Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tory Brexit divide is in the cabinet – the LAB one is betw

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited February 10 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tory Brexit divide is in the cabinet – the LAB one is between the leadership & party supporters

We’ve heard a lot in the past few days about the arguments inside the cabinet between the rival factions over the form of Brexit that individual ministers want.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,398
    In the beginning..
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,493
    Well, since Leave supporters seem unable to try to understand the concerns of Remain supporters, it’s a bit rich of them to whinge that they are misunderstood.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,398
    FPT
    glw said:

    Omnium said:

    I think you're confusing 'Leave' with a political party.

    Bingo. I voted leave but would never vote for UKIP, so I feel no obligation to defend any of the nonsense they have come out with over the years.

    I can honestly say I've never cast a vote for any party, cause, or candidate where I agreed with them on more than a handful of things. I've invariably voted for what I considered to be the least bad option. If I wanted a candidate I full agree with I would have to stand myself, and even then I'd have my doubts.
    " If I wanted a candidate I full agree with I would have to stand myself, and even then I'd have my doubts."

    Very wise words glw :)

    (Slightly jealous that in so few words you nailed what I was trying to say)


  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    The point surely is not whether politicians and supporters of parties consider the vote to leave the EU right or wrong.

    The point is that a majority of voters in a democratic referendum DID choose to leave the EU. And most voters chose to leave the EU in reality, not in name only which is what staying in the Single Market and Customs Union would mean.

    The point is not whether the People's will is considered to be right or wrong . The point is that the will of the People should be implemented.

    The point is Democracy.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 18,431
    Ian Paisley has come up with some alternative solutions for the Irish border, if you can make sense of them.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044

    Well, since Leave supporters seem unable to try to understand the concerns of Remain supporters, it’s a bit rich of them to whinge that they are misunderstood.

    But Remain supporters are not entitled to use those concerns to subvert the will of the People in a democratic referendum. I have concerns about what would happen if Jeremy Corbyn was elected prime minister. Those concerns would not entitle me to launch a coup against his government.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,493
    stevef said:

    Well, since Leave supporters seem unable to try to understand the concerns of Remain supporters, it’s a bit rich of them to whinge that they are misunderstood.

    But Remain supporters are not entitled to use those concerns to subvert the will of the People in a democratic referendum. I have concerns about what would happen if Jeremy Corbyn was elected prime minister. Those concerns would not entitle me to launch a coup against his government.
    You would, however, be within your rights to seek to frustrate and mitigate the impact of the government by any means at your disposal.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,861
    edited February 10
    FPT:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    The mantra from McDonnell is the huge profits go to billionaires when in fact the dividends from these companies are invested by pension funds to provide the future pensions of the many.

    Has McDonnell answered how he will deal with the collapse in the value of workers pensions.


    Pension funds will get Government bonds equal in value to the equity they give up in exchange. It is then up to pension funds to decide whether they want to keep the low risk low return bonds or sell them and purchase higher risk higher return equities in the market to balance their portfolios. Pension funds won't collapse in value!

    In general I think the private sector is better placed to run businesses. It is more innovative, and there is more competition and choice. But I am not an idealogue about it. I'm not private good, public bad, (or vice versa). I'm a pragmatist.

    Natural monopolies and strategic public goods (like the military, police, health, education, water, electricity and gas) are better run in the public sector for the public good. I don't mind private health or private education (or private water or electricity) for those who can afford it, but I draw the line at private armies and I'm uncomfortable with private police and prisons. I'm a wary pragmatist.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,115
    However, I do not think that full-throated opposition to Brexit would help Labour, probably the reverse.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,421
    stevef said:


    And most voters chose to leave the EU in reality, not in name only which is what staying in the Single Market and Customs Union would mean.
    .

    Bloody hell, you got a completely different ballot paper to mine.
  • stevef said:

    Well, since Leave supporters seem unable to try to understand the concerns of Remain supporters, it’s a bit rich of them to whinge that they are misunderstood.

    But Remain supporters are not entitled to use those concerns to subvert the will of the People in a democratic referendum. I have concerns about what would happen if Jeremy Corbyn was elected prime minister. Those concerns would not entitle me to launch a coup against his government.
    However within 5 years you are entitled to change your vote from a Corbyn run Labour party to a JRM Tory Party. That is democracy. As a Leaver you will never be given the opportunity to change you mind. Leave meant leave forever! I am not sure what that is, but it doesn't seem very democratic.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,398

    stevef said:

    Well, since Leave supporters seem unable to try to understand the concerns of Remain supporters, it’s a bit rich of them to whinge that they are misunderstood.

    But Remain supporters are not entitled to use those concerns to subvert the will of the People in a democratic referendum. I have concerns about what would happen if Jeremy Corbyn was elected prime minister. Those concerns would not entitle me to launch a coup against his government.
    You would, however, be within your rights to seek to frustrate and mitigate the impact of the government by any means at your disposal.
    Would you?

    Why?

    I accept that this is the way in which protest expresses itself in a democracy, but I fail to see a 'right' that it should be so. Certainly 'by any means at your disposal' needs to be revised Mr Meeks.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,861
    stevef said:

    The point surely is not whether politicians and supporters of parties consider the vote to leave the EU right or wrong.

    The point is that a majority of voters in a democratic referendum DID choose to leave the EU. And most voters chose to leave the EU in reality, not in name only which is what staying in the Single Market and Customs Union would mean.

    The point is not whether the People's will is considered to be right or wrong . The point is that the will of the People should be implemented.

    The point is Democracy.

    The "People's will" with a capital P is a worrying concept. I'm surprised you didn't use a capital W as well.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    My understanding of the Remoaner position is this:

    They think the majority of voters were wrong to vote to leave the EU. Many of them were too dumb to realise that they were being lied to by Leave politicians or to realise that the Remain side was the very epitome of truth, integrity and wisdom.

    Now that the referendum is lost however Remoaners are arguing that what the people actually voted for was to leave the EU in name only. The People are keen to continue to be completely under the control of the EU through the Single Market, they want the EU to continue to control our borders with freedom of movement, to impose EU laws on us and they are particularly keen that the EU should be able to forbid the UK to make its own trade deals with non EU countries. In short, the People were only voting for the UK to lose membership. They would be quite happy to continue to be a vassal state of the EU, and it is the wickedness of the Leave side which is preventing them from having their say in this matter through a second referendum.

    I hope I have summed up the Remoaner argument accurately.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,472
    edited February 10
    stevef said:

    The point surely is not whether politicians and supporters of parties consider the vote to leave the EU right or wrong.

    The point is that a majority of voters in a democratic referendum DID choose to leave the EU. And most voters chose to leave the EU in reality, not in name only which is what staying in the Single Market and Customs Union would mean.

    The point is not whether the People's will is considered to be right or wrong . The point is that the will of the People should be implemented.

    The point is Democracy.

    Provided that Leave kept within the financial rules which still has to be resolved. Two Electoral Commission inquiries are going on. If they go against either or both main Leave organisations then that de-legitimises to result
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,493
    Omnium said:

    stevef said:

    Well, since Leave supporters seem unable to try to understand the concerns of Remain supporters, it’s a bit rich of them to whinge that they are misunderstood.

    But Remain supporters are not entitled to use those concerns to subvert the will of the People in a democratic referendum. I have concerns about what would happen if Jeremy Corbyn was elected prime minister. Those concerns would not entitle me to launch a coup against his government.
    You would, however, be within your rights to seek to frustrate and mitigate the impact of the government by any means at your disposal.
    Would you?

    Why?

    I accept that this is the way in which protest expresses itself in a democracy, but I fail to see a 'right' that it should be so. Certainly 'by any means at your disposal' needs to be revised Mr Meeks.
    The word “lawful” is implicit.

    No one is expecting the Conservatives to wave a programme of nationalisation through Parliament for a newly elected Corbyn government. Are they?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,115

    stevef said:

    Well, since Leave supporters seem unable to try to understand the concerns of Remain supporters, it’s a bit rich of them to whinge that they are misunderstood.

    But Remain supporters are not entitled to use those concerns to subvert the will of the People in a democratic referendum. I have concerns about what would happen if Jeremy Corbyn was elected prime minister. Those concerns would not entitle me to launch a coup against his government.
    However within 5 years you are entitled to change your vote from a Corbyn run Labour party to a JRM Tory Party. That is democracy. As a Leaver you will never be given the opportunity to change you mind. Leave meant leave forever! I am not sure what that is, but it doesn't seem very democratic.
    People are free to campaign to rejoin the EU, which, I accept, would be harder than chucking out the government.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 9,817
    edited February 10
    FPT
    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    The mantra from McDonnell is the huge profits go to billionaires when in fact the dividends from these companies are invested by pension funds to provide the future pensions of the many.

    Has McDonnell answered how he will deal with the collapse in the value of workers pensions.

    Pension funds will get Government bonds equal in value to the equity they give up in exchange. It is then up to pension funds to decide whether they want to keep the low risk low return bonds or sell them and purchase higher risk higher return equities in the market to balance their portfolios. Pension funds won't collapse in value!

    In general I think the private sector is better placed to run businesses. It is more innovative, and there is more competition and choice. But I am not an idealogue about it. I'm not private good, public bad, (or vice versa). I'm a pragmatist.

    Natural monopolies and strategic public goods (like the military, police, health, education, water, electricity and gas) are better run in the public sector for the public good. I don't mind private health or private education (or private water or electricity) for those who can afford it, but I draw the line at private armies and I'm uncomfortable with private police and prisons. I'm a wary pragmatist.
    So McDonnell pays market rate to the shareholders - so for water he borrows 90 billion

    Am I missing something
    He issues bonds worth £90b in exchange for the equity which sits on the other side of the national balance sheet - just like the Tories have done with student loans. We've been through this.
    No. This is really not comparable. Student loans are debts to the government that are repaid. What Macdonnell is proposing is making the private company the creditor, which is the polar opposite. Moreover, doing so under such circumstances as make repayment not merely unlikely but practically impossible and where the bonds in question would be worth a fraction of their total value.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,493
    stevef said:

    My understanding of the Remoaner position is this:

    They think the majority of voters were wrong to vote to leave the EU. Many of them were too dumb to realise that they were being lied to by Leave politicians or to realise that the Remain side was the very epitome of truth, integrity and wisdom.

    Now that the referendum is lost however Remoaners are arguing that what the people actually voted for was to leave the EU in name only. The People are keen to continue to be completely under the control of the EU through the Single Market, they want the EU to continue to control our borders with freedom of movement, to impose EU laws on us and they are particularly keen that the EU should be able to forbid the UK to make its own trade deals with non EU countries. In short, the People were only voting for the UK to lose membership. They would be quite happy to continue to be a vassal state of the EU, and it is the wickedness of the Leave side which is preventing them from having their say in this matter through a second referendum.

    I hope I have summed up the Remoaner argument accurately.

    First, if you’re wanting a civil debate, use of the word Remoaner is not conducive. Secondly, the only question on the ballot paper was whether Britain should remain in or leave the EU. You are putting your own interpretation on that question. No one appointed you sole interpreter of what you keep capitalising as the People’s will.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,861

    stevef said:

    The point surely is not whether politicians and supporters of parties consider the vote to leave the EU right or wrong.

    The point is that a majority of voters in a democratic referendum DID choose to leave the EU. And most voters chose to leave the EU in reality, not in name only which is what staying in the Single Market and Customs Union would mean.

    The point is not whether the People's will is considered to be right or wrong . The point is that the will of the People should be implemented.

    The point is Democracy.

    Provided that Leave kept within the financial rules which still has to be resolved. Two Electoral Commission inquiries are going on. If they go against either or both main Leave organisations then that de-legitimises to result
    I think the result is illegitimate in any case as the people with most skin in the game (3m EU nationals living here and 1m UK nationals living in rEU) were not allowed to vote. That is not democratic or fair - and the reason I do not respect the referendum result.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,297
    edited February 10
    Barnesian said:

    stevef said:

    The point surely is not whether politicians and supporters of parties consider the vote to leave the EU right or wrong.

    The point is that a majority of voters in a democratic referendum DID choose to leave the EU. And most voters chose to leave the EU in reality, not in name only which is what staying in the Single Market and Customs Union would mean.

    The point is not whether the People's will is considered to be right or wrong . The point is that the will of the People should be implemented.

    The point is Democracy.

    Provided that Leave kept within the financial rules which still has to be resolved. Two Electoral Commission inquiries are going on. If they go against either or both main Leave organisations then that de-legitimises to result
    I think the result is illegitimate in any case as the people with most skin in the game (3m EU nationals living here and 1m UK nationals living in rEU) were not allowed to vote. That is not democratic or fair - and the reason I do not respect the referendum result.
    They didn't have a vote in the 2015 GE, the referendum pledge made no reference to giving those people the vote. And parliament voted through the referendum bill. Simple as that.
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,402

    stevef said:

    The point surely is not whether politicians and supporters of parties consider the vote to leave the EU right or wrong.

