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.
Malta gives citizenship to a small number wealthy people for large sums of cash - we have given it away to a lot of poor people over the last few decades who have nothing.
Pension funds p 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.
Fundamentallyby 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.
You are forgetting that this is a situation of expropriation. Normal rules don’t apply.
“Labour stole half your pension”
“No we didn’t because the discount rate is far lower...”
(And I’m very certain that these will not be tradeable anywhere close to par. The only people who will benefit are US hedge funds who hoover them up cheap...)
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.
This comment is not about Brexit as such, but about what a government can & can't do.
Very belatedly, I've been wondering where the business about no parliament being able to bind its successors fits with doing something like joining the EU in the first place.
It's clear now that Sir Edward Heath was fully aware of the ultimate destination when the original referendums were held. Surely his intention was to bind successor parliaments? Just as David Cameron's intention was to bind us more closely.
And if it is so very hard to get out of the EU without severe damage, did parliament have any right to take us in, in the first place? Referendums notwithstanding?
On topic - I listened to the McDonnell interview on R4 this morning.
It is clear that his line (and Starmer's) is to focus on outcomes (frictionless trade that protects the economy and jobs) rather than on the means. But he made it clear that they've got all the options on the table including a custom’s union if necessary to achieve their objective. If a customs union is necessary to achieve their objective, Labour will support it.
Pension funds p 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.
Fundamentallyby 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. .
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.
You are forgetting that this is a situation of expropriation. Normal rules don’t apply.
“Labour stole half your pension”
“No we didn’t because the discount rate is far lower...”
(And I’m very certain that these will not be tradeable anywhere close to par. The only people who will benefit are US hedge funds who hoover them up cheap...)
So you accept that I am describing normal rules. My analysis is sound.
I know all about dishonest slogans and their effectiveness!
If these are gilts they will be tradeable in the normal way.
On topic - I listened to the McDonnell interview on R4 this morning.
It is clear that his line (and Starmer's) is to focus on outcomes (frictionless trade that protects the economy and jobs) rather than on the means. But he made it clear that they've got all the options on the table including a custom’s union if necessary to achieve their objective. If a customs union is necessary to achieve their objective, Labour will support it.
Corbyn ruled out the customs union yesterday. Now a customs union is defined as ?????
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.
As a leaver I don’t quite see it that way. Leave won by a relatively small majority. If a route can be found which is leave but acknowledges the view of the 48% then we should go for it, no matter how irritating the Remoaners are being. If subsequent generations choose to move even further from the EU, which they may well do, then that is for them to decide. Conversely, if they choose to get back into bed with the EU that would be their choice also.
No one can pretend that their arrogant, patronising, rude, frankly repulsive attitudes are not infuriating beyond belief but the fact is it is still better to find a compromise, no matter how little interest they show in one.
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 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".
You make a good point. He didn't actually say the market value could be ignored but he did say parliament will set the price. I suspect he is guarding against games playing by the city but I agree we do need to keep an eye on McD.
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.
As a leaver I don’t quite see it that way. Leave won by a relatively small majority. If a route can be found which is leave but acknowledges the view of the 48% then we should go for it, no matter how irritating the Remoaners are being. If subsequent generations choose to move even further from the EU, which they may well do, then that is for them to decide. Conversely, if they choose to get back into bed with the EU that would be their choice also.
No one can pretend that their arrogant, patronising, rude, frankly repulsive attitudes are not infuriating beyond belief but the fact is it is still better to find a compromise, no matter how little interest they show in one.
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.
This comment is not about Brexit as such, but about what a government can & can't do.
Very belatedly, I've been wondering where the business about no parliament being able to bind its successors fits with doing something like joining the EU in the first place.
It's clear now that Sir Edward Heath was fully aware of the ultimate destination when the original referendums were held. Surely his intention was to bind successor parliaments? Just as David Cameron's intention was to bind us more closely.
And if it is so very hard to get out of the EU without severe damage, did parliament have any right to take us in, in the first place? Referendums notwithstanding?
Good evening, everybody.
It is a political failure of gargantuan proportions from the entire “political class” to have taken us in to something, salami slice our way to ever integration over years and years, and then find that a majority of the voters disagreed with them when the direct question was put. All parties are culpable to greater and lesser extents stretching back decades.
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 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".
You make a good point. He didn't actually say the market value could be ignored but he did say parliament will set the price. I suspect he is guarding against games playing by the city but I agree we do need to keep an eye on McD.
He is not trusted on the economy and widescale nationalisation comes a long way down the list from dealing with the NHS and Social care
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.
You are forgetting that this is a situation of expropriation. Normal rules don’t apply.
“Labour stole half your pension”
“No we didn’t because the discount rate is far lower...”
(And I’m very certain that these will not be tradeable anywhere close to par. The only people who will benefit are US hedge funds who hoover them up cheap...)
So you accept that I am describing normal rules. My analysis is sound.
I know all about dishonest slogans and their effectiveness!
If these are gilts they will be tradeable in the normal way.
Yes, but shareholders will receive in gilts about 50% of what their shareholding would be worth "under normal rules". You clearly don't understand that the situation is not normal: you say "Normally infrastructure is seen as less risky so you surprise me". You shouldn't be surprised: the reason infrastructure shares/funds are cheap is precisely fear of the political risk posed by McD. EDIT Sorry posted before seeing your reply to me.
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
' The Liberal Democrats have been fined £18,000 for breaking spending rules in last year's EU referendum.
The Electoral Commission said the party had "failed to deliver a complete and accurate spending return".
Proper receipts and invoices were not provided for 80 payments worth more than £80,000, the watchdog 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.
As a leaver I don’t quite see it that way. Leave won by a relatively small majority. If a route can be found which is leave but acknowledges the view of the 48% then we should go for it, no matter how irritating the Remoaners are being. If subsequent generations choose to move even further from the EU, which they may well do, then that is for them to decide. Conversely, if they choose to get back into bed with the EU that would be their choice also.
No one can pretend that their arrogant, patronising, rude, frankly repulsive attitudes are not infuriating beyond belief but the fact is it is still better to find a compromise, no matter how little interest they show in one.
If a compromise is achievable. One won't find a compromise with people who consider that Brexit is disgusting.
On topic - I listened to the McDonnell interview on R4 this morning.
It is clear that his line (and Starmer's) is to focus on outcomes (frictionless trade that protects the economy and jobs) rather than on the means. But he made it clear that they've got all the options on the table including a custom’s union if necessary to achieve their objective. If a customs union is necessary to achieve their objective, Labour will support it.
