Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Time to explore the allegation then and see what there is to substantiate it.

But not by a Parliamentary Select Committee which will be the usual bunch of 2nd raters throwing out sound bites to get themselves on TV

I meant you come up with something so we can debate it.

The allegation is that he sold a struggling part of his business to a 3rd party when due diligence would have shown that the 3rd party did not have the financing or expertise to turn the business around.

Point two is whether this is sharp practice or illegal? I would argue illegal and expect the pensions regulator to get their pound of flesh.

There is a lot of other crap going on at the moment but this has all the ingredients for a rip roaring blockbuster of a financial scandal with some major financial and legal names representing Arcadia in the takeover

I'm sure if it was illegal then action will be taken.

But not sure why you think sellers need to do due dlilgence on the buyers. Beyond checking they were good for the money which was not going to be hard to come by in that case. Even if they thought they wouldn't make a good job of turning it around, it was neither illegal nor immoral to sell it to them.

Becuase offloading a debt laden subsidiary to a shell company is immoral and depending on the technicalities quite possibly illegal

No it isn't.

1. If you have been involved in major business acquisitions you will know that the buyer willl almost always do extensive due diligence with access to the books and records, unless it is a hostile takeover which was not the case here. The buyers had a very good opportunity to assess what they were buying. Caveat emptor.

2. You get what you pay for. Green gave it away for nothing. (The £1 price was a legal technicality)

3. Let's take a more personal example. If I have a car and I am selling it to someone, it isn't my responsibility to check if the buyer is a good driver. Same principle applies here.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Time to explore the allegation then and see what there is to substantiate it.

But not by a Parliamentary Select Committee which will be the usual bunch of 2nd raters throwing out sound bites to get themselves on TV

I meant you come up with something so we can debate it.

The allegation is that he sold a struggling part of his business to a 3rd party when due diligence would have shown that the 3rd party did not have the financing or expertise to turn the business around.

Point two is whether this is sharp practice or illegal? I would argue illegal and expect the pensions regulator to get their pound of flesh.

There is a lot of other crap going on at the moment but this has all the ingredients for a rip roaring blockbuster of a financial scandal with some major financial and legal names representing Arcadia in the takeover

I'm sure if it was illegal then action will be taken.

But not sure why you think sellers need to do due dlilgence on the buyers. Beyond checking they were good for the money which was not going to be hard to come by in that case. Even if they thought they wouldn't make a good job of turning it around, it was neither illegal nor immoral to sell it to them.

Becuase offloading a debt laden subsidiary to a shell company is immoral and depending on the technicalities quite possibly illegal

No it isn't.

1. If you have been involved in major business acquisitions you will know that the buyer willl almost always do extensive due diligence with access to the books and records, unless it is a hostile takeover which was not the case here. The buyers had a very good opportunity to assess what they were buying. Caveat emptor.

2. You get what you pay for. Green gave it away for nothing. (The £1 price was a legal technicality)

3. Let's take a more personal example. If I have a car and I am selling it to someone, it isn't my responsibility to check if the buyer is a good driver. Same principle applies here.

We will have to agree to disagree - it will be interesting to see how it all pans out.

surrey_commuter

PBlakeney wrote:

Unfortunately there is nothing illegal about selling a pig in a poke, no matter how immoral.
Buyer beware. Speeches will be made, rants will be had, actions there will be none.

But the buyer had nothing to beware - they had no skin in the game.

The people who lost out were pension fund members and landlords

pblakeney

Surrey Commuter wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Unfortunately there is nothing illegal about selling a pig in a poke, no matter how immoral.
Buyer beware. Speeches will be made, rants will be had, actions there will be none.

But the buyer had nothing to beware - they had no skin in the game.