    The point is that a majority of voters in a democratic referendum DID choose to leave the EU. And most voters chose to leave the EU in reality, not in name only which is what staying in the Single Market and Customs Union would mean.

    The point is not whether the People's will is considered to be right or wrong . The point is that the will of the People should be implemented.

    The point is Democracy.

    Provided that Leave kept within the financial rules which still has to be resolved. Two Electoral Commission inquiries are going on. If they go against either or both main Leave organisations then that de-legitimises to result
    I believe that the LD'S have already been fined for breaking those rules - in campaigning for Remain.
  • Sean_F said:

    stevef said:

    Well, since Leave supporters seem unable to try to understand the concerns of Remain supporters, it’s a bit rich of them to whinge that they are misunderstood.

    But Remain supporters are not entitled to use those concerns to subvert the will of the People in a democratic referendum. I have concerns about what would happen if Jeremy Corbyn was elected prime minister. Those concerns would not entitle me to launch a coup against his government.
    However within 5 years you are entitled to change your vote from a Corbyn run Labour party to a JRM Tory Party. That is democracy. As a Leaver you will never be given the opportunity to change you mind. Leave meant leave forever! I am not sure what that is, but it doesn't seem very democratic.
    People are free to campaign to rejoin the EU, which, I accept, would be harder than chucking out the government.
    Sean_F said:

    stevef said:

    Well, since Leave supporters seem unable to try to understand the concerns of Remain supporters, it’s a bit rich of them to whinge that they are misunderstood.

    But Remain supporters are not entitled to use those concerns to subvert the will of the People in a democratic referendum. I have concerns about what would happen if Jeremy Corbyn was elected prime minister. Those concerns would not entitle me to launch a coup against his government.
    However within 5 years you are entitled to change your vote from a Corbyn run Labour party to a JRM Tory Party. That is democracy. As a Leaver you will never be given the opportunity to change you mind. Leave meant leave forever! I am not sure what that is, but it doesn't seem very democratic.
    People are free to campaign to rejoin the EU, which, I accept, would be harder than chucking out the government.
    OK, in the interests of democracy let's have an EU Referendum every 5 years! Yeah, that's a stupid idea, but then so was the 2016 referendum.


    We are a Parliamentary democracy, A Party manifesto should have been the mechanism to bring about Brexit.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044

    stevef said:

    My understanding of the Remoaner position is this:

    They think the majority of voters were wrong to vote to leave the EU. Many of them were too dumb to realise that they were being lied to by Leave politicians or to realise that the Remain side was the very epitome of truth, integrity and wisdom.

    Now that the referendum is lost however Remoaners are arguing that what the people actually voted for was to leave the EU in name only. The People are keen to continue to be completely under the control of the EU through the Single Market, they want the EU to continue to control our borders with freedom of movement, to impose EU laws on us and they are particularly keen that the EU should be able to forbid the UK to make its own trade deals with non EU countries. In short, the People were only voting for the UK to lose membership. They would be quite happy to continue to be a vassal state of the EU, and it is the wickedness of the Leave side which is preventing them from having their say in this matter through a second referendum.

    I hope I have summed up the Remoaner argument accurately.

    First, if you’re wanting a civil debate, use of the word Remoaner is not conducive. Secondly, the only question on the ballot paper was whether Britain should remain in or leave the EU. You are putting your own interpretation on that question. No one appointed you sole interpreter of what you keep capitalising as the People’s will.
    The word Remoaner describes that small minority of Remainers who do not accept the democratic verdict of the referendum. It is less offensive than "Mad Brexiteers"

    However it is your second statement which is the nub of the matter, and which justifies my use of the word Remoaner. You are employing a very disingenuous argument. Are you seriously suggesting that when a majority of voters voted to leave the EU, they were voting to leave the EU in name only, and that they were quite content for the UK to be remain under the control of the EU without being a member? Are you suggesting that people were not voting at all for the UK to control its own borders and laws -even though Remain's own campaign literature stated that leaving the EU would mean leaving the Single Market and Customs Union. Why on earth would people vote to leave the EU and remain under its control.

    Your position seems akin to a hotel writing to me and stating that when I checked out of the hotel I didnt actually specifically say that I wanted to stop paying for the room -so here is the bill.

  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,861
    edited February 10
    ydoethur said:

    FPT

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    The mantra from McDonnell is the huge profits go to billionaires when in fact the dividends from these companies are invested by pension funds to provide the future pensions of the many.

    Has McDonnell answered how he will deal with the collapse in the value of workers pensions.

    Pension funds will get Government bonds equal in value to the equity they give up in exchange. It is then up to pension funds to decide whether they want to keep the low risk low return bonds or sell them and purchase higher risk higher return equities in the market to balance their portfolios. Pension funds won't collapse in value!

    In general I think the private sector is better placed to run businesses. It is more innovative, and there is more competition and choice. But I am not an idealogue about it. I'm not private good, public bad, (or vice versa). I'm a pragmatist.

    Natural monopolies and strategic public goods (like the military, police, health, education, water, electricity and gas) are better run in the public sector for the public good. I don't mind private health or private education (or private water or electricity) for those who can afford it, but I draw the line at private armies and I'm uncomfortable with private police and prisons. I'm a wary pragmatist.
    So McDonnell pays market rate to the shareholders - so for water he borrows 90 billion

    Am I missing something
    He issues bonds worth £90b in exchange for the equity which sits on the other side of the national balance sheet - just like the Tories have done with student loans. We've been through this.
    No. This is really not comparable. Student loans are debts to the government that are repaid. What Macdonnell is proposing is making the private company the creditor, which is the polar opposite. Moreover, doing so under such circumstances as make repayment not merely unlikely but practically impossible and where the bonds in question would be worth a fraction of their total value.

    Mr McDonnell told BBC Radio 4's Today programme taking services into public ownership would not ultimately increase the burden on taxpayers because government bonds could be swapped for shares in a revenue-producing company.


    It depends whether the government bonds are tradeable gilts (worth the usual market rate) or water company bonds issued by the nationalised company (which I think is your assumption).

    I think McDonnell means the former. But even if he means the latter, then the bonds will still have their market value backed by the government. There is no risk of default and they will have a coupon rate.
  • Barnesian said:

    FPT:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    The mantra from McDonnell is the huge profits go to billionaires when in fact the dividends from these companies are invested by pension funds to provide the future pensions of the many.

    Has McDonnell answered how he will deal with the collapse in the value of workers pensions.


    Pension funds will get Government bonds equal in value to the equity they give up in exchange. It is then up to pension funds to decide whether they want to keep the low risk low return bonds or sell them and purchase higher risk higher return equities in the market to balance their portfolios. Pension funds won't collapse in value!

    In general I think the private sector is better placed to run businesses. It is more innovative, and there is more competition and choice. But I am not an idealogue about it. I'm not private good, public bad, (or vice versa). I'm a pragmatist.

    Natural monopolies and strategic public goods (like the military, police, health, education, water, electricity and gas) are better run in the public sector for the public good. I don't mind private health or private education (or private water or electricity) for those who can afford it, but I draw the line at private armies and I'm uncomfortable with private police and prisons. I'm a wary pragmatist.

    If the state is going to run Thames Water so as to make a profit to repay the cost of the borrowing required, how will anything be different from now?

    The military, police and the NHS all function differently because they are public services, and with good reason.
  • stevef said:

    My understanding of the Remoaner position is this:

    They think the majority of voters were wrong to vote to leave the EU. Many of them were too dumb to realise that they were being lied to by Leave politicians or to realise that the Remain side was the very epitome of truth, integrity and wisdom.

    Now that the referendum is lost however Remoaners are arguing that what the people actually voted for was to leave the EU in name only. The People are keen to continue to be completely under the control of the EU through the Single Market, they want the EU to continue to control our borders with freedom of movement, to impose EU laws on us and they are particularly keen that the EU should be able to forbid the UK to make its own trade deals with non EU countries. In short, the People were only voting for the UK to lose membership. They would be quite happy to continue to be a vassal state of the EU, and it is the wickedness of the Leave side which is preventing them from having their say in this matter through a second referendum.

    I hope I have summed up the Remoaner argument accurately.

    First, if you’re wanting a civil debate, use of the word Remoaner is not conducive. Secondly, the only question on the ballot paper was whether Britain should remain in or leave the EU. You are putting your own interpretation on that question. No one appointed you sole interpreter of what you keep capitalising as the People’s will.
    You seem to have ignored my post on the previous thread.

    I voted remain having listened to the arguments on both sides. I accept Farage (I cannot stand the man) overstepped the line but lies, if you want to call them, came from both sides.

    David Cameron. Osborne and others made it absolutely clear that there would be no second referendum, that leaving meant exciting the single market and customs union, and that he would serve A50 immediately.

    I was following the debates closely as I was unsure of my vote but in the end I elected for the status quo

    The vote has taken place and we must respect the result.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 21,962
    stevef said:

    The point surely is not whether politicians and supporters of parties consider the vote to leave the EU right or wrong.

    The point is that a majority of voters in a democratic referendum DID choose to leave the EU. And most voters chose to leave the EU in reality, not in name only which is what staying in the Single Market and Customs Union would mean.

    The point is not whether the People's will is considered to be right or wrong . The point is that the will of the People should be implemented.

    The point is Democracy.

    On this site, there were at least three Brexiteers who's position was that they wanted us to become EFTA/EEA members (Richard_Tyndall, SeanT and myself). I.e., that what we objected to was the political union, rather than the economic one.

    Now, as it happens, I believe that the people voted clearly for more managed (and less) immigration, so I think that staying in the Single Market would probably not be being faithful to the result of the referendum.

    But I think there has been very little genuine discussion about the merits - or otherwise - of the Customs Union. And in particular there seems to be a view (prevalent among many on here) that the EU is particularly protectionist, and that the rest of the world, beyond the EU's borders, is pro-free trade.

    It is extremely hard to back up the proposition that the EU is anti-free trade. Yes, there are members (like France) that are mercantalist is outlook. But the EU has many more free trade agreements than any of the other big trading blocs (the US, Japan and India). It has deals with - among others - Canada, Mercosur, Caribcom, Mexico, South Korea, South Africa, and many others. It is also on the verge of a deal with Japan. It also has lower external tariffs - outside agriculture and autos - than any of the US, Japan, and China. (Although higher than Norway.)

    Given we will take many years (perhaps more than a decade) to replace the existing EU agreements, it doesn't seem like there is a compelling case for removing us from the EU's customs union in the short term (at least until the DfIT has actually made some progress). On the contrary, it seems a good way to scare investment outside the UK, potentially jeopardising Brexit altogether.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,415
    @Barnesian FPT

    Pension funds will get Government bonds equal in value to the equity they give up in exchange. It is then up to pension funds to decide whether they want to keep the low risk low return bonds or sell them and purchase higher risk higher return equities in the market to balance their portfolios. Pension funds won't collapse in value!

    I'm sorry, but your analysis is completely flawed. It's difficult to even know where to begin.

    Fundamentally, the value of the equity is the value of the expected future cashflows that will be generated by the business (after tax and interest).

    If the government gives the owners of the equity bonds of equal value then there simply will not be any surplus cash to generate a return for the government. Moreover you are assuming that the government will be able to run the utilities as efficiently as the private sector - in theory they might be able to, but governments face competing demands and, I suspect, might be likely to give higher pay rises to employees (union pressure) or to invest more in schools'n'hospitals than in water pipes. Either way, over time, the efficiency of the network will degrade.

    Moreover, there are the secondary effects to consider: if investors and lenders believe that the government is willing to expropriate assets with compensation set by primary legislation (as McDonnell has suggested) then you can bet that the stock markets will collapse and government borrowing rates will go up
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    Dear Sir,
    I hope you enjoyed your stay in our hotel. When you checked out of the hotel on 16 June and handed over the keys, you did not specifically state in your check out statement that you did not want to continue paying for the room. Indeed the wording of the check out in our book makes no reference to wishing to discontinue occupation of the room. We hereby enclose a bill for the room for the last 8 months....

    Yours Sincerely,

    The Ramona Hotel.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,861
    tlg86 said:

    Barnesian said:

    stevef said:

    The point surely is not whether politicians and supporters of parties consider the vote to leave the EU right or wrong.

    The point is that a majority of voters in a democratic referendum DID choose to leave the EU. And most voters chose to leave the EU in reality, not in name only which is what staying in the Single Market and Customs Union would mean.

