Labour Party retake Wakefield!!

[JockyBrewer]

The energy companies have expensive lawyers that can run rings around the government/civil service.

That goes for every bit of public infrastructure owned by private companies.

My view is that while these companies are making a profit for shareholders they should not be getting a penny in state subsidy of any kind.

Personally I’d go further in that a company’s shareholder remuneration should not take priority over its workers.

Why is the average man being told they have to feel the pinch of high prices while others make a profit?

It’s purely robbing from the poor to give to the rich.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Amen to that Jocky.

 

[moto748]

That may be so, but the govt has the power to beef up these oversight organisations, if it so chooses. And/or to give out cash to consumers. So they are not, or need not be, idle spectators.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

That may be so, but the govt has the power to beef up these oversight organisations, if it so chooses. And/or to give out cash to consumers. So they are not, or need not be, idle spectators.

As far as i know no government has ever taken money from big companies in times of crisis and given it to the poor this is not the first time prices have been so high and it wont be the last whichever government is in power.

Remember a few years ago petrol/diesel prices rose to an all time high the French truck drivers blockaded refineries and roads and so did our drivers to a lesser degree the government didnt intervene then what makes you think they will this time.

 

[moto748]

I didn't say I thought they would; I said they have to power to do so if they want.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

I didn't say I thought they would; I said they have to power to do so if they want.

If that is the easy way out of this why do you think they and other parties have never used it?

 

[JockyBrewer]

I didn't say I thought they would; I said they have to power to do so if they want.

Except they won’t because they are making the money off of it, or in league with those that do.

One hand washes the other.

Until that becomes unacceptable things will only get worse.

 

[foxy]

Personally I’d go further in that a company’s shareholder remuneration should not take priority over its workers.

Why is the average man being told they have to feel the pinch of high prices while others make a profit?

It’s purely robbing from the poor to give to the rich.

That's the way businesses work, for a company to grow it needs investors, paying dividends is a way of bringing more investors on board. Shareholders don't always get dividends, the company may use that money to fund expansion. But I would say paying the workers in favour of the investors would panic shareholders into moving their investments else where.
A bit like you putting money into a bank and not getting any interest because they have given the interest earned to the tellers. I doubt anyone would leave their money in that bank.

 

[Dutto]

That's the way businesses work, for a company to grow it needs investors, paying dividends is a way of bringing more investors on board. Shareholders don't always get dividends, the company may use that money to fund expansion. But I would say paying the workers in favour of the investors would panic shareholders into moving their investments else where.
A bit like you putting money into a bank and not getting any interest because they have given the interest earned to the tellers. I doubt anyone would leave their money in that bank.

That’s one of the most fallacious arguments I’ve ever heard! Especially the last sentence!

My bank have paid me 0.5% interest over the last 10 years and my mothers bank moved her “SuperSaver” account to one paying 0.05%! (They informed her on Page 35 of a finely printed booklet - but still called it a “SuperSaver” account!)

To the bit about Shareholders moving their money I ask “To where?” Maybe like myself; who moved his money into 3 year bonds that pay 0.65% when inflation was well below today’s +10% mark?

You’re correct in saying Shareholders don’t always get dividends; especially after the company managers have trousered their money, any profits that the company made, plus the pensions of their own workers and then put the company into liquidation!

Fallacious hardly covers your response. Sorry!
:hat:

 

[foxy]

That’s one of the most fallacious arguments I’ve ever heard! Especially the last sentence!

My bank have paid me 0.5% interest over the last 10 years and my mothers bank moved her “SuperSaver” account to one paying 0.05%! (They informed her on Page 35 of a finely printed booklet - but still called it a “SuperSaver” account!)

To the bit about Shareholders moving their money I ask “To where?” Maybe like myself; who moved his money into 3 year bonds that pay 0.65% when inflation was well below today’s +10% mark?

You’re correct in saying Shareholders don’t always get dividends; especially after the company managers have trousered their money, any profits that the company made, plus the pensions of their own workers and then put the company into liquidation!

Fallacious hardly covers your response. Sorry!
:hat:

They would move it to where the dividends were going to them and not the workers.
The bank is a hypothetical could be 10% interest earned, I am sure no one would like it if the bank turned around and said,'Look we don't really pay the tellers enough, they are hard up so we are paying them the interest of YOUR money.