Corbyn ruled out the customs union yesterday. Now a customs union is defined as ?????
A spokesperson for Mr Corbyn said: "Jeremy did not say he was open to staying in the customs union. He said that a customs union was a viable end point.
"We have been clear all the way through that you can't be in the customs union if you are not in the EU."
We are back to the difference between "the" and "a". I think McD used "a". I don't know whether it is a real difference or a symbolic difference. Remainers deal in reality. Leavers deal in symbols. I think that might be the way Labour squares the circle. And TMay.
EDIT I think the difference between "a" and "the" is symbolic in order to appeal to the Leavers but not real in order to satisfy the Remains. But shh!
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.
Malta gives citizenship to a small number wealthy people for large sums of cash - we have given it away to a lot of poor people over the last few decades who have nothing.
Which is a more sensible policy?
We give away visas (and hence citizenship) to anyone prepared to invest £200,000 in a private company. It's by far the most generous system in the developed world.
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.
Malta gives citizenship to a small number wealthy people for large sums of cash - we have given it away to a lot of poor people over the last few decades who have nothing.
Which is a more sensible policy?
We give away visas (and hence citizenship) to anyone prepared to invest £200,000 in a private company. It's by far the most generous system in the developed world.
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 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".
You make a good point. He didn't actually say the market value could be ignored but he did say parliament will set the price. I suspect he is guarding against games playing by the city but I agree we do need to keep an eye on McD.
He is not trusted on the economy and widescale nationalisation comes a long way down the list from dealing with the NHS and Social care
On topic - I listened to the McDonnell interview on R4 this morning.
It is clear that his line (and Starmer's) is to focus on outcomes (frictionless trade that protects the economy and jobs) rather than on the means. But he made it clear that they've got all the options on the table including a custom’s union if necessary to achieve their objective. If a customs union is necessary to achieve their objective, Labour will support it.
Corbyn ruled out the customs union yesterday. Now a customs union is defined as ?????
A spokesperson for Mr Corbyn said: "Jeremy did not say he was open to staying in the customs union. He said that a customs union was a viable end point.
"We have been clear all the way through that you can't be in the customs union if you are not in the EU."
We are back to the difference between "the" and "a". I think McD used "a". I don't know whether it is a real difference or a symbolic difference. Remainers deal in reality. Leavers deal in symbols. I think that might be the way Labour squares the circle. And TMay.
Corbyn and McDonnell have no more idea what an 'a' is anymore than the Government but the Government have to make a decision in the next few weeks
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 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".
You make a good point. He didn't actually say the market value could be ignored but he did say parliament will set the price. I suspect he is guarding against games playing by the city but I agree we do need to keep an eye on McD.
He is not trusted on the economy and widescale nationalisation comes a long way down the list from dealing with the NHS and Social care
Rail nationalisation is surprisingly popular.
It is the one thing that many agree on on the basis the franchises are not renewed and McDonnell has agreed that.
However, not sure that it is beyond the conservatives to ensure all the franchises are long enough not to lapse untll after the following GE
On topic - I listened to the McDonnell interview on R4 this morning.
It is clear that his line (and Starmer's) is to focus on outcomes (frictionless trade that protects the economy and jobs) rather than on the means. But he made it clear that they've got all the options on the table including a custom’s union if necessary to achieve their objective. If a customs union is necessary to achieve their objective, Labour will support it.
Corbyn ruled out the customs union yesterday. Now a customs union is defined as ?????
A spokesperson for Mr Corbyn said: "Jeremy did not say he was open to staying in the customs union. He said that a customs union was a viable end point.
"We have been clear all the way through that you can't be in the customs union if you are not in the EU."
We are back to the difference between "the" and "a". I think McD used "a". I don't know whether it is a real difference or a symbolic difference. Remainers deal in reality. Leavers deal in symbols. I think that might be the way Labour squares the circle. And TMay.
Corbyn and McDonnell have no more idea what an 'a' is anymore than the Government but the Government have to make a decision in the next few weeks
I think they'll announce an "a" but deliver a "the".
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.
As a leaver I don’t quite see it that way. Leave won by a relatively small majority. If a route can be found which is leave but acknowledges the view of the 48% then we should go for it, no matter how irritating the Remoaners are being. If subsequent generations choose to move even further from the EU, which they may well do, then that is for them to decide. Conversely, if they choose to get back into bed with the EU that would be their choice also.
No one can pretend that their arrogant, patronising, rude, frankly repulsive attitudes are not infuriating beyond belief but the fact is it is still better to find a compromise, no matter how little interest they show in one.
If a compromise is achievable. One won't find a compromise with people who consider that Brexit is disgusting.
The compromise is to indulge them. To make them think that the EU is actually important or meaningful in the 22nd century. To pretend that what sort of trade deal we do with the EU really will have a meaningful or material impact on our economy. To pretend that what these countries want actually matters a damn and that we should retain a reasonably close relationship with them. It’s farcical but there we are. To keep the country together it is worth a little effort.
If these are gilts they will be tradeable in the normal way.
If people are willing to buy them. Given the scale of economic chaos and the vast amount of borrowing McDonnell is proposing it seems very unlikely that they would be. Why pay money for something that offers a limited chance of low returns?
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 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".
You make a good point. He didn't actually say the market value could be ignored but he did say parliament will set the price. I suspect he is guarding against games playing by the city but I agree we do need to keep an eye on McD.
He is not trusted on the economy and widescale nationalisation comes a long way down the list from dealing with the NHS and Social care
Rail nationalisation is surprisingly popular.
Anything which people thinks takes money from others and gives it to them is popular.
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 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".
You make a good point. He didn't actually say the market value could be ignored but he did say parliament will set the price. I suspect he is guarding against games playing by the city but I agree we do need to keep an eye on McD.
He is not trusted on the economy and widescale nationalisation comes a long way down the list from dealing with the NHS and Social care
Rail nationalisation is surprisingly popular.
1) Most people think it's a good idea but not especially important;
2) I suspect it would not be so popular if the current system was not totally insane, grossly expensive and in crucial ways ineffectual. The model, as much as the principle, is the problem.
I'm sorry, but your analysis is completely flawed. It's difficult to even know where to begin
.
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.
You are forgetting that this is a situation of expropriation. Normal rules don’t apply.
“Labour stole half your pension”
“No we didn’t because the discount rate is far lower...”
(And I’m very certain that these will not be tradeable anywhere close to par. The only people who will benefit are US hedge funds who hoover them up cheap...)
So you accept that I am describing normal rules. My analysis is sound.
I know all about dishonest slogans and their effectiveness!
If these are gilts they will be tradeable in the normal way.