    The point is not whether the People's will is considered to be right or wrong . The point is that the will of the People should be implemented.

    The point is Democracy.

    Provided that Leave kept within the financial rules which still has to be resolved. Two Electoral Commission inquiries are going on. If they go against either or both main Leave organisations then that de-legitimises to result
    I think the result is illegitimate in any case as the people with most skin in the game (3m EU nationals living here and 1m UK nationals living in rEU) were not allowed to vote. That is not democratic or fair - and the reason I do not respect the referendum result.
    They didn't have a vote in the 2015 GE, the referendum pledge made no reference to giving those people the vote. And parliament voted through the referendum bill. Simple as that.
    The 2015 GE vote and any "pledge" is irrelevant to a vote on the future of the UK in the EU. I know that parliament voted through the referendum bill. So what.

    My point is that it was undemocratic and unfair to exclude those people with most to lose from voting in the referendum. Period.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,685
    edited February 10
    rcs1000 said:

    stevef said:

    The point surely is not whether politicians and supporters of parties consider the vote to leave the EU right or wrong.

    The point is that a majority of voters in a democratic referendum DID choose to leave the EU. And most voters chose to leave the EU in reality, not in name only which is what staying in the Single Market and Customs Union would mean.

    The point is not whether the People's will is considered to be right or wrong . The point is that the will of the People should be implemented.

    The point is Democracy.

    On this site, there were at least three Brexiteers who's position was that they wanted us to become EFTA/EEA members (Richard_Tyndall, SeanT and myself). I.e., that what we objected to was the political union, rather than the economic one.

    Now, as it happens, I believe that the people voted clearly for more managed (and less) immigration, so I think that staying in the Single Market would probably not be being faithful to the result of the referendum.

    But I think there has been very little genuine discussion about the merits - or otherwise - of the Customs Union. And in particular there seems to be a view (prevalent among many on here) that the EU is particularly protectionist, and that the rest of the world, beyond the EU's borders, is pro-free trade.

    It is extremely hard to back up the proposition that the EU is anti-free trade. Yes, there are members (like France) that are mercantalist is outlook. But the EU has many more free trade agreements than any of the other big trading blocs (the US, Japan and India). It has deals with - among others - Canada, Mercosur, Caribcom, Mexico, South Korea, South Africa, and many others. It is also on the verge of a deal with Japan. It also has lower external tariffs - outside agriculture and autos - than any of the US, Japan, and China. (Although higher than Norway.)

    Given we will take many years (perhaps more than a decade) to replace the existing EU agreements, it doesn't seem like there is a compelling case for removing us from the EU's customs union in the short term (at least until the DfIT has actually made some progress). On the contrary, it seems a good way to scare investment outside the UK, potentially jeopardising Brexit altogether.
    Fair as ever.

    I would have no problem with remaining in a customs arrangement for a transition period. Happy for that to be 5-7 years, subject to certain conditions - including not mirroring EU legislation which isn't related to product standards.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    Barnesian said:

    stevef said:

    The point surely is not whether politicians and supporters of parties consider the vote to leave the EU right or wrong.

    The point is that a majority of voters in a democratic referendum DID choose to leave the EU. And most voters chose to leave the EU in reality, not in name only which is what staying in the Single Market and Customs Union would mean.

    The point is not whether the People's will is considered to be right or wrong . The point is that the will of the People should be implemented.

    The point is Democracy.

    Provided that Leave kept within the financial rules which still has to be resolved. Two Electoral Commission inquiries are going on. If they go against either or both main Leave organisations then that de-legitimises to result
    I think the result is illegitimate in any case as the people with most skin in the game (3m EU nationals living here and 1m UK nationals living in rEU) were not allowed to vote. That is not democratic or fair - and the reason I do not respect the referendum result.
    So you dont accept the general election result either?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,415

    stevef said:

    The point surely is not whether politicians and supporters of parties consider the vote to leave the EU right or wrong.

    The point is that a majority of voters in a democratic referendum DID choose to leave the EU. And most voters chose to leave the EU in reality, not in name only which is what staying in the Single Market and Customs Union would mean.

    The point is not whether the People's will is considered to be right or wrong . The point is that the will of the People should be implemented.

    The point is Democracy.

    Provided that Leave kept within the financial rules which still has to be resolved. Two Electoral Commission inquiries are going on. If they go against either or both main Leave organisations then that de-legitimises to result
    When are the LibDems going to return Michael Brown's donation of stolen money?

    This isn't a question of the narrow scope of the EC investigation (whether the LibDems had carried out sufficient checks to determine that Michael Brown UK entity was entitled to donate) but what is the right thing to do.

    Otherwise, under your argument, everything the Lib Dems have done or said since has been de-legitimised
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,493
    stevef said:



    First, if you’re wanting a civil debate, use of the word Remoaner is not conducive. Secondly, the only question on the ballot paper was whether Britain should remain in or leave the EU. You are putting your own interpretation on that question. No one appointed you sole interpreter of what you keep capitalising as the People’s will.

    The word Remoaner describes that small minority of Remainers who do not accept the democratic verdict of the referendum. It is less offensive than "Mad Brexiteers"

    However it is your second statement which is the nub of the matter, and which justifies my use of the word Remoaner. You are employing a very disingenuous argument. Are you seriously suggesting that when a majority of voters voted to leave the EU, they were voting to leave the EU in name only, and that they were quite content for the UK to be remain under the control of the EU without being a member? Are you suggesting that people were not voting at all for the UK to control its own borders and laws -even though Remain's own campaign literature stated that leaving the EU would mean leaving the Single Market and Customs Union. Why on earth would people vote to leave the EU and remain under its control.

    Your position seems akin to a hotel writing to me and stating that when I checked out of the hotel I didnt actually specifically say that I wanted to stop paying for the room -so here is the bill.

    I’m seriously suggesting that you have no right to interpret a vote that could be interpreted in a wide variety of different ways to mean only one of those outcomes. Brexit was a negative decision. How it is interpreted positively is a matter for further discussion. Hence the paralysis in the Cabinet.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 18,431
    Given that Cameron's renegotiation was so crucial to the Leave victory, it's worth focusing on the details of what people rejected in the referendum:

    Britain will be permanently out of ever closer union - Rejected!

    Never part of a European superstate - Binned!

    Britain will never join the euro - Dumped!

    https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pms-statement-following-european-council-meeting-19-february-2016

    The people made the right choice. Who'd want to be stuck in the slow lane forever?
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    Barnesian said:

    tlg86 said:

    Barnesian said:

    stevef said:

    The point surely is not whether politicians and supporters of parties consider the vote to leave the EU right or wrong.

    The point is that a majority of voters in a democratic referendum DID choose to leave the EU. And most voters chose to leave the EU in reality, not in name only which is what staying in the Single Market and Customs Union would mean.

    The point is not whether the People's will is considered to be right or wrong . The point is that the will of the People should be implemented.

    The point is Democracy.

    Provided that Leave kept within the financial rules which still has to be resolved. Two Electoral Commission inquiries are going on. If they go against either or both main Leave organisations then that de-legitimises to result
    I think the result is illegitimate in any case as the people with most skin in the game (3m EU nationals living here and 1m UK nationals living in rEU) were not allowed to vote. That is not democratic or fair - and the reason I do not respect the referendum result.
    They didn't have a vote in the 2015 GE, the referendum pledge made no reference to giving those people the vote. And parliament voted through the referendum bill. Simple as that.
    The 2015 GE vote and any "pledge" is irrelevant to a vote on the future of the UK in the EU. I know that parliament voted through the referendum bill. So what.

    My point is that it was undemocratic and unfair to exclude those people with most to lose from voting in the referendum. Period.
    I think you would have a stronger argument if you stated that excluding 16-18 year olds from the EU referendum was undemocratic -particularly given that there was a precedent for this age group voting in a previous referendum.(Scottish).
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,493

    stevef said:

    My understanding of the Remoaner position is this:

    They think the majority of voters were wrong to vote to leave the EU. Many of them were too dumb to realise that they were being lied to by Leave politicians or to realise that the Remain side was the very epitome of truth, integrity and wisdom.

    Now that the referendum is lost however Remoaners are arguing that what the people actually voted for was to leave the EU in name only. The People are keen to continue to be completely under the control of the EU through the Single Market, they want the EU to continue to control our borders with freedom of movement, to impose EU laws on us and they are particularly keen that the EU should be able to forbid the UK to make its own trade deals with non EU countries. In short, the People were only voting for the UK to lose membership. They would be quite happy to continue to be a vassal state of the EU, and it is the wickedness of the Leave side which is preventing them from having their say in this matter through a second referendum.

    I hope I have summed up the Remoaner argument accurately.

    First, if you’re wanting a civil debate, use of the word Remoaner is not conducive. Secondly, the only question on the ballot paper was whether Britain should remain in or leave the EU. You are putting your own interpretation on that question. No one appointed you sole interpreter of what you keep capitalising as the People’s will.
    You seem to have ignored my post on the previous thread.

    I voted remain having listened to the arguments on both sides. I accept Farage (I cannot stand the man) overstepped the line but lies, if you want to call them, came from both sides.

    David Cameron. Osborne and others made it absolutely clear that there would be no second referendum, that leaving meant exciting the single market and customs union, and that he would serve A50 immediately.

    I was following the debates closely as I was unsure of my vote but in the end I elected for the status quo

    The vote has taken place and we must respect the result.
    I have, from even before the referendum result, said that if Leave won that needed to be pursued to its conclusion. That doesn’t mean that I need to like it, think it is a good thing or respect those who argued for it.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,840
    stevef said:



    First, if you’re wanting a civil debate, use of the word Remoaner is not conducive. Secondly, the only question on the ballot paper was whether Britain should remain in or leave the EU. You are putting your own interpretation on that question. No one appointed you sole interpreter of what you keep capitalising as the People’s will.

    The word Remoaner describes that small minority of Remainers who do not accept the democratic verdict of the referendum. It is less offensive than "Mad Brexiteers"

    However it is your second statement which is the nub of the matter, and which justifies my use of the word Remoaner. You are employing a very disingenuous argument. Are you seriously suggesting that when a majority of voters voted to leave the EU, they were voting to leave the EU in name only, and that they were quite content for the UK to be remain under the control of the EU without being a member? Are you suggesting that people were not voting at all for the UK to control its own borders and laws -even though Remain's own campaign literature stated that leaving the EU would mean leaving the Single Market and Customs Union. Why on earth would people vote to leave the EU and remain under its control.

    Your position seems akin to a hotel writing to me and stating that when I checked out of the hotel I didnt actually specifically say that I wanted to stop paying for the room -so here is the bill.

    I see your point but all the ballot paper said was leave the EU, so leaving in name only would satisfy its mandate. It would also be sensible from a practical point of view. As a first stage just get out with minimal disruption. We can then gradually wean ourselves off our various commitments one by one. Or simply rejoin. Parties can campaign on whatever programme for our future relationship with the EU they see fit. Perfectly democratic and perfectly sensible. The tactic of going for a hard break as quickly as possible is a recipe for creating unneccessary problems and may well end up derailing the whole project.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,398

    Omnium said:

    stevef said:

    Well, since Leave supporters seem unable to try to understand the concerns of Remain supporters, it’s a bit rich of them to whinge that they are misunderstood.

    But Remain supporters are not entitled to use those concerns to subvert the will of the People in a democratic referendum. I have concerns about what would happen if Jeremy Corbyn was elected prime minister. Those concerns would not entitle me to launch a coup against his government.
    You would, however, be within your rights to seek to frustrate and mitigate the impact of the government by any means at your disposal.
    Would you?

    Why?

    I accept that this is the way in which protest expresses itself in a democracy, but I fail to see a 'right' that it should be so. Certainly 'by any means at your disposal' needs to be revised Mr Meeks.
    The word “lawful” is implicit.

    No one is expecting the Conservatives to wave a programme of nationalisation through Parliament for a newly elected Corbyn government. Are they?
    So failure to agree naturally translates to "frustrate and mitigate the impact of the government by any means at your disposal"?

    What other things are implicit? "Subject to the wishes of the Party"? "If it's Tuesday"?

  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,685

    Given that Cameron's renegotiation was so crucial to the Leave victory, it's worth focusing on the details of what people rejected in the referendum:

    Britain will be permanently out of ever closer union - Rejected!

    Never part of a European superstate - Binned!

    Britain will never join the euro - Dumped!

    https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pms-statement-following-european-council-meeting-19-february-2016

    The people made the right choice. Who'd want to be stuck in the slow lane forever?