The people who lost out were pension fund members and landlords

Again, the law is at fault, and needs to be changed.
Now who is going to do that? Not the current lot.

mr_goo

I note that you all seem to have shied away from the Anti Semetic suspensions that occurred after Red Ken's.
Labour are going to get mullered at local elections. And good job too. If you have a number of councillors, MPs and political advisors who are from a certain religion that is at odds with Israel and sympathetic to the Palestine situation, then you are going to be continually putting out fires.
However to me it just proves that Labour vetting is seemingly poor in order to recruit from this religious demographic of the population.

surrey_commuter

Mr Goo wrote:

I note that you all seem to have shied away from the Anti Semetic suspensions that occurred after Red Ken's.
Labour are going to get mullered at local elections. And good job too. If you have a number of councillors, MPs and political advisors who are from a certain religion that is at odds with Israel and sympathetic to the Palestine situation, then you are going to be continually putting out fires.
However to me it just proves that Labour vetting is seemingly poor in order to recruit from this religious demographic of the population.

the die hard supporters who are the ones who turn out to vote in council elections will not be put off by anti-semitism. I really doubt it is an issue outside of the chattering classes.

Stevo_666

Mr Goo wrote:

I note that you all seem to have shied away from the Anti Semetic suspensions that occurred after Red Ken's.
Labour are going to get mullered at local elections. And good job too. If you have a number of councillors, MPs and political advisors who are from a certain religion that is at odds with Israel and sympathetic to the Palestine situation, then you are going to be continually putting out fires.
However to me it just proves that Labour vetting is seemingly poor in order to recruit from this religious demographic of the population.

Labour are forecast to get a pasting in this weeks council elections, though not sure whether the anti-Semitism row will have any bearing on that. It will be more down to their policies and the people in charge of the party

End of this week should be fun watching the tired old 'it's all down to the evil tory press' type excuses getting trotted out on here, even though the press have been majoring on the EU referendum and (in London anyway) the mayoral election.

mamba80

Mr Goo wrote:

I note that you all seem to have shied away from the Anti Semetic suspensions that occurred after Red Ken's.
Labour are going to get mullered at local elections. And good job too. If you have a number of councillors, MPs and political advisors who are from a certain religion that is at odds with Israel and sympathetic to the Palestine situation, then you are going to be continually putting out fires.
However to me it just proves that Labour vetting is seemingly poor in order to recruit from this religious demographic of the population.

Fairly obvious Labour have been courting the Asian/Muslim vote for years, so if Labour now have to ditch them and the loss of local councillors and national MPs, who will the Muslim voters turn too? what you seem to want is that the Muslims no longer have the option to be represented (under the umbrella) of a mainstream political party?
As we cannot turn the clock back 50 years, it maybe a case of better in the tent p1ssing than outside.......

to me its nothing to do with Labours vetting, your going to struggle to find anyone pro Israeli and anti Palestinian amongst the Muslim community, let alone those who are politically active.

bompington

mamba80 wrote:

your going to struggle to find anyone pro Israeli and anti Palestinian amongst the Muslim community, let alone those who are politically active.

Sorry, who exactly is looking for this? There is space on the spectrum between "pro-Israeli" and rabidly anti-semitic.

Stevo_666

No surprise there that Labour disappointed - mid term elections usually see the opposition make big gains. So either Labour are doing it wrong or the Tories are doing things better than some people on here make out. Or both.

And in the words of a Labour cabinet minister, Labour 'are not credible':
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/06/uk-local-elections-results-2016-labour-suffers-meltdown-in-scotl/

The Tory success in Scotland was maybe a bit of a surprise, but maybe the start of something good up there.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Labour are forecast to get a pasting in this weeks council elections, though not sure whether the anti-Semitism row will have any bearing on that. It will be more down to their policies and the people in charge of the party

End of this week should be fun watching the tired old 'it's all down to the evil tory press' type excuses getting trotted out on here, even though the press have been majoring on the EU referendum and (in London anyway) the mayoral election.

well, they didnt, they kept all of their councils, also, their overall share of the vote even went up! they even won in London against Zak Goldsmith - i agree they are not where they need to be, but only one year into a purely tory government and with another 4 years of cameron to screw things up even further...... i think, much like the USA elections, 2020 is going to prove to be very hard to predict this far out.