In a normal scenario you are correctly describing how discount rates work, yes. But I don’t think investors will view the forced replacement of an equity investment with a lower yielding piece of paper with equaniminity.
The likely outcome is that, assuming a McDonnell Bond coupon of 3% vs an equity yield of 6% that the bond will immediately fall by more than 50% to (a) replace the lost yield (b) account for risk of further changes and (c) account for low liquidity as these will definitely not be mainstream investments
So our pensions will suffer badly - unless McDonnell acknowledges the real s the theoretical value of the assets and replaces the cash payout on a pound for pound basis
I'm sorry, but your analysis is completely flawed. It's difficult to even know where to begin
.
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.
You are forgetting that this is a situation of expropriation. Normal rules don’t apply.
“Labour stole half your pension”
“No we didn’t because the discount rate is far lower...”
(And I’m very certain that these will not be tradeable anywhere close to par. The only people who will benefit are US hedge funds who hoover them up cheap...)
So you accept that I am describing normal rules. My analysis is sound.
I know all about dishonest slogans and their effectiveness!
If these are gilts they will be tradeable in the normal way.
In a normal scenario you are correctly describing how discount rates work, yes. But I don’t think investors will view the forced replacement of an equity investment with a lower yielding piece of paper with equaniminity.
The likely outcome is that, assuming a McDonnell Bond coupon of 3% vs an equity yield of 6% that the bond will immediately fall by more than 50% to (a) replace the lost yield (b) account for risk of further changes and (c) account for low liquidity as these will definitely not be mainstream investments
So our pensions will suffer badly - unless McDonnell acknowledges the real s the theoretical value of the assets and replaces the cash payout on a pound for pound basis
Should Labour agree to staying in the customs union on a permanent basis,many of the internal divisions would be healed,business would welcome the stability and,as an added bonus,it would split the Tories wide open.Mr Corbyn may consider offering his support,in the national interest,for Mrs May in these difficult times.He could be her best friend.
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.
Malta gives citizenship to a small number wealthy people for large sums of cash - we have given it away to a lot of poor people over the last few decades who have nothing.
Which is a more sensible policy?
We give away visas (and hence citizenship) to anyone prepared to invest £200,000 in a private company. It's by far the most generous system in the developed world.
Thanks for posting this. I was not aware of this appalling fact.
On topic - I listened to the McDonnell interview on R4 this morning.
It is clear that his line (and Starmer's) is to focus on outcomes (frictionless trade that protects the economy and jobs) rather than on the means. But he made it clear that they've got all the options on the table including a custom’s union if necessary to achieve their objective. If a customs union is necessary to achieve their objective, Labour will support it.
Corbyn ruled out the customs union yesterday. Now a customs union is defined as ?????
A spokesperson for Mr Corbyn said: "Jeremy did not say he was open to staying in the customs union. He said that a customs union was a viable end point.
"We have been clear all the way through that you can't be in the customs union if you are not in the EU."
We are back to the difference between "the" and "a". I think McD used "a". I don't know whether it is a real difference or a symbolic difference. Remainers deal in reality. Leavers deal in symbols. I think that might be the way Labour squares the circle. And TMay.
Corbyn and McDonnell have no more idea what an 'a' is anymore than the Government but the Government have to make a decision in the next few weeks
I think they'll announce an "a" but deliver a "the".
The is de facto staying in the EU and neither party is signed up to that. A is the only way
The world's largest intellectual collaboration, wikipedia, has as a cardinal principle: Assume good faith. It works. As a Remainer I am happy to believe that 100% of the Leavers on this site, and the vast majority overall, are decent people who can see perfectly well that Nigel Farage and all his works are horrible, and were not motivated by him to vote the way they did. As things are, it's as if it had transpired that Myra Hindley voted conservative in 1992, and the PB tories were told on a daily basis that they had not adequately atoned for their complicity (great weasel word) in the fact.
We would all get on better if toys could be left in prams.
Well sure that makes total sense, but can we truly expect grown ups to act like grown ups? Too many people enjoy crying and throwing toys too much to stop now. Accepting good faith of people on both sides and not seeking to constantly salve emotional hurt with histrionic displays with what is admitted is no way to satisfy the people making those displays? Only a dream, I fear.
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
That's a statement which seems very likely to be a hostage to fortune, if it is not already.
In a normal scenario you are correctly describing how discount rates work, yes. But I don’t think investors will view the forced replacement of an equity investment with a lower yielding piece of paper with equaniminity.
The likely outcome is that, assuming a McDonnell Bond coupon of 3% vs an equity yield of 6% that the bond will immediately fall by more than 50% to (a) replace the lost yield (b) account for risk of further changes and (c) account for low liquidity as these will definitely not be mainstream investments
So our pensions will suffer badly - unless McDonnell acknowledges the real s the theoretical value of the assets and replaces the cash payout on a pound for pound basis
Which, of course he can't afford. Not financially, not politically. If you have that much cash available, why aren't you spending it on the NHS, Mr. McDonnell?
Should Labour agree to staying in the customs union on a permanent basis,many of the internal divisions would be healed,business would welcome the stability and,as an added bonus,it would split the Tories wide open.Mr Corbyn may consider offering his support,in the national interest,for Mrs May in these difficult times.He could be her best friend.
He ruled it out only yesterday. Labour are using the a word to try to keep both sides happy
@stevef: 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.
------
As a leaver I don’t quite see it that way. Leave won by a relatively small majority. If a route can be found which is leave but acknowledges the view of the 48% then we should go for it, no matter how irritating the Remoaners are being. If subsequent generations choose to move even further from the EU, which they may well do, then that is for them to decide. Conversely, if they choose to get back into bed with the EU that would be their choice also.
No one can pretend that their arrogant, patronising, rude, frankly repulsive attitudes are not infuriating beyond belief but the fact is it is still better to find a compromise, no matter how little interest they show in one.
I can only speak for myself. Now we have voted to leave the EU Leavers need to DELIVER Brexit. By that I mean the outcome needs to be acceptable to the mass of the population. Small short term adjustments are acceptable, providing the subsequent situation is broadly as good it was before. Car crashes described as sunlit uplands aren't acceptable. Leavers appear to have no interest in DELIVERING this benign outcome and are putting no effort into doing so. The government is paralysed by the contradictions of the Leaver manifesto.
I was accused in the last thread of arrogance. I can understand people might think that. In my defence, I don't patronise people. I don't claim solutions are easy when they are not. Nor do I say, it's not about the money, money doesn't matter. It's democracy, so shut up.
