through that website for published accounts for companies - I found the annual accounts for Suede (and discovered than only 4 of their 5 members are actually directors of their holding companies!), plus I discovered the real name of J. Wilgoose Esq. of Public Service Broadcasting, among other great finds. It's a great resource, which I'm surprised is not as highly publicised as I would like it to be, it's a real treasure trove.

 

As to whether you can hold the directors to account of private companies, you most definitely can, as long as you are a shareholder in the company. As a shareholder, you are entitled to go to the company's annual general meeting (AGM) and make your concerns known, and if you can convince enough people at the meeting of your concerns, you could even force a vote to remove the directors of the company if you do not feel they are acting in the best interests of the board. There have been quite a few cases recently where "activist investors" have bought 1 share in a publicly traded company (probably costing them around a fiver), then attended the AGM to put across their concerns, largely about environmental issues, in some cases leading to changes in how the business operates. You might be at the very far end of the table, but at least you can get a seat at it.

 

In terms of my own economic leanings, I would say that I lean towards a mixed economy. I don't believe that a socialist government can work, I am yet to see one that has worked successfully, but I do believe that there should be greater redistribution in the economy (especially when the redistribution benefits families with children), and I am in favour of greater nationalisation of industries. However, I take a very different approach to how socialists would like to see things nationalised, in that I would like to see the government being involved in competition with private companies, so that consumers can decide whether they want to go with the nationalised entity or the non-nationalised entity. In industries where deregulation of the markets have hit consumers the hardest, such as in gas & electric, this would have the biggest impact. By having this competition between the two, it brings out the best of each, as it means that the government-run companies will not have the same inefficiencies as state monopolies, and it means that the private companies will not solely be guided by profit and will need to spend more to keep its staff happy and be more competitive on price.

 

I recently read the book "The Value of Everything" by economist Mariana Mazzucato. She's very much a left-leaning economist, and has been advising John McDonnell on economic policy in the past few years. In all honesty, I didn't understand half of the book and disagreed with a large majority of the rest, but she did make one good point about the role of government in investing. She pointed out that it seems to be the habit of the government either offering grants or interest free loans to start-up companies in order to get them up and running, in the hope of making money further down the line through taxes once the businesses are well established. She states the problem that she has is that if the business fails, then the government loses its investment, but if the company is successful, it only gets back what it has put in to the company (she cites Tesla, which is now a multi-billion company that enjoyed millions of dollars in government grants as an example). Instead, she says that instead of loans or grants, the government should instead take equity stakes in start-up companies, which means that if they do end up investing in the next Tesla, then the state coffers will benefit quite substantially. Indeed, I am aware that the UK government is going to be doing something similar in the future, where it is due to invest a 9-figure sum into a Private Equity Fund which will invest in companies that are involved with electric cars, which will have a positive benefit on the UK economy, as well as government funds, if they pull it off.

 

Does anyone have anything intelligent to add to this discussion?

 

I often have to dig out info from companies house as the Council ends up getting complaints about abandoned land and responsibilities when they go bankrupt, so I have to research current owners. Invaluable when the Land Registry hold no details (which is not uncommon).

 

I also believe in mixed economies, and am against stupid investments which are politically-motivated, but am in favour of ones that help the general public and not just rich individuals. I'm also in favour of banning British territories from continuing to be vast money-laundering schemes from crooks hiding their ill-gotten gains or tax-dodging schemes. If they don't agree to publish details as if they were subject to British laws then they should go fully independent and stop having British tax money supporting economies based on corruption and where locals get little benefit from the riches stashed away.

The fake vicar has apparently told RT that the BBTory KNEW she was a Tory plant. The BBTory's credibility just keeps dropping. Axe the licence fee and let the Tories fund it.

If you're trying to convince people that this is nothing more than a half-baked conspiracy, then starting with the words "apparently told RT" aren't going to help.

The fake vicar has apparently told RT that the BBTory KNEW she was a Tory plant. The BBTory's credibility just keeps dropping. Axe the licence fee and let the Tories fund it.

 

I saw both her appearances and she's not entirely coherent or persuasive in any way. Are you saying that extras on TV and film have no right to an opinion (I have a close friend who did that for years, and he is most def not an actor, but does hold equally odd viewpoints)? She was paid the standard modest fee along with the other guests.

 

My quibble isn't with her profession, my quibble is that she didn't come over as entirely rational and was a poor choice in the first place. The other guests, both Leave and Remain, were head and shoulders more convincing, so I rather doubt she was a plant - unless she was a plant to inadvertently ridicule the May deal. I got so annoyed with her I turned over to Family Guy for something less far-fetched.

Who cares about a 2nd Referendum, Labour have even less clue how to deal with Brexit than the Tories. The FT headline about Corbyn is so true.

 

Anyway it looks like the more liberal Tories are putting together a last stand for either a 2nd referendum or a Norway+ deal. No way we can thrash out the latter, but it could be drawn in to the EU agreement to negotiate.

 

But it wasn't labours fault all this!