    William, not sure if I missed your reply earlier, I wondered what event will convince you that we're leaving the EU?
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 755

    stevef said:

    Well, since Leave supporters seem unable to try to understand the concerns of Remain supporters, it’s a bit rich of them to whinge that they are misunderstood.

    But Remain supporters are not entitled to use those concerns to subvert the will of the People in a democratic referendum. I have concerns about what would happen if Jeremy Corbyn was elected prime minister. Those concerns would not entitle me to launch a coup against his government.
    However within 5 years you are entitled to change your vote from a Corbyn run Labour party to a JRM Tory Party. That is democracy. As a Leaver you will never be given the opportunity to change you mind. Leave meant leave forever! I am not sure what that is, but it doesn't seem very democratic.

    stevef said:

    Well, since Leave supporters seem unable to try to understand the concerns of Remain supporters, it’s a bit rich of them to whinge that they are misunderstood.

    But Remain supporters are not entitled to use those concerns to subvert the will of the People in a democratic referendum. I have concerns about what would happen if Jeremy Corbyn was elected prime minister. Those concerns would not entitle me to launch a coup against his government.
    However within 5 years you are entitled to change your vote from a Corbyn run Labour party to a JRM Tory Party. That is democracy. As a Leaver you will never be given the opportunity to change you mind. Leave meant leave forever! I am not sure what that is, but it doesn't seem very democratic.
    As with governments serving their elected terms leave should be implemented first before any attempts to reverse it.
  • Well, since Leave supporters seem unable to try to understand the concerns of Remain supporters, it’s a bit rich of them to whinge that they are misunderstood.

    :facepalm:
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,861
    Charles said:

    @Barnesian FPT

    Pension funds will get Government bonds equal in value to the equity they give up in exchange. It is then up to pension funds to decide whether they want to keep the low risk low return bonds or sell them and purchase higher risk higher return equities in the market to balance their portfolios. Pension funds won't collapse in value!

    I'm sorry, but your analysis is completely flawed. It's difficult to even know where to begin.

    Fundamentally, the value of the equity is the value of the expected future cashflows that will be generated by the business (after tax and interest).

    If the government gives the owners of the equity bonds of equal value then there simply will not be any surplus cash to generate a return for the government. Moreover you are assuming that the government will be able to run the utilities as efficiently as the private sector - in theory they might be able to, but governments face competing demands and, I suspect, might be likely to give higher pay rises to employees (union pressure) or to invest more in schools'n'hospitals than in water pipes. Either way, over time, the efficiency of the network will degrade.

    Moreover, there are the secondary effects to consider: if investors and lenders believe that the government is willing to expropriate assets with compensation set by primary legislation (as McDonnell has suggested) then you can bet that the stock markets will collapse and government borrowing rates will go up

    @Charles I'm surprised at you. The value of the equity is the DISCOUNTED expected future cash flows of the business. The discount for equity is typically 7% real, say 10% nominal. This compares with government debt rate of say 0% real, 3% nominal. You know this.

    The problem for McDonnell is a potential RISE in water shares in the expectation that shareholders will get bonds to the value of the inflated share price. Plenty of scope for games playing.

    In answer to your second point, I said below :

    In general I think the private sector is better placed to run businesses. It is more innovative, and there is more competition and choice. But I am not an idealogue about it. I'm not private good, public bad, (or vice versa). I'm a pragmatist.

    Natural monopolies and strategic public goods (like the military, police, health, education, water, electricity, gas, roads and rail) are better run in the public sector for the public good.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,493
    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    stevef said:

    Well, since Leave supporters seem unable to try to understand the concerns of Remain supporters, it’s a bit rich of them to whinge that they are misunderstood.

    But Remain supporters are not entitled to use those concerns to subvert the will of the People in a democratic referendum. I have concerns about what would happen if Jeremy Corbyn was elected prime minister. Those concerns would not entitle me to launch a coup against his government.
    You would, however, be within your rights to seek to frustrate and mitigate the impact of the government by any means at your disposal.
    Would you?

    Why?

    I accept that this is the way in which protest expresses itself in a democracy, but I fail to see a 'right' that it should be so. Certainly 'by any means at your disposal' needs to be revised Mr Meeks.
    The word “lawful” is implicit.

    No one is expecting the Conservatives to wave a programme of nationalisation through Parliament for a newly elected Corbyn government. Are they?
    So failure to agree naturally translates to "frustrate and mitigate the impact of the government by any means at your disposal"?

    What other things are implicit? "Subject to the wishes of the Party"? "If it's Tuesday"?

    Oppositions can oppose. It’s often argued to be their duty.

    Brexit can be opposed too. No one needs to sign up to some fascistic vision of the People’s Will.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044

    stevef said:



    First, if you’re wanting a civil debate, use of the word Remoaner is not conducive. Secondly, the only question on the ballot paper was whether Britain should remain in or leave the EU. You are putting your own interpretation on that question. No one appointed you sole interpreter of what you keep capitalising as the People’s will.

    The word Remoaner describes that small minority of Remainers who do not accept the democratic verdict of the referendum. It is less offensive than "Mad Brexiteers"

    However it is your second statement which is the nub of the matter, and which justifies my use of the word Remoaner. You are employing a very disingenuous argument. Are you seriously suggesting that when a majority of voters voted to leave the EU, they were voting to leave the EU in name only, and that they were quite content for the UK to be remain under the control of the EU without being a member? Are you suggesting that people were not voting at all for the UK to control its own borders and laws -even though Remain's own campaign literature stated that leaving the EU would mean leaving the Single Market and Customs Union. Why on earth would people vote to leave the EU and remain under its control.

    Your position seems akin to a hotel writing to me and stating that when I checked out of the hotel I didnt actually specifically say that I wanted to stop paying for the room -so here is the bill.

    I’m seriously suggesting that you have no right to interpret a vote that could be interpreted in a wide variety of different ways to mean only one of those outcomes. Brexit was a negative decision. How it is interpreted positively is a matter for further discussion. Hence the paralysis in the Cabinet.
    But its not open to interpretation. During the referendum campaign, both sides acknowledged that a vote to leave the EU, would be a vote to end freedom of movement, control UK borders, and end EU control over British laws. Both sides acknowledged that it would mean leaving the Single Market. The official Remain booklet sent to every home stated this. There was no ambiguity about what a Leave vote would mean.

    You have placed an interpretation on the result that People were only voting to leave the EU in name only and that they wanted us to remain under EU control through the Single Market. That is a fantastic interpretation.

    And yet you reject the Leave view that when people voted in 1975 to stay in the Common Market, thats all they were doing. They were not voting for ever closer union, they were not voting for freedom of movement or to lose sovereignty in a political union.

    It seems there is one rule for remainers and another for leavers.
  • stevef said:

    My understanding of the Remoaner position is this:

    They think the majority of voters were wrong to vote to leave the EU. Many of them were too dumb to realise that they were being lied to by Leave politicians or to realise that the Remain side was the very epitome of truth, integrity and wisdom.

    Now that the referendum is lost however Remoaners are arguing that what the people actually voted for was to leave the EU in name only. The People are keen to continue to be completely under the control of the EU through the Single Market, they want the EU to continue to control our borders with freedom of movement, to impose EU laws on us and they are particularly keen that the EU should be able to forbid the UK to make its own trade deals with non EU countries. In short, the People were only voting for the UK to lose membership. They would be quite happy to continue to be a vassal state of the EU, and it is the wickedness of the Leave side which is preventing them from having their say in this matter through a second referendum.

    I hope I have summed up the Remoaner argument accurately.

    First, if you’re wanting a civil debate, use of the word Remoaner is not conducive. Secondly, the only question on the ballot paper was whether Britain should remain in or leave the EU. You are putting your own interpretation on that question. No one appointed you sole interpreter of what you keep capitalising as the People’s will.
    You seem to have ignored my post on the previous thread.

    I voted remain having listened to the arguments on both sides. I accept Farage (I cannot stand the man) overstepped the line but lies, if you want to call them, came from both sides.

    David Cameron. Osborne and others made it absolutely clear that there would be no second referendum, that leaving meant exciting the single market and customs union, and that he would serve A50 immediately.

    I was following the debates closely as I was unsure of my vote but in the end I elected for the status quo

    The vote has taken place and we must respect the result.
    I have, from even before the referendum result, said that if Leave won that needed to be pursued to its conclusion. That doesn’t mean that I need to like it, think it is a good thing or respect those who argued for it.
    You have every right to express your views and I do not like the word remoaner as everyone needs to show respect for other views.

    In truth I wish the EU would come to their senses and make a generous offer that could ease the way to a new relationship.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,861
    stevef said:

    Barnesian said:

    stevef said:

    The point surely is not whether politicians and supporters of parties consider the vote to leave the EU right or wrong.

    The point is that a majority of voters in a democratic referendum DID choose to leave the EU. And most voters chose to leave the EU in reality, not in name only which is what staying in the Single Market and Customs Union would mean.

    The point is not whether the People's will is considered to be right or wrong . The point is that the will of the People should be implemented.

    The point is Democracy.

    Provided that Leave kept within the financial rules which still has to be resolved. Two Electoral Commission inquiries are going on. If they go against either or both main Leave organisations then that de-legitimises to result
    I think the result is illegitimate in any case as the people with most skin in the game (3m EU nationals living here and 1m UK nationals living in rEU) were not allowed to vote. That is not democratic or fair - and the reason I do not respect the referendum result.
    So you dont accept the general election result either?
    What?
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,735
    Charles said:

    stevef said:

    The point surely is not whether politicians and supporters of parties consider the vote to leave the EU right or wrong.

    The point is that a majority of voters in a democratic referendum DID choose to leave the EU. And most voters chose to leave the EU in reality, not in name only which is what staying in the Single Market and Customs Union would mean.

    The point is not whether the People's will is considered to be right or wrong . The point is that the will of the People should be implemented.

    The point is Democracy.

    Provided that Leave kept within the financial rules which still has to be resolved. Two Electoral Commission inquiries are going on. If they go against either or both main Leave organisations then that de-legitimises to result
    When are the LibDems going to return Michael Brown's donation of stolen money?

    This isn't a question of the narrow scope of the EC investigation (whether the LibDems had carried out sufficient checks to determine that Michael Brown UK entity was entitled to donate) but what is the right thing to do.

    Otherwise, under your argument, everything the Lib Dems have done or said since has been de-legitimised
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/aug/22/tories-return-donation-asil-nadir
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,115

    Sean_F said:

    stevef said:

    Well, since Leave supporters seem unable to try to understand the concerns of Remain supporters, it’s a bit rich of them to whinge that they are misunderstood.

    But Remain supporters are not entitled to use those concerns to subvert the will of the People in a democratic referendum. I have concerns about what would happen if Jeremy Corbyn was elected prime minister. Those concerns would not entitle me to launch a coup against his government.
    However within 5 years you are entitled to change your vote from a Corbyn run Labour party to a JRM Tory Party. That is democracy. As a Leaver you will never be given the opportunity to change you mind. Leave meant leave forever! I am not sure what that is, but it doesn't seem very democratic.
    People are free to campaign to rejoin the EU, which, I accept, would be harder than chucking out the government.
    Sean_F said:

    stevef said:

    Well, since Leave supporters seem unable to try to understand the concerns of Remain supporters, it’s a bit rich of them to whinge that they are misunderstood.

    But Remain supporters are not entitled to use those concerns to subvert the will of the People in a democratic referendum. I have concerns about what would happen if Jeremy Corbyn was elected prime minister. Those concerns would not entitle me to launch a coup against his government.
    However within 5 years you are entitled to change your vote from a Corbyn run Labour party to a JRM Tory Party. That is democracy. As a Leaver you will never be given the opportunity to change you mind. Leave meant leave forever! I am not sure what that is, but it doesn't seem very democratic.
    People are free to campaign to rejoin the EU, which, I accept, would be harder than chucking out the government.
    OK, in the interests of democracy let's have an EU Referendum every 5 years! Yeah, that's a stupid idea, but then so was the 2016 referendum.


    We are a Parliamentary democracy, A Party manifesto should have been the mechanism to bring about Brexit.
    It did. The Conservatives promised a referendum on EU membership, and Parliament voted it through. Subsequent to the Referendum, Parliament voted through A50,
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 18,431

    In truth I wish the EU would come to their senses and make a generous offer that could ease the way to a new relationship.

    They could offer the use of their central bank?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,861
    stevef said:

    Barnesian said:

    tlg86 said:

    Barnesian said:

    stevef said:

    The point surely is not whether politicians and supporters of parties consider the vote to leave the EU right or wrong.

    The point is that a majority of voters in a democratic referendum DID choose to leave the EU. And most voters chose to leave the EU in reality, not in name only which is what staying in the Single Market and Customs Union would mean.

