The Labour Party

[Pat494]

About time the candidates made realistic proposals for the good of this country and had some hope of being elected.
Mud slinging at the others doesn't garner votes.
What policies would you like Labour to adopt ?

Sir Keir Starmer promises ‘attack unit that lays bare every Tory failure’

 

[barjon]

About time the candidates made realistic proposals for the good of this country and had some hope of being elected.
Mud slinging at the others doesn't garner votes.
What policies would you like Labour to adopt ?

Conservative ones 😊

 

[Pat494]

1. I would like to suggest having a union rep. on the board of directors.
Some of them can't be trusted to look after the company's and country's best interests. Only their own.

 

[timsk]

. . . What policies would you like Labour to adopt ? . . .

Anything that isn't woke would be a good start.
Jon's point - although made in jest - is one they ought to take seriously. They keep asking themselves why the 'red wall' crumbled at the last election and the simple answer is that the voters preferred Tory policies to Labour ones. For example, Priti Patel's excellent points based immigration system really, really, really ought to have been in Labour's election manifesto. Why? Because the people who will benefit the most from it are the working class, unskilled and low paid people who Labour are supposed to champion. If they (Labour) continue to loathe their core electorate and hate everything they stand for, then they shouldn't be too surprised when said voters stick up two fingers at them at the election. That they seem unwilling or incapable of coming to this simple and obvious realisation is the reason why they'll be in the political wilderness for a very long time to come. They are now (regardless who's elected as their next leader) no more relevant than the LibDems or the Greens. Effectively, they've reduced themselves to a minority protest party. Pathetic - in the true sense of the word.
Tim.

 

[barjon]

Agree with Tim mainly, except that I suspect that the last election was more influenced by brexit than the usual left/right policy arguments. Trouble is that Labour, particularly the current momentum shower, put ideology before pragmatic government when people generally prefer the reverse. They have won in the past, of course, but that’s only been when they have managed to put ideology second for a time.

 

[Pat494]

Labour's spoiling tactics over Brexit lost them a lot of support. They more or less shut down Govt. and had nothing better to offer even though the electorate had given Brexit the green light. Cameron made a bad mistake imho of letting a simple majority decide such an important issue, It should have been a 15 or 20 % majority to determine this country's future direction.

 

[Signalcalc]

Ohh Jeremy Corb...who?

 

[Pat494]

After watching years of political inaction over the practice of flogging off Britain's best companies and City slickers pocketing the profits

2. Give the employees of such a company being sold down the swannee the right to block such a move.
All employees would have the right to vote on the issue and with a 65% + majority could block it thus saving our best companies like world leader Arm Holdings Ltd. being owned and probably re-located abroad. This would also allow youngsters the opportunity to join a world leader and taxes would stay in Britain.
A top country needs it's top talent working here for us too.

 

[tomorton]

1. I would like to suggest having a union rep. on the board of directors.
Some of them can't be trusted to look after the company's and country's best interests. Only their own.

The past policy in the UK has been that the owners of a company, i.e. the people who took the risk to set it up, borrowed money to pay for it and who actually have legal title to its possession, are the sole holders of rights with regards the company's activities.

Splitting these rights with employees, beyond the normal duties of employer to an employee, and with other stakeholders, goes in a new and bizarre direction.

But maybe you would wish to see the same principle extended further so that all stakeholders involved in your purchase of a residence have a say. How about if before you re-decorate the hall and extend the kitchen of your house, you must consult your postman, your gardener, your DIY man, the window-cleaner, the local vicar and also your neighbours plus the refuse collectors, as to the design and finishes to be used, and the actual colour scheme that would be preferable.

I suspect you would say, sod that lot, its my house, I bought it and I'll make the f-ing decisions..........
Please tell me if I'm wrong somewhere.

 

[Pat494]

As you know very well Tom shareholders are a disorganised rabble and although they theoretically own the company they have little to do with running it. Mostly owned by pension funds etc. but not run by them. The directors are usually only too happy to sell out and pocket the cash to the highest bidder. Middle East oil money etc. is so strong these days. Arm Holdings was a good example of a world leading company disappearing from UK shores. This is very bad for the country's morale to be left with the left overs the money lot don't want i.e. the dross. Youngsters need a well run company to join and hone their skills. There would be an outcry if somebody flogged off The Crown Jewels and rightly so. In the business world it is different. Let us be proud of our best companies and protect their employees. The employees and their families very lives are relying on successful companies thanks to well paid and secure jobs.