No one can pretend that their [Remainers] arrogant, patronising, rude, frankly repulsive attitudes are not infuriating beyond belief but the fact is it is still better to find a compromise, no matter how little interest they show in one.
If you are sincere about that attempt, it would probably be a good idea to phrase that differently.
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.
------
As a leaver I don’t quite see it that way. Leave won by a relatively small majority. If a route can be found which is leave but acknowledges the view of the 48% then we should go for it, no matter how irritating the Remoaners are being. If subsequent generations choose to move even further from the EU, which they may well do, then that is for them to decide. Conversely, if they choose to get back into bed with the EU that would be their choice also.
No one can pretend that their arrogant, patronising, rude, frankly repulsive attitudes are not infuriating beyond belief but the fact is it is still better to find a compromise, no matter how little interest they show in one.
I can only speak for myself. Now we have voted to leave the EU Leavers need to DELIVER Brexit. By that I mean the outcome needs to be acceptable to the mass of the population. Small short term adjustments are acceptable, providing the subsequent situation is broadly as good it was before. Car crashes described as sunlit uplands aren't acceptable. Leavers appear to have no interest in DELIVERING this benign outcome and are putting no effort into doing so. The government is paralysed by the contradictions of the Leaver manifesto.
I was accused in the last thread of arrogance. I can understand people might think that. In my defence, I don't patronise people. I don't claim solutions are easy when they are not. Nor do I say, it's not about the money, money doesn't matter. It's democracy, so shut up.
The ultra Brexiters need dissatisfaction with supposed EU influence over our lives as their comfort blanket. It is therefore a requirement that, whatever outcome is delivered, they will be unhappy with it and still able to blame all of our ills on the EU. That explains your conundrum.
Leavers seem to go out if their way to avoid reaching a consensus with those that didn't back Brexit. It appears " we won, we have licence and to do whatever we want" is the preferred approach , despite prominent leavers like Gove before the vote selling things like the Customs Union.
Tragedy is, I suspect a consensus and healing was possible.
They think the majority of voters were wrong to vote to leave the EU. Many of them were too dumb to realise that they we
------
As a leaver I don’t quite see it that way. Leave won by a relatively small majority. If a route can be found which is leave but acknowledges the view of the 48% then we should go for it, no matter how irritating the Remoaners are being. If subsequent generations choose to move even further from the EU, which they may well do, then that is for them to decide. Conversely, if they choose to get back into bed with the EU that would be their choice also.
No one can pretend that their arrogant, patronising, rude, frankly repulsive attitudes are not infuriating beyond belief but the fact is it is still better to find a compromise, no matter how little interest they show in one.
I can only speak for myself. Now we have voted to leave the EU Leavers need to DELIVER Brexit. By that I mean the outcome needs to be acceptable to the mass of the population. Small short term adjustments are acceptable, providing the subsequent situation is broadly as good it was before. Car crashes described as sunlit uplands aren't acceptable. Leavers appear to have no interest in DELIVERING this benign outcome and are putting no effort into doing so. The government is paralysed by the contradictions of the Leaver manifesto.
I was accused in the last thread of arrogance. I can understand people might think that. In my defence, I don't patronise people. I don't claim solutions are easy when they are not. Nor do I say, it's not about the money, money doesn't matter. It's democracy, so shut up.
The ultra Brexiters need dissatisfaction with supposed EU influence over our lives as their comfort blanket. It is therefore a requirement that, whatever outcome is delivered, they will be unhappy with it and still able to blame all of our ills on the EU. That explains your conundrum.
Almost the exact opposite. I am bored with the gross inadequacies of our political class being excused or blamed on the EU. I want them to be truly accountable.
Leavers seem to go out if their way to avoid reaching a consensus with those that didn't back Brexit. It appears " we won, we have licence and to do whatever we want" is the preferred approach , despite prominent leavers like Gove before the vote selling things like the Customs Union.
Tragedy is, I suspect a consensus and healing was possible.
You might have a better point if Remainer concensus on healing is essentially, not really leaving the EU.
Leavers seem to go out if their way to avoid reaching a consensus with those that didn't back Brexit. It appears " we won, we have licence and to do whatever we want" is the preferred approach , despite prominent leavers like Gove before the vote selling things like the Customs Union.
Tragedy is, I suspect a consensus and healing was possible.
You might have a better point if Remainer concensus on healing is essentially, not really leaving the EU.
I really think the onus is on the Leavers to reach out.
Leavers seem to go out if their way to avoid reaching a consensus with those that didn't back Brexit. It appears " we won, we have licence and to do whatever we want" is the preferred approach , despite prominent leavers like Gove before the vote selling things like the Customs Union.
Tragedy is, I suspect a consensus and healing was possible.
You might have a better point if Remainer concensus on healing is essentially, not really leaving the EU.
I really think the onus is on the Leavers to reach out.
I am happy to reach out to a soft Brexit. I am not willing to reach out to subvert the vote.
Leavers seem to go out if their way to avoid reaching a consensus with those that didn't back Brexit. It appears " we won, we have licence and to do whatever we want" is the preferred approach , despite prominent leavers like Gove before the vote selling things like the Customs Union.
Tragedy is, I suspect a consensus and healing was possible.
You might have a better point if Remainer concensus on healing is essentially, not really leaving the EU.
I really think the onus is on the Leavers to reach out.
I am happy to reach out to a soft Brexit. I am not willing to reach out to subvert the vote.
If the conversation now was the same as it was before the referendum when leavers were talking EEA. customs union and single market access, I really think we would be in a very different situation.
Positions hardened. It's a mess. The onus is still on the leavers to find some kind of consensus.
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 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".
You make a good point. He didn't actually say the market value could be ignored but he did say parliament will set the price. I suspect he is guarding against games playing by the city but I agree we do need to keep an eye on McD.
He is not trusted on the economy and widescale nationalisation comes a long way down the list from dealing with the NHS and Social care
Rail nationalisation is surprisingly popular.
1) Most people think it's a good idea but not especially important;
2) I suspect it would not be so popular if the current system was not totally insane, grossly expensive and in crucial ways ineffectual. The model, as much as the principle, is the problem.
The current system is the worst - apart from all the alternatives.
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.
Malta gives citizenship to a small number wealthy people for large sums of cash - we have given it away to a lot of poor people over the last few decades who have nothing.
Which is a more sensible policy?
We give away visas (and hence citizenship) to anyone prepared to invest £200,000 in a private company. It's by far the most generous system in the developed world.
Thanks for posting this. I was not aware of this appalling fact.
The Germans got quite intended about it a fre years ago.