    The point is not whether the People's will is considered to be right or wrong . The point is that the will of the People should be implemented.

    The point is Democracy.

    Provided that Leave kept within the financial rules which still has to be resolved. Two Electoral Commission inquiries are going on. If they go against either or both main Leave organisations then that de-legitimises to result
    I think the result is illegitimate in any case as the people with most skin in the game (3m EU nationals living here and 1m UK nationals living in rEU) were not allowed to vote. That is not democratic or fair - and the reason I do not respect the referendum result.
    They didn't have a vote in the 2015 GE, the referendum pledge made no reference to giving those people the vote. And parliament voted through the referendum bill. Simple as that.
    The 2015 GE vote and any "pledge" is irrelevant to a vote on the future of the UK in the EU. I know that parliament voted through the referendum bill. So what.

    My point is that it was undemocratic and unfair to exclude those people with most to lose from voting in the referendum. Period.
    I think you would have a stronger argument if you stated that excluding 16-18 year olds from the EU referendum was undemocratic -particularly given that there was a precedent for this age group voting in a previous referendum.(Scottish).
    Good point. They have a bigger stake in the future than seventy year olds like me.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,115
    Barnesian said:

    stevef said:

    The point surely is not whether politicians and supporters of parties consider the vote to leave the EU right or wrong.

    The point is that a majority of voters in a democratic referendum DID choose to leave the EU. And most voters chose to leave the EU in reality, not in name only which is what staying in the Single Market and Customs Union would mean.

    The point is not whether the People's will is considered to be right or wrong . The point is that the will of the People should be implemented.

    The point is Democracy.

    Provided that Leave kept within the financial rules which still has to be resolved. Two Electoral Commission inquiries are going on. If they go against either or both main Leave organisations then that de-legitimises to result
    I think the result is illegitimate in any case as the people with most skin in the game (3m EU nationals living here and 1m UK nationals living in rEU) were not allowed to vote. That is not democratic or fair - and the reason I do not respect the referendum result.
    The standard franchise was used.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    stevef said:

    Well, since Leave supporters seem unable to try to understand the concerns of Remain supporters, it’s a bit rich of them to whinge that they are misunderstood.

    But Remain supporters are not entitled to use those concerns to subvert the will of the People in a democratic referendum. I have concerns about what would happen if Jeremy Corbyn was elected prime minister. Those concerns would not entitle me to launch a coup against his government.
    However within 5 years you are entitled to change your vote from a Corbyn run Labour party to a JRM Tory Party. That is democracy. As a Leaver you will never be given the opportunity to change you mind. Leave meant leave forever! I am not sure what that is, but it doesn't seem very democratic.
    People are free to campaign to rejoin the EU, which, I accept, would be harder than chucking out the government.
    Sean_F said:

    stevef said:

    Well, since Leave supporters seem unable to try to understand the concerns of Remain supporters, it’s a bit rich of them to whinge that they are misunderstood.

    But Remain supporters are not entitled to use those concerns to subvert the will of the People in a democratic referendum. I have concerns about what would happen if Jeremy Corbyn was elected prime minister. Those concerns would not entitle me to launch a coup against his government.
    However within 5 years you are entitled to change your vote from a Corbyn run Labour party to a JRM Tory Party. That is democracy. As a Leaver you will never be given the opportunity to change you mind. Leave meant leave forever! I am not sure what that is, but it doesn't seem very democratic.
    People are free to campaign to rejoin the EU, which, I accept, would be harder than chucking out the government.
    OK, in the interests of democracy let's have an EU Referendum every 5 years! Yeah, that's a stupid idea, but then so was the 2016 referendum.


    We are a Parliamentary democracy, A Party manifesto should have been the mechanism to bring about Brexit.
    It did. The Conservatives promised a referendum on EU membership, and Parliament voted it through. Subsequent to the Referendum, Parliament voted through A50,
    So in your view whether the UK was an independent country controlling its own laws and borders was none of the People's business?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 9,817
    Barnesian said:

    Mr McDonnell told BBC Radio 4's Today programme taking services into public ownership would not ultimately increase the burden on taxpayers because government bonds could be swapped for shares in a revenue-producing company.

    It depends whether the government bonds are tradeable gilts (worth the usual market rate) or water company bonds issued by the nationalised company (which I think is your assumption).

    I think McDonnell means the former. But even if he means the latter, then the bonds will still have their market value backed by the government. There is no risk of default and they will have a coupon rate.

    Whether they will be tradeable gilts or not is irrelevant. You are right about the market value- they will be worthless. People criticise Osborne and Brown for the increases in national debt int heir tenure, and McDonnell proposes to start with the damage they left and add as much as a single year, and you think people will be crazy enough to buy his gilts? He is patently either stupid or lying, and I have to say I've never thought of him as stupid.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    stevef said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    stevef said:

    Well, since Leave supporters seem unable to try to understand the concerns of Remain supporters, it’s a bit rich of them to whinge that they are misunderstood.

    But Remain supporters are not entitled to use those concerns to subvert the will of the People in a democratic referendum. I have concerns about what would happen if Jeremy Corbyn was elected prime minister. Those concerns would not entitle me to launch a coup against his government.
    However within 5 years you are entitled to change your vote from a Corbyn run Labour party to a JRM Tory Party. That is democracy. As a Leaver you will never be given the opportunity to change you mind. Leave meant leave forever! I am not sure what that is, but it doesn't seem very democratic.
    People are free to campaign to rejoin the EU, which, I accept, would be harder than chucking out the government.
    Sean_F said:

    stevef said:

    Well, since Leave supporters seem unable to try to understand the concerns of Remain supporters, it’s a bit rich of them to whinge that they are misunderstood.

    But Remain supporters are not entitled to use those concerns to subvert the will of the People in a democratic referendum. I have concerns about what would happen if Jeremy Corbyn was elected prime minister. Those concerns would not entitle me to launch a coup against his government.
    However within 5 years you are entitled to change your vote from a Corbyn run Labour party to a JRM Tory Party. That is democracy. As a Leaver you will never be given the opportunity to change you mind. Leave meant leave forever! I am not sure what that is, but it doesn't seem very democratic.
    People are free to campaign to rejoin the EU, which, I accept, would be harder than chucking out the government.
    OK, in the interests of democracy let's have an EU Referendum every 5 years! Yeah, that's a stupid idea, but then so was the 2016 referendum.


    We are a Parliamentary democracy, A Party manifesto should have been the mechanism to bring about Brexit.
    It did. The Conservatives promised a referendum on EU membership, and Parliament voted it through. Subsequent to the Referendum, Parliament voted through A50,
    So in your view whether the UK was an independent country controlling its own laws and borders was none of the People's business?
    People would be free to campaign to rejoin the EU after we leave. Nothing in politics is set in stone forever.
  • In truth I wish the EU would come to their senses and make a generous offer that could ease the way to a new relationship.

    They could offer the use of their central bank?
    Why not try to make a constructive suggestion to address leave concerns
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,493
    stevef said:

    stevef said:


    However it is your second statement which is the nub of the matter, and which justifies my use of the word Remoaner. You are employing a very disingenuous argument. Are you seriously suggesting that when a majority of voters voted to leave the EU, they were voting to leave the EU in name only, and that they were quite content for the UK to be remain under the control of the EU without being a member? Are you suggesting that people were not voting at all for the UK to control its own borders and laws -even though Remain's own campaign literature stated that leaving the EU would mean leaving the Single Market and Customs Union. Why on earth would people vote to leave the EU and remain under its control.

    Your position seems akin to a hotel writing to me and stating that when I checked out of the hotel I didnt actually specifically say that I wanted to stop paying for the room -so here is the bill.

    I’m seriously suggesting that you have no right to interpret a vote that could be interpreted in a wide variety of different ways to mean only one of those outcomes. Brexit was a negative decision. How it is interpreted positively is a matter for further discussion. Hence the paralysis in the Cabinet.
    But its not open to interpretation. During the referendum campaign, both sides acknowledged that a vote to leave the EU, would be a vote to end freedom of movement, control UK borders, and end EU control over British laws. Both sides acknowledged that it would mean leaving the Single Market. The official Remain booklet sent to every home stated this. There was no ambiguity about what a Leave vote would mean.

    You have placed an interpretation on the result that People were only voting to leave the EU in name only and that they wanted us to remain under EU control through the Single Market. That is a fantastic interpretation.

    And yet you reject the Leave view that when people voted in 1975 to stay in the Common Market, thats all they were doing. They were not voting for ever closer union, they were not voting for freedom of movement or to lose sovereignty in a political union.

    It seems there is one rule for remainers and another for leavers.
    I don’t reject any view. Unlike you, I’m open to discussion about what each vote meant.

    You are giving your own interpretation of something that manifestly isn’t clear, or the government would already have finalised its stance. Other posters on this thread have shown they had different priorities when they voted Leave from those you have now. As it happens, there’s polling evidence that shows the public weren’t as dogmatic as you are.

    There was only one question on the ballot paper. Anything beyond that question is a matter for discussion.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,398
    Barnesian said:

    Charles said:

    @Barnesian FPT

    Pension funds will get Government bonds equal in value to the equity they give up in exchange. It is then up to pension funds to decide whether they want to keep the low risk low return bonds or sell them and purchase higher risk higher return equities in the market to balance their portfolios. Pension funds won't collapse in value!

    I'm sorry, but your analysis is completely flawed. It's difficult to even know where to begin.

    Fundamentally, the value of the equity is the value of the expected future cashflows that will be generated by the business (after tax and interest).

    If the government gives the owners of the equity bonds of equal value then there simply will not be any surplus cash to generate a return for the government. Moreover you are assuming that the government will be able to run the utilities as efficiently as the private sector - in theory they might be able to, but governments face competing demands and, I suspect, might be likely to give higher pay rises to employees (union pressure) or to invest more in schools'n'hospitals than in water pipes. Either way, over time, the efficiency of the network will degrade.

    Moreover, there are the secondary effects to consider: if investors and lenders believe that the government is willing to expropriate assets with compensation set by primary legislation (as McDonnell has suggested) then you can bet that the stock markets will collapse and government borrowing rates will go up

    @Charles I'm surprised at you. The value of the equity is the DISCOUNTED expected future cash flows of the business. The discount for equity is typically 7% real, say 10% nominal. This compares with government debt rate of say 0% real, 3% nominal. You know this.

    The problem for McDonnell is a potential RISE in water shares in the expectation that shareholders will get bonds to the value of the inflated share price. Plenty of scope for games playing.

    In answer to your second point, I said below :

    In general I think the private sector is better placed to run businesses. It is more innovative, and there is more competition and choice. But I am not an idealogue about it. I'm not private good, public bad, (or vice versa). I'm a pragmatist.

    Natural monopolies and strategic public goods (like the military, police, health, education, water, electricity, gas, roads and rail) are better run in the public sector for the public good.
    Have you ever looked at the stock market pricing? The value of an equity is just what is is.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 9,817
    Charles said:

    stevef said:

    The point surely is not whether politicians and supporters of parties consider the vote to leave the EU right or wrong.

    The point is that a majority of voters in a democratic referendum DID choose to leave the EU. And most voters chose to leave the EU in reality, not in name only which is what staying in the Single Market and Customs Union would mean.

    The point is not whether the People's will is considered to be right or wrong . The point is that the will of the People should be implemented.

    The point is Democracy.

    Provided that Leave kept within the financial rules which still has to be resolved. Two Electoral Commission inquiries are going on. If they go against either or both main Leave organisations then that de-legitimises to result
    When are the LibDems going to return Michael Brown's donation of stolen money?

    This isn't a question of the narrow scope of the EC investigation (whether the LibDems had carried out sufficient checks to determine that Michael Brown UK entity was entitled to donate) but what is the right thing to do.

    Otherwise, under your argument, everything the Lib Dems have done or said since has been de-legitimised
    I'm afraid the LibDems made that point moot a while back. Something about a broken pledge on tuition fees...
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,861
    Sean_F said:

    Barnesian said:

    stevef said:

    The point surely is not whether politicians and supporters of parties consider the vote to leave the EU right or wrong.

    The point is that a majority of voters in a democratic referendum DID choose to leave the EU. And most voters chose to leave the EU in reality, not in name only which is what staying in the Single Market and Customs Union would mean.

    The point is not whether the People's will is considered to be right or wrong . The point is that the will of the People should be implemented.

    The point is Democracy.