Stevo_666

Stevo 666 wrote:

Mid term elections usually see the opposition make big gains.

Read this bit again

arthur_scrimshaw

If we went to the country next week Labour wouldn't win, I can't see a different result by the next election either. What would be interesting is if the Country votes to leave the EU, both Cameron and Osbourne would be in a very difficult situation. Cameron's weakness in offering the referendum to appease the Europhobic Conservatives would have blown up in his face. I'm pretty sure Boris Johnson saw this as his big chance at the leadership, if the Country decides on exit, Cameron and Osbourne would be screwed?

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Mid term elections usually see the opposition make big gains.

Read this bit again

Yup.

Labour need a 13% swing in the national vote to be elected next election.


Biiiiiig.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Mid term elections usually see the opposition make big gains.

Read this bit again

Unless my math fails me, we are no where nr mid term........ not even one year in yet :shock:

yes Labours M.Foot made large local council gains but there is only one vote that really counts....

why do you think ZakG lost to Labours Mr Khan ? wasnt the swing to Khan and the assembly well over 13% ?

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Mid term elections usually see the opposition make big gains.

Read this bit again

Unless my math fails me, we are no where nr mid term........ not even one year in yet :shock:

yes Labours M.Foot made large local council gains but there is only one vote that really counts....

why do you think ZakG lost to Labours Mr Khan ? wasnt the swing to Khan and the assembly well over 13% ?

Mid term is any of the years outside of GE year.

Not too worried about the mayoral vote. IMO Goldsmith didn't have the character or presence of Boris to swing it.

Yep only.one vote that counts and Corbyn does not look remotely like appealing to those who he has not already got supporting him - the far left, the die hard traditional labour core who would vote for a hat stand if it had a red rosette on it and those who tho think they will get bigger handouts from him.

What do you think of the Scottish result?

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Not too worried about the mayoral vote. IMO Goldsmith didn't have the character or presence of Boris to swing it.

What do you think of the Scottish result?

Influence and in terms of UK projection abroad, Khan will have a whole lot more power than the Con's in Scotland ever will, be interesting to see how he performs?
Zak and the Tories seemed to have screwed up with tarring Khan as a Islamic extremist supporter.

Scotland? well, i am surprised but perhaps Labour have such a bad rep north of the border that the only alternative is the Conservatives, which tbh, do distance themselves from the English version... much like Khan did in the Mayoral elections too!
there might be a lesson for all of us there!

Stevo_666

It's not often that I agree with the Guardian, but here I do:
http://www.theguardian.com/global/commentisfree/2016/may/08/jeremy-corbyn-local-election-results-labour-leadership

In their own words 'awful for Labour'. And they point out that Corbyn is the first opposition leader to lose council seats in their first electoral test in over half a century. So worse than that famous loser Michael Foot.

Keep going Jezza !

tangled_metal

I'm probably wrong about this but I always think London is more likely to return a Labour mayor. I actually found it a surprise when Boris first got it and retained it. So I think the only way the Tories can win it is with a big personality like Boris. Zak just isn't that by a mile. So it would have taken something big for Khan to lose it. Backing Corbyn and Ken perhaps might have done it. He distanced himself and even criticised their handling of the anti-semitism situation.

Tories in Scotland a surprise but unimportant. It's a system designed to promote compromise / cooperation by preventing a single party gain too much power, but SNP is a few seats shy of that. So no big deal for Westminster politics. London mayoral vote was London issue no matter what the budget the position has or its supposed international image. Welsh assembly, Labour biggest party not a surprise. Ukip got seats, well regional vote system favours their high vote spread around so as to never win first past the post elections.