They think the majority of voters were wrong to vote to leave the EU. Many of them were too dumb to realise that they we
------
As a leaver I don’t quite see it that way. Leave won by a relatively small majority. If a route can be found which is leave but acknowledges the view of the 48% then we should go for it, no matter how irritating the Remoaners are being. If subsequent generations choose to move even further from the EU, which they may well do, then that is for them to decide. Conversely, if they choose to get back into bed with the EU that would be their choice also.
No one can pretend that their arrogant, patronising, rude, frankly repulsive attitudes are not infuriating beyond belief but the fact is it is still better to find a compromise, no matter how little interest they show in one.
I can only speak for myself. Now we have voted to leave the EU Leavers need to DELIVER Brexit. By that I mean the outcome needs to be acceptable to the mass of the population. Small short term adjustments are acceptable, providing the subsequent situation is broadly as good it was before. Car crashes described as sunlit uplands aren't acceptable. Leavers appear to have no interest in DELIVERING this benign outcome and are putting no effort into doing so. The government is paralysed by the contradictions of the Leaver manifesto.
I was accused in the last thread of arrogance. I can understand people might think that. In my defence, I don't patronise people. I don't claim solutions are easy when they are not. Nor do I say, it's not about the money, money doesn't matter. It's democracy, so shut up.
The ultra Brexiters need dissatisfaction with supposed EU influence over our lives as their comfort blanket. It is therefore a requirement that, whatever outcome is delivered, they will be unhappy with it and still able to blame all of our ills on the EU. That explains your conundrum.
Almost the exact opposite. I am bored with the gross inadequacies of our political class being excused or blamed on the EU. I want them to be truly accountable.
+1. This was one of several reasons why I voted Leave.
Leavers seem to go out if their way to avoid reaching a consensus with those that didn't back Brexit. It appears " we won, we have licence and to do whatever we want" is the preferred approach , despite prominent leavers like Gove before the vote selling things like the Customs Union.
Tragedy is, I suspect a consensus and healing was possible.
You might have a better point if Remainer concensus on healing is essentially, not really leaving the EU.
I really think the onus is on the Leavers to reach out.
I am happy to reach out to a soft Brexit. I am not willing to reach out to subvert the vote.
If the conversation now was the same as it was before the referendum when leavers were talking EEA. customs union and single market access, I really think we would be in a very different situation.
Positions hardened. It's a mess. The onus is still on the leavers to find some kind of consensus.
Our government still wants Single Market access. We still want a Customs Union that keeps trade friction to a minimum. Whether we can get it remains to be seen.
What happens if the LDs hold the balance of power after the next election? Will they put Corbyn into Downing Street?
If that is looking like a realistic possibility, you can already imagine the ads saying 'Vote Cable, Get Corbyn'
I somehow can't imagine the LDs going into any formal coalitions for at least a generation. They might do a temporary deal for a year to provide stability. But nothing longer lasting
Basically, a small proportion of Remainers think that 52- 48 is not a majority because they know better. Like a small child who cries when his dummy is taken away at age eight and is told by his parents he needs to face the world without it. "The vote for that was only 2 -1," they say. "A majority of one doesn't count. Anyway. I'm younger than you two so I'll be more affected. And I'm cleverer than you."
Fortunately, most Remainer remain democrats first and Remainers second. Fortunately too, most Labour seats are in the North and Midlands, so the spoilt children of London can sqweam and sqweam for all they're worth.
I think an early night and let them sqweam themselves to sleep should do it.
Leavers seem to go out if their way to avoid reaching a consensus with those that didn't back Brexit. It appears " we won, we have licence and to do whatever we want" is the preferred approach , despite prominent leavers like Gove before the vote selling things like the Customs Union.
Tragedy is, I suspect a consensus and healing was possible.
History will blame Cameron
In resigning he made it inevitable that his replacement would have to pledge themselves to the Brexiteers.
If he had stated on to implement Brexit and then gracefully stepped back history might have been very different
What happens if the LDs hold the balance of power after the next election? Will they put Corbyn into Downing Street?
If that is looking like a realistic possibility, you can already imagine the ads saying 'Vote Cable, Get Corbyn'
I somehow can't imagine the LDs going into any formal coalitions for at least a generation. They might do a temporary deal for a year to provide stability. But nothing longer lasting
Even if it's not looking like a realistic possibility.... ;-)
But they are going to be in a queue, behind the SNP, Plaid Cymru, Sinn Fein.....
EDIT: Would Corbyn put forward legislation to change the oath to allow SF to take their seats?
Anything that shakes up our charity sector and makes them focus on core services rather than being fronts for political campaigns has to be a good thing.
Also, there needs to be a shift in their internal cultures whereby huge salaries are no longer the norm. Working in the charity sector should be adequately rewarded - but choosing to be part of it always used to be motivated by something other than money.
Leavers seem to go out if their way to avoid reaching a consensus with those that didn't back Brexit. It appears " we won, we have licence and to do whatever we want" is the preferred approach , despite prominent leavers like Gove before the vote selling things like the Customs Union.
Tragedy is, I suspect a consensus and healing was possible.
History will blame Cameron
In resigning he made it inevitable that his replacement would have to pledge themselves to the Brexiteers.
If he had stated on to implement Brexit and then gracefully stepped back history might have been very different
Leavers seem to go out if their way to avoid reaching a consensus with those that didn't back Brexit. It appears " we won, we have licence and to do whatever we want" is the preferred approach , despite prominent leavers like Gove before the vote selling things like the Customs Union.
Tragedy is, I suspect a consensus and healing was possible.
History will blame Cameron
In resigning he made it inevitable that his replacement would have to pledge themselves to the Brexiteers.
If he had stated on to implement Brexit and then gracefully stepped back history might have been very different
Getting the legal basis wrong for who has the power to trigger A50 was another critical oversight by Cameron. He never gave any serious thought to losing.
Leavers seem to go out if their way to avoid reaching a consensus with those that didn't back Brexit. It appears " we won, we have licence and to do whatever we want" is the preferred approach , despite prominent leavers like Gove before the vote selling things like the Customs Union.
Tragedy is, I suspect a consensus and healing was possible.
You might have a better point if Remainer concensus on healing is essentially, not really leaving the EU.
I really think the onus is on the Leavers to reach out.
Yes, it is. A big problem with human nature, however, is that those who are greatly in favour of being in the EU have spent a very long time either ignoring or belittling the concerns of those who aren't. Sort of poisoning the well of goodwill, not expecting to need it.
Leavers seem to go out if their way to avoid reaching a consensus with those that didn't back Brexit. It appears " we won, we have licence and to do whatever we want" is the preferred approach , despite prominent leavers like Gove before the vote selling things like the Customs Union.