    Provided that Leave kept within the financial rules which still has to be resolved. Two Electoral Commission inquiries are going on. If they go against either or both main Leave organisations then that de-legitimises to result
    I think the result is illegitimate in any case as the people with most skin in the game (3m EU nationals living here and 1m UK nationals living in rEU) were not allowed to vote. That is not democratic or fair - and the reason I do not respect the referendum result.
    The standard franchise was used.
    It wasn't a "standard" vote.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,200
    Barnesian said:

    Sean_F said:

    Barnesian said:

    stevef said:

    The point surely is not whether politicians and supporters of parties consider the vote to leave the EU right or wrong.

    The point is that a majority of voters in a democratic referendum DID choose to leave the EU. And most voters chose to leave the EU in reality, not in name only which is what staying in the Single Market and Customs Union would mean.

    The point is not whether the People's will is considered to be right or wrong . The point is that the will of the People should be implemented.

    The point is Democracy.

    Provided that Leave kept within the financial rules which still has to be resolved. Two Electoral Commission inquiries are going on. If they go against either or both main Leave organisations then that de-legitimises to result
    I think the result is illegitimate in any case as the people with most skin in the game (3m EU nationals living here and 1m UK nationals living in rEU) were not allowed to vote. That is not democratic or fair - and the reason I do not respect the referendum result.
    The standard franchise was used.
    It wasn't a "standard" vote.
    Yeah, it was. If people wanted to play a part in the democratic process at a national level, they should have become citizens.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,861
    Omnium said:

    Barnesian said:

    Charles said:

    @Barnesian FPT

    Pension funds will get Government bonds equal in value to the equity they give up in exchange. It is then up to pension funds to decide whether they want to keep the low risk low return bonds or sell them and purchase higher risk higher return equities in the market to balance their portfolios. Pension funds won't collapse in value!

    I'm sorry, but your analysis is completely flawed. It's difficult to even know where to begin.

    Fundamentally, the value of the equity is the value of the expected future cashflows that will be generated by the business (after tax and interest).

    If the government gives the owners of the equity bonds of equal value then there simply will not be any surplus cash to generate a return for the government. Moreover you are assuming that the government will be able to run the utilities as efficiently as the private sector - in theory they might be able to, but governments face competing demands and, I suspect, might be likely to give higher pay rises to employees (union pressure) or to invest more in schools'n'hospitals than in water pipes. Either way, over time, the efficiency of the network will degrade.

    Moreover, there are the secondary effects to consider: if investors and lenders believe that the government is willing to expropriate assets with compensation set by primary legislation (as McDonnell has suggested) then you can bet that the stock markets will collapse and government borrowing rates will go up

    @Charles I'm surprised at you. The value of the equity is the DISCOUNTED expected future cash flows of the business. The discount for equity is typically 7% real, say 10% nominal. This compares with government debt rate of say 0% real, 3% nominal. You know this.

    The problem for McDonnell is a potential RISE in water shares in the expectation that shareholders will get bonds to the value of the inflated share price. Plenty of scope for games playing.

    In answer to your second point, I said below :

    In general I think the private sector is better placed to run businesses. It is more innovative, and there is more competition and choice. But I am not an idealogue about it. I'm not private good, public bad, (or vice versa). I'm a pragmatist.

    Natural monopolies and strategic public goods (like the military, police, health, education, water, electricity, gas, roads and rail) are better run in the public sector for the public good.
    Have you ever looked at the stock market pricing? The value of an equity is just what is is.

    I know that. I have substantial equity investments that I keep an eye on. @Charles was making a theoretical point about valuation of equities (NPV of future after tax earnings) and I was reminding him of the significance of the discount factor.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 18,431

    In truth I wish the EU would come to their senses and make a generous offer that could ease the way to a new relationship.

    They could offer the use of their central bank?
    Why not try to make a constructive suggestion to address leave concerns
    There’s perhaps one structural issue to do with free movement that could be addressed, namely different rules for acquiring citizenship in different member states. It was very common to see people claim that Merkel was going to hand out German passports to all the refugees so they could come here immediately. Having some common criteria would help reassure people that having EU citizenship was a privilege.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,685
    RobD said:

    Barnesian said:

    Sean_F said:

    Barnesian said:

    stevef said:

    The point surely is not whether politicians and supporters of parties consider the vote to leave the EU right or wrong.

    The point is that a majority of voters in a democratic referendum DID choose to leave the EU. And most voters chose to leave the EU in reality, not in name only which is what staying in the Single Market and Customs Union would mean.

    The point is not whether the People's will is considered to be right or wrong . The point is that the will of the People should be implemented.

    The point is Democracy.

    Provided that Leave kept within the financial rules which still has to be resolved. Two Electoral Commission inquiries are going on. If they go against either or both main Leave organisations then that de-legitimises to result
    I think the result is illegitimate in any case as the people with most skin in the game (3m EU nationals living here and 1m UK nationals living in rEU) were not allowed to vote. That is not democratic or fair - and the reason I do not respect the referendum result.
    The standard franchise was used.
    It wasn't a "standard" vote.
    Yeah, it was. If people wanted to play a part in the democratic process at a national level, they should have become citizens.
    +1
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,200
    edited February 10

    In truth I wish the EU would come to their senses and make a generous offer that could ease the way to a new relationship.

    They could offer the use of their central bank?
    Why not try to make a constructive suggestion to address leave concerns
    There’s perhaps one structural issue to do with free movement that could be addressed, namely different rules for acquiring citizenship in different member states. It was very common to see people claim that Merkel was going to hand out German passports to all the refugees so they could come here immediately. Having some common criteria would help reassure people that having EU citizenship was a privilege.
    Surprised you didn't advocate scrapping national citizenship. :D Although standardising criteria for getting it is a small stepping stone along the way...
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,469
    edited February 10

    In truth I wish the EU would come to their senses and make a generous offer that could ease the way to a new relationship.

    They could offer the use of their central bank?
    Why not try to make a constructive suggestion to address leave concerns
    There’s perhaps one structural issue to do with free movement that could be addressed, namely different rules for acquiring citizenship in different member states. It was very common to see people claim that Merkel was going to hand out German passports to all the refugees so they could come here immediately. Having some common criteria would help reassure people that having EU citizenship was a privilege.
    Thank you for a constructive quote William
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,685
    RobD said:

    In truth I wish the EU would come to their senses and make a generous offer that could ease the way to a new relationship.

    They could offer the use of their central bank?
    Why not try to make a constructive suggestion to address leave concerns
    There’s perhaps one structural issue to do with free movement that could be addressed, namely different rules for acquiring citizenship in different member states. It was very common to see people claim that Merkel was going to hand out German passports to all the refugees so they could come here immediately. Having some common criteria would help reassure people that having EU citizenship was a privilege.
    Surprised you didn't advocate scrapping national citizenship. :D Although standardising criteria for getting it is a small stepping stone along the way...
    I actually assumed that was william's point, perhaps uncharitably.

    Or perhaps not...?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,493
    Good to see that Leavers accept this was a standard vote. Let’s have no more nonsense that the vote was in any way holy writ.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,050
    On topic, perhaps the Labour leadership have taken the view that our Remainer voters have no where else to go, but a chunk of our Leaver voters would soon jump ship to the Kippers or Tories if we took an anti-Brexit position?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,685
    edited February 10

    Good to see that Leavers accept this was a standard vote. Let’s have no more nonsense that the vote was in any way holy writ.

    Yup. Let's have no more nonsense about it being illegitimate (not directed at you Alistair).
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,398

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    stevef said:

    Well, since Leave supporters seem unable to try to understand the concerns of Remain supporters, it’s a bit rich of them to whinge that they are misunderstood.

    But Remain supporters are not entitled to use those concerns to subvert the will of the People in a democratic referendum. I have concerns about what would happen if Jeremy Corbyn was elected prime minister. Those concerns would not entitle me to launch a coup against his government.
    You would, however, be within your rights to seek to frustrate and mitigate the impact of the government by any means at your disposal.
    Would you?

    Why?

    I accept that this is the way in which protest expresses itself in a democracy, but I fail to see a 'right' that it should be so. Certainly 'by any means at your disposal' needs to be revised Mr Meeks.
    The word “lawful” is implicit.

    No one is expecting the Conservatives to wave a programme of nationalisation through Parliament for a newly elected Corbyn government. Are they?
    So failure to agree naturally translates to "frustrate and mitigate the impact of the government by any means at your disposal"?

    What other things are implicit? "Subject to the wishes of the Party"? "If it's Tuesday"?

    Oppositions can oppose. It’s often argued to be their duty.

    Brexit can be opposed too. No one needs to sign up to some fascistic vision of the People’s Will.
    Yep. The degree to which they should oppose isn't defined. The opposition is there to disagree when they actually disagree. However under no circumstances whatsoever should 'any means' be used, even 'any lawful means'. 'Frustrating' the will of the people (not what you said mind) seems a little akin to treason in a democracy.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,526
    edited February 10
    McDonnell has said that in accordance with precedent, Parliament will determine compensation for nationalisation.

    But surely that precedent is from a long, long time ago - before legislation like the Human Rights Act etc.

    We've seen with this Govt that welfare measures approved by Parliament have been declared illegal by the Courts - so is it not possible that McDonnell may run into similar trouble?

    Even something as innocuous (and popular) as the £23,000 welfare cap only survived by a 3-2 Supreme Court vote.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,840
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    stevef said:

    Well, since Leave supporters seem unable to try to understand the concerns of Remain supporters, it’s a bit rich of them to whinge that they are misunderstood.

    But Remain supporters are not entitled to use those concerns to subvert the will of the People in a democratic referendum. I have concerns about what would happen if Jeremy Corbyn was elected prime minister. Those concerns would not entitle me to launch a coup against his government.
    However within 5 years you are entitled to change your vote from a Corbyn run Labour party to a JRM Tory Party. That is democracy. As a Leaver you will never be given the opportunity to change you mind. Leave meant leave forever! I am not sure what that is, but it doesn't seem very democratic.
    People are free to campaign to rejoin the EU, which, I accept, would be harder than chucking out the government.
    Sean_F said:

    stevef said:

    Well, since Leave supporters seem unable to try to understand the concerns of Remain supporters, it’s a bit rich of them to whinge that they are misunderstood.

    But Remain supporters are not entitled to use those concerns to subvert the will of the People in a democratic referendum. I have concerns about what would happen if Jeremy Corbyn was elected prime minister. Those concerns would not entitle me to launch a coup against his government.
    However within 5 years you are entitled to change your vote from a Corbyn run Labour party to a JRM Tory Party. That is democracy. As a Leaver you will never be given the opportunity to change you mind. Leave meant leave forever! I am not sure what that is, but it doesn't seem very democratic.
    People are free to campaign to rejoin the EU, which, I accept, would be harder than chucking out the government.
    OK, in the interests of democracy let's have an EU Referendum every 5 years! Yeah, that's a stupid idea, but then so was the 2016 referendum.


    We are a Parliamentary democracy, A Party manifesto should have been the mechanism to bring about Brexit.
    It did. The Conservatives promised a referendum on EU membership, and Parliament voted it through. Subsequent to the Referendum, Parliament voted through A50,
    That's right. Remainers like myself can't object to the procedure. It is also right that we are a parliamentary democracy, so to reverse Brexit all that is required is a party to win a majority with a promise to rejoin. We don't need another referendum. Ever.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,428
    Barnesian said:



    Mr McDonnell told BBC Radio 4's Today programme taking services into public ownership would not ultimately increase the burden on taxpayers because government bonds could be swapped for shares in a revenue-producing company.


    It depends whether the government bonds are tradeable gilts (worth the usual market rate) or water company bonds issued by the nationalised company (which I think is your assumption).

    I think McDonnell means the former. But even if he means the latter, then the bonds will still have their market value backed by the government. There is no risk of default and they will have a coupon rate.

    Market value presumably based on share price, which will be what? after the flight from UK equities generally and utilities specifically following Corbyn's victory.

    fpt here's wikipedia on the 1947 rail nationaisation

    "The level of compensation paid has proved to be a matter of historical controversy.[citation needed] Some commentators, including The Economist and the London Stock Exchange stated that because the Government based the levels of compensation for former railway shareholders on the valuation of their shares in 1946 (when the whole railway infrastructure was in a run-down and dilapidated state because of war damage and minimal maintenance) the railways were acquired comparatively cheaply.[2]

    However, others[who?] point out that three of the Big Four were effectively bankrupt before the onset of war in 1939 and were only saved from the ignominy of actually declaring bankruptcy by the guaranteed income provided by the wartime government and the temporary surge in rail traffic caused by the restrictions on other forms of transport during and immediately after the war. The exchange of potentially worthless private stock for government gilts based on a valuation during an artificially created boom could thus be considered a very good deal."
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,004
    On topic, I am not sure it matters very much what Labour's position is, or any other party's besides the government, whose policy remains unclear. By the time of the next election, either Brexit will have happened or we will be in an extended transition period. Until then, Labour can have what Boris might call a have cake and eat it policy -- broadly but resignedly in favour of will-of-the-people Brexit and very much against any specific detail of Tory Brexit.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,200

    Good to see that Leavers accept this was a standard vote. Let’s have no more nonsense that the vote was in any way holy writ.

