I could see Conservative MPs in safe seats finding the party being out of power right now the best option. Let someone else be in the driving seat when Brexit really hits, spend a few years stabilising the party and then come back with a real majority in 5 years under a leader who actually has the support of their own MPs.
The 'anti reselectionists' (for want of a better name) have really boxed themselves into a corner wherein they are aghast at the very idea of any reselection on principle. The half-sane might like that video, meanwhile the fully sane can recognise that MPs represent a constituency by the consent of the voters, but they represent the Labour party by consent of the party members - and these are two separate sorts of incumbency. A deselection or removal of the whip does not remove an MP from office or prevent them from standing as an independent, and anybody who's informed enough to give a gooseberry fool about this issue already knows that.
It's not a lifetime appointment, and where MPs have drifted from the values or positions of the party, it's entirely appropriate for the local party members to select a different candidate to represent them. Kate Hoey - who has not actually been deselected yet - is a deserving example. The true objection of the 'anti reselectionists' is that they don't much like the politics of the party membership anymore and don't trust them to select candidates. The real dilemma is a much deeper and more interesting one concerning who a party truly belongs to; MPs, party employees, members, or voters?
The 'anti reselectionists' (for want of a better name) have really boxed themselves into a corner wherein they are aghast at the very idea of any reselection on principle. The half-sane might like that video, meanwhile the fully sane can recognise that MPs represent a constituency by the consent of the voters, but they represent the Labour party by consent of the party members - and these are two separate sorts of incumbency. A deselection or removal of the whip does not remove an MP from office or prevent them from standing as an independent, and anybody who's informed enough to give a gooseberry fool about this issue already knows that.
It's not a lifetime appointment, and where MPs have drifted from the values or positions of the party, it's entirely appropriate for the local party members to select a different candidate to represent them. Kate Hoey - who has not actually been deselected yet - is a deserving example. The true objection of the 'anti reselectionists' is that they don't much like the politics of the party membership anymore and don't trust them to select candidates. The real dilemma is a much deeper and more interesting one concerning who a party truly belongs to; MPs, party employees, members, or voters?
I very much doubt Kate Hoey represents her constituency.
Hexx wrote:Can someone explain McDonnell's share plan to me?
Because I've read 3 bits on it and I still don't get it :S
Is this instead of shares once nationalization occurs? Or as well as those shares being bought?
They'd be a pot of shares owned by the workers and the profits made from those shares would be given a share of the profits made from those shares.
Does the second half of that make sense? :S
Yeah but is that for workers giving up (with/without compensation?) existing shares? Or is this pot in addition to that?
There's also something...insidious feeling...about the entire plan being sold as "£500 for a worker" when it's "£500 for a worker, the rest to the state". Why the smoke and mirrors? Why not just put up corporation tax?.
Edit - Also the 1% per annum buy back. That's quite a bit for some companies. Especially if a company is barely profitable...or loss making...and need investing/restructuring.
Hexx wrote:Can someone explain McDonnell's share plan to me?
Because I've read 3 bits on it and I still don't get it :S
Is this instead of shares once nationalization occurs? Or as well as those shares being bought?
They'd be a pot of shares owned by the workers and the profits made from those shares would be given a share of the profits made from those shares.
Does the second half of that make sense? :S
Yeah but is that for workers giving up (with/without compensation?) existing shares? Or is this pot in addition to that?
There's also something...insidious feeling...about the entire plan being sold as "£500 for a worker" when it's "£500 for a worker, the rest to the state". Why the smoke and mirrors? Why not just put up corporation tax?.
Edit - Also the 1% per annum buy back. That's quite a bit for some companies. Especially if a company is barely profitable...or loss making...and need investing/restructuring.
My guess would be
on top of,
new taxes are unpopular, but I agree that the money should be given to the workers, with maybe a small amount paying for extra management costs.
I'm guessing it wouldn't matter too much in the case of a company losing money as they just wouldn't pay anything out. Although it may put off would be investors as they wouldn't make as much money if they made the company profitable.
EDIT: they do something like this in Germany, so it might actually be quite a good idea.
Labour says it would scrap laws allowing private landlords to evict tenants without giving a reason.
The law, in force since 1988, is thought to be the biggest cause of homelessness.
Labour's shadow housing minister John Healey will announce the policy at the party's conference later.
He will also unveil plans for a £20m fund to set up "renters unions" to support tenants in disputes with landlords.
So-called "no-fault" evictions - when landlords throw people out of their home without saying why - have been growing in recent years.
Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research found 80% of private-sector evictions in 2015 fell into this category.
The party's policies include:
- Reversing cuts to legal aid for housing related cases - Introducing three-year tenancies - Banning letting agent fees - New minimum legal standards to ensure homes are "fit for human habitation" - Giving cities the power to introduce rent controls
In his speech to the Labour faithful in Liverpool, Mr Healey will say: "Tenants who rent from private landlords have been hit hard by the housing crisis.
"Labour's commitment is clear: we'll give renters new rights to control rental costs, improve conditions and increase security.
"Renters' unions help put power in the hands of tenants.
"And the next Labour government will fund set-up costs for these unions across the country to support renters to defend their rights, and make the housing market fairer."
Water bosses to be replaced by people on much lower salaries under Labour's public ownership plans
The Labour press release about John McDonnell’s plans to bring the water industry into public ownership says that senior executives could be sacked, and replaced by people on much lower salaries. It says:
"All staff will transfer on a TUPE basis in the same roles, except for senior executives and directors, whose posts will be re-advertised on dramatically reduced salaries capped by our 20:1 pay ratio policy"
Preezy wrote:This all sounds a bit crazy to be honest.
Labour will transfer ownership of the existing water and sewerage companies to new regional water authorities (RWAs). There will be a clear separation between the oversight and strategic governance – which will be the responsibility of the boards of the RWAs (made up from councillors, worker representatives and representatives of community, consumer and environmental interests) – and day-to-day operational management – which will be in the hands of professional management and the wider workforce. RWA boards will have a statutory duty to disseminate information and hold monthly public meetings in different locations each month. Meetings will also be broadcast live on the internet, and all papers will be made public.
We are simultaneously launching a launching a wide-ranging consultation within the Labour Party, trade union membership, campaign groups and industry experts to help us design governance structures for public utilities that will maximise democratic participation and accountability. The final governance structures for the publicly owned water system are subject to the outcome of this consultation.
Existing shareholders will be compensated with bonds. The UK legal framework is clear that the level of compensation should be decided by Parliament. This was confirmed by the ECHR in relation to the nationalisation of Northern Rock.
The new public companies’ financial management will be modelled on TfL –they will continue to be almost completely self-financing from user charges and debt raised subject to an authorised limit based on recurring annual income and cash available to pay financing costs. In March 2017, TfL had ratings of AA from S&P, and Aa3 from Moodys – much higher than any of the private water companies, and close to the rating of the UK government itself. All staff will transfer on a TUPE basis in the same roles, except for senior executives and directors, whose posts will be re-advertised on dramatically reduced salaries capped by our 20:1 pay ratio policy.