Tragedy is, I suspect a consensus and healing was possible.
You might have a better point if Remainer concensus on healing is essentially, not really leaving the EU.
I really think the onus is on the Leavers to reach out.
I am happy to reach out to a soft Brexit. I am not willing to reach out to subvert the vote.
If the conversation now was the same as it was before the referendum when leavers were talking EEA. customs union and single market access, I really think we would be in a very different situation.
Positions hardened. It's a mess. The onus is still on the leavers to find some kind of consensus.
The million dollar question is why positions hardened.
People are keen to blame Theresa May and Nick Timothy, but I don't think that's a satisfactory explanation. Ultimately it's driven by the internal logic of Brexit itself.
What happens if the LDs hold the balance of power after the next election? Will they put Corbyn into Downing Street?
If that is looking like a realistic possibility, you can already imagine the ads saying 'Vote Cable, Get Corbyn'
I somehow can't imagine the LDs going into any formal coalitions for at least a generation. They might do a temporary deal for a year to provide stability. But nothing longer lasting
Even if it's not looking like a realistic possibility.... ;-)
But they are going to be in a queue, behind the SNP, Plaid Cymru, Sinn Fein.....
EDIT: Would Corbyn put forward legislation to change the oath to allow SF to take their seats?
Of course he would. And in all honesty, I don't have a problem with that. If they are the elected, they should take their seats. The oath could easily be modified to accommodate differing views.
Leavers seem to go out if their way to avoid reaching a consensus with those that didn't back Brexit. It appears " we won, we have licence and to do whatever we want" is the preferred approach , despite prominent leavers like Gove before the vote selling things like the Customs Union.
Tragedy is, I suspect a consensus and healing was possible.
History will blame Cameron
In resigning he made it inevitable that his replacement would have to pledge themselves to the Brexiteers.
If he had stated on to implement Brexit and then gracefully stepped back history might have been very different
Getting the legal basis wrong for who has the power to trigger A50 was another critical oversight by Cameron. He never gave any serious thought to losing.
Anything that shakes up our charity sector and makes them focus on core services rather than being fronts for political campaigns has to be a good thing.
Also, there needs to be a shift in their internal cultures whereby huge salaries are no longer the norm. Working in the charity sector should be adequately rewarded - but choosing to be part of it always used to be motivated by something other than money.
The pay packets of Motability bosses is incredible...I'm in the wrong game.
What exactly is soft Brexit? Is that the best deal we can negotiate, whatever that is? Or is it membership of the single market and union. That will be on offer only if we remain and accept all the rules of FOM etc.
Does anyone really believe we could have membership of those two things without remaining?
This is a serious question. Can anyone say 'yes' with a straight face?
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.
As a leaver I don’t quite see it that way. Leave won by a relatively small majority. If a route can be found which is leave but acknowledges the view of the 48% then we should go for it, no matter how irritating the Remoaners are being. If subsequent generations choose to move even further from the EU, which they may well do, then that is for them to decide. Conversely, if they choose to get back into bed with the EU that would be their choice also.
No one can pretend that their arrogant, patronising, rude, frankly repulsive attitudes are not infuriating beyond belief but the fact is it is still better to find a compromise, no matter how little interest they show in one.
Well I'm a remainer and I made exactly the same proposal earlier on on this very thread. Sounds like it could be the basis for a successful policy.
Anything that shakes up our charity sector and makes them focus on core services rather than being fronts for political campaigns has to be a good thing.
Also, there needs to be a shift in their internal cultures whereby huge salaries are no longer the norm. Working in the charity sector should be adequately rewarded - but choosing to be part of it always used to be motivated by something other than money.
Our Charity sector is corrupt and self indulgent. Oxfam are not the worst but I am struggling to see how they survive this.
Leavers seem to go out if their way to avoid reaching a consensus with those that didn't back Brexit. It appears " we won, we have licence and to do whatever we want" is the preferred approach , despite prominent leavers like Gove before the vote selling things like the Customs Union.
Tragedy is, I suspect a consensus and healing was possible.
You might have a better point if Remainer concensus on healing is essentially, not really leaving the EU.
I really think the onus is on the Leavers to reach out.
Yes, it is. A big problem with human nature, however, is that those who are greatly in favour of being in the EU have spent a very long time either ignoring or belittling the concerns of those who aren't. Sort of poisoning the well of goodwill, not expecting to need it.
Leavers seem to go out if their way to avoid reaching a consensus with those that didn't back Brexit. It appears " we won, we have licence and to do whatever we want" is the preferred approach , despite prominent leavers like Gove before the vote selling things like the Customs Union.
Tragedy is, I suspect a consensus and healing was possible.
History will blame Cameron
In resigning he made it inevitable that his replacement would have to pledge themselves to the Brexiteers.
If he had stated on to implement Brexit and then gracefully stepped back history might have been very different
Getting the legal basis wrong for who has the power to trigger A50 was another critical oversight by Cameron. He never gave any serious thought to losing.
The best description I heard was “governing by essay crisis” which sums up his style very nicely
Leavers seem to go out if their way to avoid reaching a consensus with those that didn't back Brexit. It appears " we won, we have licence and to do whatever we want" is the preferred approach , despite prominent leavers like Gove before the vote selling things like the Customs Union.
Tragedy is, I suspect a consensus and healing was possible.
History will blame Cameron
In resigning he made it inevitable that his replacement would have to pledge themselves to the Brexiteers.
If he had stated on to implement Brexit and then gracefully stepped back history might have been very different
Getting the legal basis wrong for who has the power to trigger A50 was another critical oversight by Cameron. He never gave any serious thought to losing.
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.
As a leaver I don’t quite see it that way. Leave won by a relatively small majority. If a route can be found which is leave but acknowledges the view of the 48% then we should go for it, no matter how irritating the Remoaners are being. If subsequent generations choose to move even further from the EU, which they may well do, then that is for them to decide. Conversely, if they choose to get back into bed with the EU that would be their choice also.
No one can pretend that their arrogant, patronising, rude, frankly repulsive attitudes are not infuriating beyond belief but the fact is it is still better to find a compromise, no matter how little interest they show in one.
Well I'm a remainer and I made exactly the same proposal earlier on on this very thread. Sounds like it could be the basis for a successful policy.
Agreed. There is still a route forward for the government. Not easy but possible.
Anything that shakes up our charity sector and makes them focus on core services rather than being fronts for political campaigns has to be a good thing.