    Indeed. I wouldn't object to Remainers getting another shot in 30 years.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,200



    That's right. Remainers like myself can't object to the procedure. It is also right that we are a parliamentary democracy, so to reverse Brexit all that is required is a party to win a majority with a promise to rejoin. We don't need another referendum. Ever.

    No, but there is a precedent for having one.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,297

    Good to see that Leavers accept this was a standard vote. Let’s have no more nonsense that the vote was in any way holy writ.

    What's that supposed to mean? As many have pointed out, I have reservations about Jezza and Co running the country, but if that's what the people vote for, that's what they should get.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,398
    Barnesian said:

    Omnium said:

    Barnesian said:



    @Charles I'm surprised at you. The value of the equity is the DISCOUNTED expected future cash flows of the business. The discount for equity is typically 7% real, say 10% nominal. This compares with government debt rate of say 0% real, 3% nominal. You know this.
    The problem for McDonnell is a potential RISE in water shares in the expectation that shareholders will get bonds to the value of the inflated share price. Plenty of scope for games playing.

    In answer to your second point, I said below :

    In general I think the private sector is better placed to run businesses. It is more innovative, and there is more competition and choice. But I am not an idealogue about it. I'm not private good, public bad, (or vice versa). I'm a pragmatist.

    Natural monopolies and strategic public goods (like the military, police, health, education, water, electricity, gas, roads and rail) are better run in the public sector for the public good.

    Have you ever looked at the stock market pricing? The value of an equity is just what is is.

    I know that. I have substantial equity investments that I keep an eye on. @Charles was making a theoretical point about valuation of equities (NPV of future after tax earnings) and I was reminding him of the significance of the discount factor.
    He actually said the value of expected future cashflows. That's right. Nailed on right. What you said isn't right.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 21,962
    Mortimer said:

    RobD said:

    In truth I wish the EU would come to their senses and make a generous offer that could ease the way to a new relationship.

    They could offer the use of their central bank?
    Why not try to make a constructive suggestion to address leave concerns
    There’s perhaps one structural issue to do with free movement that could be addressed, namely different rules for acquiring citizenship in different member states. It was very common to see people claim that Merkel was going to hand out German passports to all the refugees so they could come here immediately. Having some common criteria would help reassure people that having EU citizenship was a privilege.
    Surprised you didn't advocate scrapping national citizenship. :D Although standardising criteria for getting it is a small stepping stone along the way...
    I actually assumed that was william's point, perhaps uncharitably.

    Or perhaps not...?
    I think his point would be that there would be minimum agreed criteria for getting a passport: five years residence, no criminal record, etc.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,520
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Market value presumably based on share price, which will be what? after the flight from UK equities generally and utilities specifically following Corbyn's victory.

    fpt here's wikipedia on the 1947 rail nationaisation

    "The level of compensation paid has proved to be a matter of historical controversy.[citation needed] Some commentators, including The Economist and the London Stock Exchange stated that because the Government based the levels of compensation for former railway shareholders on the valuation of their shares in 1946 (when the whole railway infrastructure was in a run-down and dilapidated state because of war damage and minimal maintenance) the railways were acquired comparatively cheaply.[2]

    However, others[who?] point out that three of the Big Four were effectively bankrupt before the onset of war in 1939 and were only saved from the ignominy of actually declaring bankruptcy by the guaranteed income provided by the wartime government and the temporary surge in rail traffic caused by the restrictions on other forms of transport during and immediately after the war. The exchange of potentially worthless private stock for government gilts based on a valuation during an artificially created boom could thus be considered a very good deal."

    AIUI:

    In 1939, before WWII:
    *) The GWR were in rude financial health.
    *) The Southern were okay, and had relatively little freight traffic, which was taking a hammering.
    *) The LMS was okay, but was suffering from a drastic reduction in freight traffic.
    *) The LNER was a financial basketcase, with massive debts from the GC London Extension, and the collapse of industry in the Northeast.

    I reckon the GWR and Southern could have survived in the medium and long-term. The LMS was touch and go, and the LNER had massive significant issues. In fact, I believe the LNER had offered to sell the infrastructure to the government in return for the rights to operate. Sound familiar?

    *If* the government had paid the railways the money they were owed for the usage of the war years, the LMS might have been able to pull through and reorganise, especially if the Common Carrier arrangements had been abolished.

    But it's hard to see what could have been done about the LNER.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 21,962
    RobD said:

    Good to see that Leavers accept this was a standard vote. Let’s have no more nonsense that the vote was in any way holy writ.

    Indeed. I wouldn't object to Remainers getting another shot in 30 years.
    If the LibDems were to be elected in 2022 with 65% of the vote, on a platform of rejoining the EU, I think we would have to (reluctantly) agree.

    For the record, I don't think that likely.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,601

    Good to see that Leavers accept this was a standard vote. Let’s have no more nonsense that the vote was in any way holy writ.

    Or indeed, that it was somehow a substandard vote.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,685
    rcs1000 said:

    RobD said:

    Good to see that Leavers accept this was a standard vote. Let’s have no more nonsense that the vote was in any way holy writ.

    Indeed. I wouldn't object to Remainers getting another shot in 30 years.
    If the LibDems were to be elected in 2022 with 65% of the vote, on a platform of rejoining the EU, I think we would have to (reluctantly) agree.

    For the record, I don't think that likely.
    :)

    I wonder how many paper candidates that would include?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,115

    On topic, perhaps the Labour leadership have taken the view that our Remainer voters have no where else to go, but a chunk of our Leaver voters would soon jump ship to the Kippers or Tories if we took an anti-Brexit position?

    Corbyn was better at politics than his critics in Labour were.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,179

    In truth I wish the EU would come to their senses and make a generous offer that could ease the way to a new relationship.

    They could offer the use of their central bank?
    Why not try to make a constructive suggestion to address leave concerns
    There’s perhaps one structural issue to do with free movement that could be addressed, namely different rules for acquiring citizenship in different member states. It was very common to see people claim that Merkel was going to hand out German passports to all the refugees so they could come here immediately. Having some common criteria would help reassure people that having EU citizenship was a privilege.
    I imagine Malta would block that. Their country is run off flogging EU citizenship to anyone that can afford it.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,861
    Omnium said:

    Barnesian said:

    Omnium said:

    Barnesian said:



    @Charles I'm surprised at you. The value of the equity is the DISCOUNTED expected future cash flows of the business. The discount for equity is typically 7% real, say 10% nominal. This compares with government debt rate of say 0% real, 3% nominal. You know this.
    The problem for McDonnell is a potential RISE in water shares in the expectation that shareholders will get bonds to the value of the inflated share price. Plenty of scope for games playing.

    In answer to your second point, I said below :

    In general I think the private sector is better placed to run businesses. It is more innovative, and there is more competition and choice. But I am not an idealogue about it. I'm not private good, public bad, (or vice versa). I'm a pragmatist.

    Natural monopolies and strategic public goods (like the military, police, health, education, water, electricity, gas, roads and rail) are better run in the public sector for the public good.

    Have you ever looked at the stock market pricing? The value of an equity is just what is is.

    I know that. I have substantial equity investments that I keep an eye on. @Charles was making a theoretical point about valuation of equities (NPV of future after tax earnings) and I was reminding him of the significance of the discount factor.
    He actually said the value of expected future cashflows. That's right. Nailed on right. What you said isn't right.
    DISCOUNTED value of expected future cash flows. Read what I said about the significance of the difference between discount rates for equities and bonds, I know what I'm talking about and so does Charles even if he made a slip in this instance.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,415
    Barnesian said:

    Charles said:

    @Barnesian FPT

    Pension funds will get Government bonds equal in value to the equity they give up in exchange. It is then up to pension funds to decide whether they want to keep the low risk low return bonds or sell them and purchase higher risk higher return equities in the market to balance their portfolios. Pension funds won't collapse in value!

    I'm sorry, but your analysis is completely flawed. It's difficult to even know where to begin.

    Fundamentally, the value of the equity is the value of the expected future cashflows that will be generated by the business (after tax and interest).

    If the government gives the owners of the equity bonds of equal value then there simply will not be any surplus cash to generate a return for the government. Moreover you are assuming that the government will be able to run the utilities as efficiently as the private sector - in theory they might be able to, but governments face competing demands and, I suspect, might be likely to give higher pay rises to employees (union pressure) or to invest more in schools'n'hospitals than in water pipes. Either way, over time, the efficiency of the network will degrade.

    Moreover, there are the secondary effects to consider: if investors and lenders believe that the government is willing to expropriate assets with compensation set by primary legislation (as McDonnell has suggested) then you can bet that the stock markets will collapse and government borrowing rates will go up

    @Charles I'm surprised at you. The value of the equity is the DISCOUNTED expected future cash flows of the business. The discount for equity is typically 7% real, say 10% nominal. This compares with government debt rate of say 0% real, 3% nominal. You know this.

    The problem for McDonnell is a potential RISE in water shares in the expectation that shareholders will get bonds to the value of the inflated share price. Plenty of scope for games playing.

    In answer to your second point, I said below :

    In general I think the private sector is better placed to run businesses. It is more innovative, and there is more competition and choice. But I am not an idealogue about it. I'm not private good, public bad, (or vice versa). I'm a pragmatist.

    Natural monopolies and strategic public goods (like the military, police, health, education, water, electricity, gas, roads and rail) are better run in the public sector for the public good.
    Nah. Let’s say the current equity is 100 and the dividends are 8 each year.

    You’re going to have to give them 8 of income each year. You can’t give them 3 of income and say “trust us it’s worth more”
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 21,962
    Elliot said:

    In truth I wish the EU would come to their senses and make a generous offer that could ease the way to a new relationship.

    They could offer the use of their central bank?
    Why not try to make a constructive suggestion to address leave concerns
    There’s perhaps one structural issue to do with free movement that could be addressed, namely different rules for acquiring citizenship in different member states. It was very common to see people claim that Merkel was going to hand out German passports to all the refugees so they could come here immediately. Having some common criteria would help reassure people that having EU citizenship was a privilege.
    I imagine Malta would block that. Their country is run off flogging EU citizenship to anyone that can afford it.
    I thought we and Portugal were the two countries that had the lowest requirements for citizenship? (In terms of investor visa -> citizenship.)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 21,962
    rcs1000 said:

    Elliot said:

    In truth I wish the EU would come to their senses and make a generous offer that could ease the way to a new relationship.

    They could offer the use of their central bank?
    Why not try to make a constructive suggestion to address leave concerns
    There’s perhaps one structural issue to do with free movement that could be addressed, namely different rules for acquiring citizenship in different member states. It was very common to see people claim that Merkel was going to hand out German passports to all the refugees so they could come here immediately. Having some common criteria would help reassure people that having EU citizenship was a privilege.
    I imagine Malta would block that. Their country is run off flogging EU citizenship to anyone that can afford it.
    I thought we and Portugal were the two countries that had the lowest requirements for citizenship? (In terms of investor visa -> citizenship.)
    UK: https://www.gov.uk/tier-1-entrepreneur/access-to-200000-investment-funds

    £200,000 to get an entrepreneur's visa (invested in a private company), five years to citizenship

    Malta: spend €350,000 on a property and then own it for five years.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,415

    Charles said:

    stevef said:

    The point surely is not whether politicians and supporters of parties consider the vote to leave the EU right or wrong.

    The point is that a majority of voters in a democratic referendum DID choose to leave the EU. And most voters chose to leave the EU in reality, not in name only which is what staying in the Single Market and Customs Union would mean.

    The point is not whether the People's will is considered to be right or wrong . The point is that the will of the People should be implemented.

    The point is Democracy.

    Provided that Leave kept within the financial rules which still has to be resolved. Two Electoral Commission inquiries are going on. If they go against either or both main Leave organisations then that de-legitimises to result
    When are the LibDems going to return Michael Brown's donation of stolen money?

    This isn't a question of the narrow scope of the EC investigation (whether the LibDems had carried out sufficient checks to determine that Michael Brown UK entity was entitled to donate) but what is the right thing to do.

    Otherwise, under your argument, everything the Lib Dems have done or said since has been de-legitimised
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/aug/22/tories-return-donation-asil-nadir
    The donations came from Polly Peck, which was Nadir’s victim not from Nadir. Political parties have a reasonable right to assume that corporate executives have obtained the necessary approvals. (I have a vague memory that they were returned anyway but I’m having fresh baked sea bass so can’t be bothered to check).