Liquidation is few and far between,plus there are indicators when thing aren't going well, enough time to pull the pin.
I prefer to go for capital gains on the shares rather than dividends. I checked my super last week (havent checked it for about 3 or 4 years) and its just faltered, but over the last few years apart from 2019-20 has been performing well.

 

[JockyBrewer]

That's the way businesses work, for a company to grow it needs investors, paying dividends is a way of bringing more investors on board. Shareholders don't always get dividends, the company may use that money to fund expansion. But I would say paying the workers in favour of the investors would panic shareholders into moving their investments else where.
A bit like you putting money into a bank and not getting any interest because they have given the interest earned to the tellers. I doubt anyone would leave their money in that bank.

I won’t deny that… although your final statement kind of proves my point - bank interest rates have been close to 0% for over a decade, and many have crept in fees that effectively make the interest rate effectively negative.

So are they paying their tellers really well? No, they are making them redundant and replacing them with online services, and the savings go to shareholders.

It’s just another example of the transfer of wealth from the many to the few, and I’m certain it’s not sustainable much longer.

The past 20 years has seen the second industrial revolution with the rise of the internet, and we are not too far from a third revolution with the rise of AI.

While the previous revolutions made a few people obscenely rich, we all benefitted, so we accepted it.

But what happens as more and more workers are replaced by robots, owned by a few people? Something is going to give.

 

[Obadiah Boondoggle]

Turnout was also low.

We have to be careful what we wish for how ****** off will all those calling for Johnson's head be if he resigns and the person who takes over does a good job and they win the next general election.

I want Boris to stay put and take the party down.

It seems that BJ says he will stay until 2030. I'm OK with that as long as he is gone by 9pm

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Something is going to give.

 

[Dutto]

……

Liquidation is few and far between,plus there are indicators when thing aren't going well, enough time to pull the pain
…….

I give you the latest UK Government figures …

“One in 304 active companies (at a rate of 32.9 per 10,000 active companies) entered liquidation in 2021. This was an increase from the 29.4 per 10,000 active companies that entered liquidation in 2020, but remained lower than the 41.9 per 10,000 in 2019.”

Not included in this figure is “Safe Hands”, a Company that held Funeral Plans for my wife and I.

“Safe Hands” called in the Receivers in March of this year. As Plan Holders we apparently can expect either nothing or “1p in the £” and:

1. The Mangers of the Company failed to put our money “in a safe place”!
2. We won’t be cremated as planned.

I’ll bet the Shareholders got their Dividends though!

I rest my case!
:hat:

 

[Chippy_Tea]

On 1st may the poll showed Labour at 40% and Conservative at 34% today we have Labour on 39% and conservative on 33% the gap is still 6% but surely the gap between Labour and Conservative should be getting bigger why have they dropped 1% at a time when Boris is on the ropes.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Those numbers don’t take into consideration tactical voting. I’m a Labour member who lives in a marginal seat of Warrington south but if I live in a seat where Labour was the 3rd party I would vote for the Liberals as many others will.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Why it’s time for Labour to back proportional representation​

Andy Burnham

Our rotten political system must change – inequality has been hard-wired into our country by first-past-the-post

This is a deeply dysfunctional government and the good news coming out of Thursday’s byelections is that we now have a route to removing it. That might be more likely to happen if we also start talking about reforming Britain’s deeply dysfunctional system of government.

Today’s crises have been building for a long time.

The poorest parts of our country were not ready for the pandemic. Decades of deregulation, under all governments, stripped them of resilience and left people without the basics: in jobs where they can’t go home if unwell; in homes that are unsafe; in communities with no affordable public transport.

This inequality is no accident. It is the product of a political system that places too much power in the hands of too few. Britain is hard-wired to perpetuate it.

If our political system was a computer, we would have long since taken steps to prevent it being hacked

First-past-the-post, combined with the whip system, takes the votes of millions and turns them into inordinate power for a small Whitehall elite. Government MPs troop through the lobbies rubber-stamping their decisions. Any ability to mitigate the worst of them has long since been removed from local government.

This over-concentration of power in one London postcode makes it far too easy for vested interests to manipulate political decision-making. What else explains the extent to which the political elite have been captured by the mantra that the market solves everything?