Also, there needs to be a shift in their internal cultures whereby huge salaries are no longer the norm. Working in the charity sector should be adequately rewarded - but choosing to be part of it always used to be motivated by something other than money.
Our Charity sector is corrupt and self indulgent. Oxfam are not the worst but I am struggling to see how they survive this.
I think Oxfam as a name will continue to exist - but with a complete new set of trustees and management board
Leavers seem to go out if their way to avoid reaching a consensus with those that didn't back Brexit. It appears " we won, we have licence and to do whatever we want" is the preferred approach , despite prominent leavers like Gove before the vote selling things like the Customs Union.
Tragedy is, I suspect a consensus and healing was possible.
You might have a better point if Remainer concensus on healing is essentially, not really leaving the EU.
I really think the onus is on the Leavers to reach out.
Yes, it is. A big problem with human nature, however, is that those who are greatly in favour of being in the EU have spent a very long time either ignoring or belittling the concerns of those who aren't. Sort of poisoning the well of goodwill, not expecting to need it.
Leavers are curiously uninterested in making a success of Brexit. They prefer to set ever higher purity tests and label any non-believers traitors and saboteurs. It's not at all clear what they are trying to achieve.
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.
Leavers seem to go out if their way to avoid reaching a consensus with those that didn't back Brexit. It appears " we won, we have licence and to do whatever we want" is the preferred approach , despite prominent leavers like Gove before the vote selling things like the Customs Union.
Tragedy is, I suspect a consensus and healing was possible.
You might have a better point if Remainer concensus on healing is essentially, not really leaving the EU.
I really think the onus is on the Leavers to reach out.
I am happy to reach out to a soft Brexit. I am not willing to reach out to subvert the vote.
If the conversation now was the same as it was before the referendum when leavers were talking EEA. customs union and single market access, I really think we would be in a very different situation.
Positions hardened. It's a mess. The onus is still on the leavers to find some kind of consensus.
The million dollar question is why positions hardened.
People are keen to blame Theresa May and Nick Timothy, but I don't think that's a satisfactory explanation. Ultimately it's driven by the internal logic of Brexit itself.
It has been driven by the arrogance and delusion of the EU. But there is still time.
Leavers seem to go out if their way to avoid reaching a consensus with those that didn't back Brexit. It appears " we won, we have licence and to do whatever we want" is the preferred approach , despite prominent leavers like Gove before the vote selling things like the Customs Union.
Tragedy is, I suspect a consensus and healing was possible.
History will blame Cameron
In resigning he made it inevitable that his replacement would have to pledge themselves to the Brexiteers.
If he had stated on to implement Brexit and then gracefully stepped back history might have been very different
Getting the legal basis wrong for who has the power to trigger A50 was another critical oversight by Cameron. He never gave any serious thought to losing.
Anything that shakes up our charity sector and makes them focus on core services rather than being fronts for political campaigns has to be a good thing.
Also, there needs to be a shift in their internal cultures whereby huge salaries are no longer the norm. Working in the charity sector should be adequately rewarded - but choosing to be part of it always used to be motivated by something other than money.
Our Charity sector is corrupt and self indulgent. Oxfam are not the worst but I am struggling to see how they survive this.
There will be a bit of musical chairs for the fatcats and Oxfam will keep a low profile for a while.
Consultants will make some easy money and then 'lessons have been learnt' will be declared.
Leavers seem to go out if their way to avoid reaching a consensus with those that didn't back Brexit. It appears " we won, we have licence and to do whatever we want" is the preferred approach , despite prominent leavers like Gove before the vote selling things like the Customs Union.
Tragedy is, I suspect a consensus and healing was possible.
You might have a better point if Remainer concensus on healing is essentially, not really leaving the EU.
I really think the onus is on the Leavers to reach out.
I am happy to reach out to a soft Brexit. I am not willing to reach out to subvert the vote.
If the conversation now was the same as it was before the referendum when leavers were talking EEA. customs union and single market access, I really think we would be in a very different situation.
Positions hardened. It's a mess. The onus is still on the leavers to find some kind of consensus.
The million dollar question is why positions hardened.
People are keen to blame Theresa May and Nick Timothy, but I don't think that's a satisfactory explanation. Ultimately it's driven by the internal logic of Brexit itself.
It has been driven by the arrogance and delusion of the EU. But there is still time.
It arrogantly failed to collapse and deludedly came to a unified position?
Anything that shakes up our charity sector and makes them focus on core services rather than being fronts for political campaigns has to be a good thing.
Also, there needs to be a shift in their internal cultures whereby huge salaries are no longer the norm. Working in the charity sector should be adequately rewarded - but choosing to be part of it always used to be motivated by something other than money.
Our Charity sector is corrupt and self indulgent. Oxfam are not the worst but I am struggling to see how they survive this.
I think Oxfam as a name will continue to exist - but with a complete new set of trustees and management board
Would you give money to it after this? Surely it will be easier to start again.
Leavers seem to go out if their way to avoid reaching a consensus with those that didn't back Brexit. It appears " we won, we have licence and to do whatever we want" is the preferred approach , despite prominent leavers like Gove before the vote selling things like the Customs Union.
Tragedy is, I suspect a consensus and healing was possible.
You might have a better point if Remainer concensus on healing is essentially, not really leaving the EU.
I really think the onus is on the Leavers to reach out.
I am happy to reach out to a soft Brexit. I am not willing to reach out to subvert the vote.
If the conversation now was the same as it was before the referendum when leavers were talking EEA. customs union and single market access, I really think we would be in a very different situation.
Positions hardened. It's a mess. The onus is still on the leavers to find some kind of consensus.
The million dollar question is why positions hardened.
People are keen to blame Theresa May and Nick Timothy, but I don't think that's a satisfactory explanation. Ultimately it's driven by the internal logic of Brexit itself.
It has been driven by the arrogance and delusion of the EU. But there is still time.
It's been driven by the paranoid mania of Leavers purporting to channel the People's Will.
Leavers seem to go out if their way to avoid reaching a consensus with those that didn't back Brexit. It appears " we won, we have licence and to do whatever we want" is the preferred approach , despite prominent leavers like Gove before the vote selling things like the Customs Union.
Tragedy is, I suspect a consensus and healing was possible.
History will blame Cameron
In resigning he made it inevitable that his replacement would have to pledge themselves to the Brexiteers.
If he had stated on to implement Brexit and then gracefully stepped back history might have been very different
Getting the legal basis wrong for who has the power to trigger A50 was another critical oversight by Cameron. He never gave any serious thought to losing.
Neither did the political elite as a whole
The prime minister carries responsibility.
He resigned
He took the quick and easy way out and added to the mess he created.
