Jump to content

Red Flag !


observer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Seems the Shadow Chancellor intends to embark on a nationalisation fest, when he gets to No11;  and the nationalisation programme won't cost the tax-payer a bean.  So presumably he's going to nationalise private sector companies WITHOUT compensation - I'll believe it when I see it.        :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure they have given some thought to the fact that many of the shareholders of these private companies are pension funds, which provide the pensions of ordinary working people, and not fat cat millionaires swilling champagne and smoking cigars on their off-shore tax havens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expect that the Pension Funds wouldn't mind that much because the proposal is for the comrades to decide the value of energy companies and compensate their owners in gilts, i.e. by printing money! That is why the idiots think it will cost nothing!

Of the big 5 energy companies all  but one are owned by EU energy companies with some of their shares owned by their respective states. Their owners will not see UK gilts as a suitable substitutes in their investment portfolios.

In my view there is no evidence that the Labour Shadow Cabinet have thought this through whilst considering in any way the effect on the public. What foreigners will see is the UK government failing the follow the rule of law and the effect on overseas investor confidence will be catastrophic. That loss of confidence is why McDonnell expects a run on the pound and is right to do so. Expect a far bigger loss of jobs and GDP than Brexit could ever summon up.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that's correct Obs. So they find themselves between a rock and a hard place, scupper Brexit and not be able to nationalise anything, or accept Brexit and destroy the economy. Decisions, decisions!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems Jeremy is qualifying the position, by suggesting the nationalisation of the smaller distribution network; but cost estimates to the tax-payer are still in the region of £135billion. Whilst personally, I don't object to the idea, I find it difficult to believe it can be accomplished at zero cost, unless of course the Gov nationalise "without compensation", which frankly I can't see our current batch of MPs having the nerve to do.      :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surprised also, that Jeremy hasn't locked onto the latest idea being floated, that everyone under 55 be given £10,000pa as the social wage (why under 55 I don't know);  but as the Plebs tend to spend their money, this would create demand, thus creating jobs, thus keeping the whole economic merry go round turning.      :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... and the latest allegation is that Jeremy had meeting with a Communist Czech spy during the cold war period - birds of a feather etc. But what secrets a marginalised back-bench MP would be able to divulge, I don't know !    Think the Press may be in for a shock if he gets into No10.     :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The latest allegations relate to a CIA file on his activities in the Americas from Guido Fawkes who also has the Stasi file of the Labour Party group he was associated with in the 80's.

I recall hearing about the Anglo-American Loan Agreement after WW2 which John Maynard Keynes negotiated but Congress tried to veto because there was a Socialist government led by Attlee. That loan was only rescued by the personal involvement by Winston Churchill essentially vouching for the Labour Government. What will happen to US policy towards the UK with Corbyn as PM and Trump as President is truly worrying but since the Labour Politburo hates America they just will not care until the money runs out.

In a nutshell what Corbyn will do to the press if he gets into power is the least of our worries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US establishment is even further left wing than the UK's which is why they were so desperate to have Killery elected and to have Trump impeached. They will probably welcome Corbyn with open arms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Asp I sort of see why you think that and what you say about the Establishment and I guess you are also thinking of the press and broadcasters who do strongly lean towards the democrats. However the party divide in the US is significantly different from the UK. As an example the highly democrat leaning New York Times described Corbyn thus "Mr. Corbyn, a 67-year-old hard-left politician".

The BBC hardly ever describes anyone as Hard Left. If you consider the lifestyle, beliefs and behaviour of the Clintons or most prominent Democrats with those of Corbyn the difference is stark. The premise behind the Russian interference complaint by the Democrats is that a Republican would cause less trouble to Putin than Democratic Hillary! Does anybody think Corbyn would cause trouble for Putin!

Folks like Soros are strong democratic party supporter but agitate against foreign regimes that are totalitarian in nature. I find American politics confusing at times but it is much more  driven by racial and subsidy issues as well as constant legal struggles over the separation between States and Federal power. Their electoral system is pretty much designed to give deadlock between President and Congress as a matter of principle, which means the differences are exaggerated in importance beyond what an impartial observer would see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be careful Confused, when I suggested on here a couple of weeks ago that the media describe people as being far right but rarely far left I was hit by a mountain of links to news media that did just that :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However a dear reader found a few examples going back in time just to prove a point, indeed I think one of them was from the New York times which was part of my own argument. Sites such as "Is the BBC biased" have loads of evidence that you were right at least as regards the BBC and I cited the BBC explicitly for that very reason. However I thank you for you kind concern.

The BBC has a generic problem about describing organisations and things. There used to be a list which said how organisations should be described, it was referred to in the journalism course. People who had seen it said that it correctly described say the Institute for Public Policy Research as left leaning and the Centre for Policy Studies as right leaning. Over time in on-air references the IPPR seems to have morphed into the "respected think tank, the IPPR" whilst the CPS is still "the right leaning think tank ..". Just saying...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find amusing is their usual reference to "right wing", " populism",  when I thought the essence of a democracy was for a political Party to be exactly that - "popular", in order to glean majority support.    Or is it the case that we're the subjects of a liberal elite, that now monopolises the levers of power, including the BBC ?      :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the BBC is that, although it sees itself as unbiased, it actually has a left leaning worldview such that anyone who is actually middle of the road politically is seen as right wing. This has the knock on affect that anyone who is right wing is seen as extreme, and anyone on the left is seen as neutral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...