    The vast majority of Brown’s wealth was stolen from pensioners. He had no legitimate money to make donations.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,415
    Barnesian said:

    Omnium said:

    Barnesian said:

    Omnium said:

    Barnesian said:



    @Charles I'm surprised at you. The value of the equity is the DISCOUNTED expected future cash flows of the business. The discount for equity is typically 7% real, say 10% nominal. This compares with government debt rate of say 0% real, 3% nominal. You know this.
    The problem for McDonnell is a potential RISE in water shares in the expectation that shareholders will get bonds to the value of the inflated share price. Plenty of scope for games playing.

    In answer to your second point, I said below :

    In general I think the private sector is better placed to run businesses. It is more innovative, and there is more competition and choice. But I am not an idealogue about it. I'm not private good, public bad, (or vice versa). I'm a pragmatist.

    Natural monopolies and strategic public goods (like the military, police, health, education, water, electricity, gas, roads and rail) are better run in the public sector for the public good.

    Have you ever looked at the stock market pricing? The value of an equity is just what is is.

    I know that. I have substantial equity investments that I keep an eye on. @Charles was making a theoretical point about valuation of equities (NPV of future after tax earnings) and I was reminding him of the significance of the discount factor.
    He actually said the value of expected future cashflows. That's right. Nailed on right. What you said isn't right.
    DISCOUNTED value of expected future cash flows. Read what I said about the significance of the difference between discount rates for equities and bonds, I know what I'm talking about and so does Charles even if he made a slip in this instance.
    No I didn’t - I think investors will demand a like for like replacement of income.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,428
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Elliot said:

    In truth I wish the EU would come to their senses and make a generous offer that could ease the way to a new relationship.

    They could offer the use of their central bank?
    Why not try to make a constructive suggestion to address leave concerns
    There’s perhaps one structural issue to do with free movement that could be addressed, namely different rules for acquiring citizenship in different member states. It was very common to see people claim that Merkel was going to hand out German passports to all the refugees so they could come here immediately. Having some common criteria would help reassure people that having EU citizenship was a privilege.
    I imagine Malta would block that. Their country is run off flogging EU citizenship to anyone that can afford it.
    I thought we and Portugal were the two countries that had the lowest requirements for citizenship? (In terms of investor visa -> citizenship.)
    UK: https://www.gov.uk/tier-1-entrepreneur/access-to-200000-investment-funds

    £200,000 to get an entrepreneur's visa (invested in a private company), five years to citizenship

    Malta: spend €350,000 on a property and then own it for five years.

    NYT thinks the property holding thing is in addition to a 650 000 bung:
    In addition to the €650,000 fee to the government, applicants must now invest €150,000 in government bonds, buy property for at least €350,000 or rent a place for at least €16,000 a year — all of which must be held for at least five years.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/01/business/dealbook/malta-offers-citizenship-and-all-its-perks-for-a-price.html
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,861
    edited February 10
    Charles said:

    Barnesian said:

    Charles said:

    @Barnesian FPT

    Pension funds will get Government bonds equal in value to the equity they give up in exchange. It is then up to pension funds to decide whether they want to keep the low risk low return bonds or sell them and purchase higher risk higher return equities in the market to balance their portfolios. Pension funds won't collapse in value!

    I'm sorry, but your analysis is completely flawed. It's difficult to even know where to begin.

    Fundamentally, the value of the equity is the value of the expected future cashflows that will be generated by the business (after tax and interest).

    Moreover, there are the secondary effects to consider: if investors and lenders believe that the government is willing to expropriate assets with compensation set by primary legislation (as McDonnell has suggested) then you can bet that the stock markets will collapse and government borrowing rates will go up

    @Charles I'm surprised at you. The value of the equity is the DISCOUNTED expected future cash flows of the business. The discount for equity is typically 7% real, say 10% nominal. This compares with government debt rate of say 0% real, 3% nominal. You know this.

    The problem for McDonnell is a potential RISE in water shares in the expectation that shareholders will get bonds to the value of the inflated share price. Plenty of scope for games playing.

    In answer to your second point, I said below :

    In general I think the private sector is better placed to run businesses. It is more innovative, and there is more competition and choice. But I am not an idealogue about it. I'm not private good, public bad, (or vice versa). I'm a pragmatist.

    Natural monopolies and strategic public goods (like the military, police, health, education, water, electricity, gas, roads and rail) are better run in the public sector for the public good.
    Nah. Let’s say the current equity is 100 and the dividends are 8 each year.

    You’re going to have to give them 8 of income each year. You can’t give them 3 of income and say “trust us it’s worth more”
    Current UK dividend yields are about 3.5%. 30 year gilts are about 2%.

    The difference is the risk premium. Equities are seen as more risky than gilts so investors expect a higher return.

    In your example with actual rates, investors will be giving up a more risky equity investment of 100 at say 3.5% div yield for a less risky gilt yield of 2.0%. If they prefer riskier equity investment for the higher return they can sell their gilts for a 100 in a very large liquid market and buy into an equity fund and get their 3.5%. You know all this.

    PS Don't let me put you off your sea bass.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited February 10
    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/public-ownership-will-cost-taxpayers-absolutely-nothing-john-mcdonnell-says/

    "We aren’t going to take back control of these industries in order to put them into the hands of a remote bureaucracy, but to put them into the hands of all of you – so that they can never again be taken away."

    Take back control

    The tory brexiteers asked for this when they signed off on the leave campaign rhetoric.

    As strategic f*ckups go, Suez was minor in comparison.

    Hilarious.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,415
    Barnesian said:

    Charles said:

    Barnesian said:

    Charles said:

    @Barnesian FPT

    Pension funds will get Government bonds equal in value to the equity they give up in exchange. It is then up to pension funds to decide whether they want to keep the low risk low return bonds or sell them and purchase higher risk higher return equities in the market to balance their portfolios. Pension funds won't collapse in value!

    I'm sorry, but your analysis is completely flawed. It's difficult to even know where to begin.

    Fundamentally, the value of the equity is the value of the expected future cashflows that will be generated by the business (after tax and interest).

    Moreover, there are the secondary effects to consider: if investors and lenders believe that the government is willing to expropriate assets with compensation set by primary legislation (as McDonnell has suggested) then you can bet that the stock markets will collapse and government borrowing rates will go up

    @Charles I'm surprised at you. The value of the equity is the DISCOUNTED expected future cash flows of the business. The discount for equity is typically 7% real, say 10% nominal. This compares with government debt rate of say 0% real, 3% nominal. You know this.

    The problem for McDonnell is a potential RISE in water shares in the expectation that shareholders will get bonds to the value of the inflated share price. Plenty of scope for games playing.

    In answer to your second point, I said below :

    In general I think the private sector is better placed to run businesses. It is more innovative, and there is more competition and choice. But I am not an idealogue about it. I'm not private good, public bad, (or vice versa). I'm a pragmatist.

    Natural monopolies and strategic public goods (like the military, police, health, education, water, electricity, gas, roads and rail) are better run in the public sector for the public good.
    Nah. Let’s say the current equity is 100 and the dividends are 8 each year.

    You’re going to have to give them 8 of income each year. You can’t give them 3 of income and say “trust us it’s worth more”
    Current UK dividend yields are about 3.5%. 30 year gilts are about 2%.

    The difference is the risk premium. Equities are seen as more risky than gilts so investors expect a higher return.

    In your example with actual rates, investors will be giving up a more risky equity investment of 100 at say 3.5% div yield for a less risky gilt yield of 2.0%. If they prefer riskier equity investment for the higher return they can sell their gilts for a 100 in a very large liquid market and buy into an equity fund and get their 3.5%. You know all this.

    PS Don't let me put you off your sea bass.
    Yields on infrastructure are far higher
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,861
    Charles said:

    Barnesian said:

    Omnium said:

    Barnesian said:

    Omnium said:

    Barnesian said:



    @Charles I'm surprised at you. The value of the equity is the DISCOUNTED expected future cash flows of the business. The discount for equity is typically 7% real, say 10% nominal. This compares with government debt rate of say 0% real, 3% nominal. You know this.
    The problem for McDonnell is a potential RISE in water shares in the expectation that shareholders will get bonds to the value of the inflated share price. Plenty of scope for games playing.

    In answer to your second point, I said below :

    In general I think the private sector is better placed to run businesses. It is more innovative, and there is more competition and choice. But I am not an idealogue about it. I'm not private good, public bad, (or vice versa). I'm a pragmatist.

    Natural monopolies and strategic public goods (like the military, police, health, education, water, electricity, gas, roads and rail) are better run in the public sector for the public good.

    Have you ever looked at the stock market pricing? The value of an equity is just what is is.

    I know that. I have substantial equity investments that I keep an eye on. @Charles was making a theoretical point about valuation of equities (NPV of future after tax earnings) and I was reminding him of the significance of the discount factor.
    He actually said the value of expected future cashflows. That's right. Nailed on right. What you said isn't right.
    DISCOUNTED value of expected future cash flows. Read what I said about the significance of the difference between discount rates for equities and bonds, I know what I'm talking about and so does Charles even if he made a slip in this instance.
    No I didn’t - I think investors will demand a like for like replacement of income.
    As I've explained, they can sell their lower yielding gilts at 100 and buy higher yielding equities for a 100 if they want a like for like replacement of income. You might even be able to help them do that for a small fee.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,861
    Charles said:

    Barnesian said:

    Charles said:

    Barnesian said:

    Charles said:

    @Barnesian FPT

    Pension funds will get Government bonds equal in value to the equity they give up in exchange. It is then up to pension funds to decide whether they want to keep the low risk low return bonds or sell them and purchase higher risk higher return equities in the market to balance their portfolios. Pension funds won't collapse in value!

    I'm sorry, but your analysis is completely flawed. It's difficult to even know where to begin.

    Fundamentally, the value of the equity is the value of the expected future cashflows that will be generated by the business (after tax and interest).

    @Charles I'm surprised at you. The value of the equity is the DISCOUNTED expected future cash flows of the business. The discount for equity is typically 7% real, say 10% nominal. This compares with government debt rate of say 0% real, 3% nominal. You know this.

    The problem for McDonnell is a potential RISE in water shares in the expectation that shareholders will get bonds to the value of the inflated share price. Plenty of scope for games playing.

    In answer to your second point, I said below :

    In general I think the private sector is better placed to run businesses. It is more innovative, and there is more competition and choice. But I am not an idealogue about it. I'm not private good, public bad, (or vice versa). I'm a pragmatist.

    Natural monopolies and strategic public goods (like the military, police, health, education, water, electricity, gas, roads and rail) are better run in the public sector for the public good.
    Nah. Let’s say the current equity is 100 and the dividends are 8 each year.

    You’re going to have to give them 8 of income each year. You can’t give them 3 of income and say “trust us it’s worth more”
    Current UK dividend yields are about 3.5%. 30 year gilts are about 2%.

    The difference is the risk premium. Equities are seen as more risky than gilts so investors expect a higher return.

    In your example with actual rates, investors will be giving up a more risky equity investment of 100 at say 3.5% div yield for a less risky gilt yield of 2.0%. If they prefer riskier equity investment for the higher return they can sell their gilts for a 100 in a very large liquid market and buy into an equity fund and get their 3.5%. You know all this.

    PS Don't let me put you off your sea bass.
    Yields on infrastructure are far higher
    If so, they must be seen as riskier. Normally infrastructure is seen as less risky so you surprise me. Nevertheless they can sell their gilts at 100 and invest in riskier equities for a 100 to get a bigger riskier yield if they want.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,428
    edited February 10
    Barnesian said:



    Current UK dividend yields are about 3.5%. 30 year gilts are about 2%.

    The difference is the risk premium. Equities are seen as more risky than gilts so investors expect a higher return.

    In your example with actual rates, investors will be giving up a more risky equity investment of 100 at say 3.5% div yield for a less risky gilt yield of 2.0%. If they prefer riskier equity investment for the higher return they can sell their gilts for a 100 in a very large liquid market and buy into an equity fund and get their 3.5%. You know all this.

    PS Don't let me put you off your sea bass.

    McD last November:

    "When you take them over - OK, well, you don’t need a number because what you do is you swap shares for government bonds and that is covered by the cost of those profitable industries we take over," McDonnell said.

    The veteran left-winger also suggested that the market value of firms could be ignored, insisting "it will be parliament who sets the price on any of those nationalisations."
    http://www.cityam.com/276044/john-mcdonnell-slammed-refusing-cost-labours

    The view that this will simply be a switch between more or less risky asset classes assumes both that McD deals at market value, and that market value has not been trashed by his refusal to rule out "parliament setting the price".
This discussion has been closed.