In the rare moments when backbench MPs have power, such as in the recent no-confidence vote, the inner workings of this corrupt system are momentarily revealed. When Nadine Dorries warned rebel MPs that the Tory donors weren’t happy and might withdraw cash from their constituencies, she wasn’t setting out to provide the perfect diagnosis of our political malaise – but that is what she spectacularly did.

Some of these donors are hostile to the notion of Britain as a fairer, more equitable country. Others, as the Ukraine crisis revealed, are potentially hostile to Britain. If our political system was a computer, we would have long since taken steps to prevent it being hacked.

Britain’s antiquated political system is never going to solve our problems; rather, it is a root cause of them.

The time has come for a complete rewiring of Britain – and for my own party to talk openly and seriously with others who feel the same.

Given the seriousness of the country’s situation, the next general election needs to bring a change of direction. The risk is, if our political parties carry on with business-as-usual, it may not happen. The Tories are masters at making first-past-the-post work for them. However, if the other parties are open to a new approach, Thursday’s results suggest a change of government becomes not just achievable but highly likely.

Full article - Proportional representation can save Britain from its multiple crises | Andy Burnham

 

[JockyBrewer]

Those numbers don’t take into consideration tactical voting. I’m a Labour member who lives in a marginal seat of Warrington south but if I live in a seat where Labour was the 3rd party I would vote for the Liberals as many others will.

There was an article by Sir John Curtice saying that the key take home from the by elections wasn’t that Labour were massively popular, but that voters were finally willing to vote tactically.

 

[JockyBrewer]

Why it’s time for Labour to back proportional representation​

Andy Burnham

Our rotten political system must change – inequality has been hard-wired into our country by first-past-the-post

This is a deeply dysfunctional government and the good news coming out of Thursday’s byelections is that we now have a route to removing it. That might be more likely to happen if we also start talking about reforming Britain’s deeply dysfunctional system of government.

Today’s crises have been building for a long time.

The poorest parts of our country were not ready for the pandemic. Decades of deregulation, under all governments, stripped them of resilience and left people without the basics: in jobs where they can’t go home if unwell; in homes that are unsafe; in communities with no affordable public transport.

This inequality is no accident. It is the product of a political system that places too much power in the hands of too few. Britain is hard-wired to perpetuate it.

If our political system was a computer, we would have long since taken steps to prevent it being hacked

First-past-the-post, combined with the whip system, takes the votes of millions and turns them into inordinate power for a small Whitehall elite. Government MPs troop through the lobbies rubber-stamping their decisions. Any ability to mitigate the worst of them has long since been removed from local government.

This over-concentration of power in one London postcode makes it far too easy for vested interests to manipulate political decision-making. What else explains the extent to which the political elite have been captured by the mantra that the market solves everything?

In the rare moments when backbench MPs have power, such as in the recent no-confidence vote, the inner workings of this corrupt system are momentarily revealed. When Nadine Dorries warned rebel MPs that the Tory donors weren’t happy and might withdraw cash from their constituencies, she wasn’t setting out to provide the perfect diagnosis of our political malaise – but that is what she spectacularly did.

Some of these donors are hostile to the notion of Britain as a fairer, more equitable country. Others, as the Ukraine crisis revealed, are potentially hostile to Britain. If our political system was a computer, we would have long since taken steps to prevent it being hacked.

Britain’s antiquated political system is never going to solve our problems; rather, it is a root cause of them.

The time has come for a complete rewiring of Britain – and for my own party to talk openly and seriously with others who feel the same.

Given the seriousness of the country’s situation, the next general election needs to bring a change of direction. The risk is, if our political parties carry on with business-as-usual, it may not happen. The Tories are masters at making first-past-the-post work for them. However, if the other parties are open to a new approach, Thursday’s results suggest a change of government becomes not just achievable but highly likely.

Full article - Proportional representation can save Britain from its multiple crises | Andy Burnham

I’m not so sure about saving Britain from all its crises, but PR would certainly be the fairest voting system for the 21st century.

FPTP has had a good run, but with social media news moves as fast as someone can type it or film it on a mobile phone, rather than it having to make it to a national or local news outlet.

If we don’t head in that direction we will head towards increasingly polar politics, same as the US.

 

[Jim Brewster]

Does anyone really give a ?
I honestly couldn't care less which party has the seat in Wakefield, it doesn't really make a blind bit of difference to anything. I'm fairly confident Starmer will be no better than Boris, the only difference is he sounds more of a stupid dweeb than an oblivious toff