Leavers seem to go out if their way to avoid reaching a consensus with those that didn't back Brexit. It appears " we won, we have licence and to do whatever we want" is the preferred approach , despite prominent leavers like Gove before the vote selling things like the Customs Union.
Tragedy is, I suspect a consensus and healing was possible.
History will blame Cameron
In resigning he made it inevitable that his replacement would have to pledge themselves to the Brexiteers.
If he had stated on to implement Brexit and then gracefully stepped back history might have been very different
Getting the legal basis wrong for who has the power to trigger A50 was another critical oversight by Cameron. He never gave any serious thought to losing.
What compromise do you think would satisfy the small proportion of Remainers who keep complaining? Remember this would still have to honour the referendum. If the compromise is to re-run the referendum until they win, I wouldn't call that a compromise.
Comments
Which is a more sensible policy?
“Labour stole half your pension”
“No we didn’t because the discount rate is far lower...”
(And I’m very certain that these will not be tradeable anywhere close to par. The only people who will benefit are US hedge funds who hoover them up cheap...)
Very belatedly, I've been wondering where the business about no parliament being able to bind its successors fits with doing something like joining the EU in the first place.
It's clear now that Sir Edward Heath was fully aware of the ultimate destination when the original referendums were held. Surely his intention was to bind successor parliaments? Just as David Cameron's intention was to bind us more closely.
And if it is so very hard to get out of the EU without severe damage, did parliament have any right to take us in, in the first place? Referendums notwithstanding?
Good evening, everybody.
It is clear that his line (and Starmer's) is to focus on outcomes (frictionless trade that protects the economy and jobs) rather than on the means. But he made it clear that they've got all the options on the table including a custom’s union if necessary to achieve their objective. If a customs union is necessary to achieve their objective, Labour will support it.
I know all about dishonest slogans and their effectiveness!
If these are gilts they will be tradeable in the normal way.
No one can pretend that their arrogant, patronising, rude, frankly repulsive attitudes are not infuriating beyond belief but the fact is it is still better to find a compromise, no matter how little interest they show in one.
It’s a huge national screw up.
And the Tories got off scot-free, as usual.
EDIT Sorry posted before seeing your reply to me.
The Electoral Commission said the party had "failed to deliver a complete and accurate spending return".
Proper receipts and invoices were not provided for 80 payments worth more than £80,000, the watchdog said. '
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42411144
So there you have it PBers Mike Smithson thinks that the LibDems are delegitimised.
I really cannot see him winning middle England to get that majority
A spokesperson for Mr Corbyn said: "Jeremy did not say he was open to staying in the customs union. He said that a customs union was a viable end point.
"We have been clear all the way through that you can't be in the customs union if you are not in the EU."
We are back to the difference between "the" and "a". I think McD used "a". I don't know whether it is a real difference or a symbolic difference. Remainers deal in reality. Leavers deal in symbols. I think that might be the way Labour squares the circle. And TMay.
EDIT I think the difference between "a" and "the" is symbolic in order to appeal to the Leavers but not real in order to satisfy the Remains. But shh!
However, not sure that it is beyond the conservatives to ensure all the franchises are long enough not to lapse untll after the following GE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oyu4m8gCog
2) I suspect it would not be so popular if the current system was not totally insane, grossly expensive and in crucial ways ineffectual. The model, as much as the principle, is the problem.
The likely outcome is that, assuming a McDonnell Bond coupon of 3% vs an equity yield of 6% that the bond will immediately fall by more than 50% to (a) replace the lost yield (b) account for risk of further changes and (c) account for low liquidity as these will definitely not be mainstream investments
So our pensions will suffer badly - unless McDonnell acknowledges the real s the theoretical value of the assets and replaces the cash payout on a pound for pound basis
The likely outcome is that, assuming a McDonnell Bond coupon of 3% vs an equity yield of 6% that the bond will immediately fall by more than 50% to (a) replace the lost yield (b) account for risk of further changes and (c) account for low liquidity as these will definitely not be mainstream investments
So our pensions will suffer badly - unless McDonnell acknowledges the real s the theoretical value of the assets and replaces the cash payout on a pound for pound basis
This is very serious for Oxfam
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/this-sick-fantasy-is-plumbing-new-depths-9gvqlmh8v
I was accused in the last thread of arrogance. I can understand people might think that. In my defence, I don't patronise people. I don't claim solutions are easy when they are not. Nor do I say, it's not about the money, money doesn't matter. It's democracy, so shut up.
Knew what they were voting for...
https://twitter.com/jonnywoo34/status/960070246139875329
Knew what they were voting for...
I particularly like, couldn't side with Cameron or Osborne, but Farage was fine...
Tragedy is, I suspect a consensus and healing was possible.
They'll be polishing the anti-aircraft gun in Pyongyang.
Positions hardened. It's a mess. The onus is still on the leavers to find some kind of consensus.
(after Churchill on democracy)
If Man City drop all but 5 of their remaining points, they could still be in contention.
Or maybe Man City could go into administration?
I somehow can't imagine the LDs going into any formal coalitions for at least a generation. They might do a temporary deal for a year to provide stability. But nothing longer lasting
Fortunately, most Remainer remain democrats first and Remainers second. Fortunately too, most Labour seats are in the North and Midlands, so the spoilt children of London can sqweam and sqweam for all they're worth.
I think an early night and let them sqweam themselves to sleep should do it.
In resigning he made it inevitable that his replacement would have to pledge themselves to the Brexiteers.
If he had stated on to implement Brexit and then gracefully stepped back history might have been very different
One fur @david_herdson I think
But they are going to be in a queue, behind the SNP, Plaid Cymru, Sinn Fein.....
EDIT: Would Corbyn put forward legislation to change the oath to allow SF to take their seats?
Also, there needs to be a shift in their internal cultures whereby huge salaries are no longer the norm. Working in the charity sector should be adequately rewarded - but choosing to be part of it always used to be motivated by something other than money.
Heck if Remain had won the ERG mob would have tried to force him out.
People are keen to blame Theresa May and Nick Timothy, but I don't think that's a satisfactory explanation. Ultimately it's driven by the internal logic of Brexit itself.
Does anyone really believe we could have membership of those two things without remaining?
This is a serious question. Can anyone say 'yes' with a straight face?
Consultants will make some easy money and then 'lessons have been learnt' will be declared.
Charles has a good anecdote for that.
What compromise do you think would satisfy the small proportion of Remainers who keep complaining? Remember this would still have to honour the referendum. If the compromise is to re-run the referendum until they win, I wouldn't call that a compromise.