 

[tomorton]

Nevertheless, the shareholders own the company and they have a legal right to sell it if they wish - the government CAN already ban parties in certain foreign powers from buying strategic UK companies - but they would have to make a case for depriving the owners of their legal rights.

Meanwhile, the company's owners take the money and either spend it or re-invest it. This money is not destroyed, it is foreign money brought into UKplc. On past history, most of this money would be spent or re-invested within the UK. It could even be used to fund start-ups which would lead to greater GDP and even higher employment here.

So, seeing what happened to the sold-off UK company, some different foreign investors now bring their money and invest it into a different UK company because they know they can build it up and sell it to some other global investors. This is good for the UK and good for UK workers. Its bad for those protectionist countries where these guys came from where it is hard to buy into a company from abroad and hard to sell it on to investors from a third country. So our GDP and employment goes up, and their GDP and employment goes down.

 

[counter_violent]

And we know this system works because we have FULL employment in the UK as opposed to other countries which might be mismanaged run by the socialists.

 

[Pat494]

Personally I would like to see a lot more team work in British companies and to get that there needs to be more fairer wages and trust. Not just the top guys hogging most of the wealth and doing as little as possible like Fred the Shred and his sort. That's why public companies need to be more transparent etc.

 

[Pat494]

And we know this system works because we have FULL employment in the UK as opposed to other countries which might be mismanaged run by the socialists.

Regretably old Socialism wasn't business friendly. And why not ? Because the management- worker relationship was very poor. The shares suffered because of this too,
With Brexit we are on our own and if we try to keep going on the same ole way we will become increasingly left behind.
It's no good being a loser. Reminds me of the Eurovision song contest. Recent years has seen our pathetic effort fighting not to be last.

 

[tomorton]

As a member of the UK's economy I am only too glad to see workers' representatives on the boards of companies - as along as they are German companies not British ones.

A good example of a company run almost exclusively for the benefit and continuing employment of its employees would be Enron. Closer to home, British Leyland.

 

[Pat494]

As a member of the UK's economy I am only too glad to see workers' representatives on the boards of companies - as along as they are German companies not British ones.

A good example of a company run almost exclusively for the benefit and continuing employment of its employees would be Enron. Closer to home, British Leyland.

British Leyland is a prime example surely of the old class warfare and old Socialism bringing about its downfall. I seem to remember about £10 million being given to 4 people to save the company who promptly pocketed it and have never been seen again. The Soviets used to regularly send someone with suitcases full of cash to promote strikes which didn't help.

 

[tomorton]

British Leyland is a prime example surely of the old class warfare and old Socialism bringing about its downfall. I seem to remember about £10 million being given to 4 people to save the company who promptly pocketed it and have never been seen again. The Soviets used to regularly send someone with suitcases full of cash to promote strikes which didn't help.

Annoying they took the money and the company failed but let's be honest, even Warren Buffet couldn't have turned BL round.

 

[barjon]

As a member of the UK's economy I am only too glad to see workers' representatives on the boards of companies - as along as they are German companies not British ones.

A good example of a company run almost exclusively for the benefit and continuing employment of its employees would be Enron. Closer to home, British Leyland.

British Leyland was a classic example of chronic mis-use of Trade Union power and weak management that allowed it to thrive. On the plus side that led to a severe truncation of Trade Unionism and its power. On the negative side that truncation has led to more exploitation by the “bosses“ and a lot more feathering of their own nests.

 

[tomorton]

British Leyland was a classic example of chronic mis-use of Trade Union power and weak management that allowed it to thrive. On the plus side that led to a severe truncation of Trade Unionism and its power. On the negative side that truncation has led to more exploitation by the “bosses“ and a lot more feathering of their own nests.

I recognise the mismanagement scenario jon, its all part of the sad history. BL itself was born out of a whole set of chronically mismanaged and under-invested car firms. The whole lot was kept going so that it wouldn't fail. The whole aim of the group was to prevent workers being unemployed in the car industry. When it actually should have been put out of its misery years before.

That's surely the clearest example of a company run for the benefit of the employees.

CEO pay is generally today irritatingly high but it makes no significant financial difference to either employees or dividend-receiving shareholders.

 

[Pat494]

CEO pay is generally today irritatingly high but it makes no significant financial difference to either employees or dividend-receiving shareholders.
The huge wages and perks the bosses give themselves causes a lot of envy too. No wonder the old them versus us syndrome has plagued British industry for so long. Team work is the answer and we won't see much of that if the bosses are too arrogant and greedy.