So forgive me for being bored with it all since it's got no relevance to predicting future GEs. Corbyn's not in danger, Cameron didn't lose big and Ukip never did that much. Lib dems did not lose any more indeed they gained a few councillors which perhaps means they've passed rock bottom. I.hope so because we need them as a third option capable of competing in Labour and Tory areas.

morstar

All that has been proven is that we are no longer a two and a few bits of parties, electoral system.
SNP, Lib Dem & Ukip + others are now claiming sizeable vote share and completely inconsistent representation.
FPTP is no longer fit for purpose. Labour will come round to that way of thinking very shortly which just leaves the Tories who currently have no reason to face this reality.
Shared power has some challenges but should provide more consistency than absurd lurches between ideologies.
Surely that is the key message the voters are sending.

ddraver

morstar wrote:

All that has been proven is that we are no longer a two and a few bits of parties, electoral system.
SNP, Lib Dem & Ukip + others are now claiming sizeable vote share and completely inconsistent representation.
FPTP is no longer fit for purpose. Labour will come round to that way of thinking very shortly which just leaves the Tories who currently have no reason to face this reality.
Shared power has some challenges but should provide more consistency than absurd lurches between ideologies.
Surely that is the key message the voters are sending.

**Applause**

Stevo_666

morstar wrote:

All that has been proven is that we are no longer a two and a few bits of parties, electoral system.
SNP, Lib Dem & Ukip + others are now claiming sizeable vote share and completely inconsistent representation.
FPTP is no longer fit for purpose. Labour will come round to that way of thinking very shortly which just leaves the Tories who currently have no reason to face this reality.
Shared power has some challenges but should provide more consistency than absurd lurches between ideologies.
Surely that is the key message the voters are sending.

I reckon Labour will hold onto the idea that FPFT is their chance of power, even if that's unlikely in reality while Corbyn is in charge of them.

That said, not sure I like the idea of the cross party paralysis that would likely result from PR.

ddraver

The last term was "cross party" and gave us 5 years of relatively rather sensible political discussion once the political media had grown up a bit. More of that might make people like me take an interest again (when I'm back at home)...

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

morstar wrote:

All that has been proven is that we are no longer a two and a few bits of parties, electoral system.
SNP, Lib Dem & Ukip + others are now claiming sizeable vote share and completely inconsistent representation.
FPTP is no longer fit for purpose. Labour will come round to that way of thinking very shortly which just leaves the Tories who currently have no reason to face this reality.
Shared power has some challenges but should provide more consistency than absurd lurches between ideologies.
Surely that is the key message the voters are sending.

I reckon Labour will hold onto the idea that FPFT is their chance of power, even if that's unlikely in reality while Corbyn is in charge of them.

That said, not sure I like the idea of the cross party paralysis that would likely result from PR.

there are talented people in many different parties and PR hasnt held Germany back has it?

just needs a mindset change.

ballysmate

Coalitions eh?
these images frightened the UK electorate to death. The Libdem vote collapsed because they had 'sold out' and gone into coalition.

Look at the results from the last election.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

Tories and UKIP could manage 49.5%, 49.9% with Ulster Unionists, perhaps 50% when allowing for figures being rounded off. What price Farage's support, Foreign Sec perhaps?

Other permutations from the left are, shall we say, interesting.

mamba80

well, with a narrow minded view like that Bally, it ll never happen

PR may or may not bring about a coalition Government but one thing is for certain, the present continual voter apathy and minority Governments leads to some pretty disastrous decision making.

The FPTP system condemns anyone who doesnt support the Tories or Labour as irrelevant, is that democracy?

bompington

mamba80 wrote:

The FPTP system condemns anyone who doesnt support the Tories or Labour as irrelevant, is that democracy?

Not really. It means that the big parties (unless, like Labour currently, they have a deathwish) have to play for the middle ground: so those who would vote for the "centre" parties are actually influencing the big two.
With PR, you run the risk that more extreme parties are the ones doing the influencing. Famously Israeli politics often requires corralling a coalition of small and weird parties, but, to stay a bit closer to home, in Scotland just now the Nats have just lost their majority and would mostly likely call on the Greens to get a majority. Now you could argue that the Greens aren't that extreme, but on any realistic scale, they are left, not right, of the SNP*, which is actually quite centrist and managerial, so they would run a mile from most of the Greens' social and economic policies. But the only thing that really matters to the Nats is, of course, independence, which the Greens agree on, so if there was a coalition (which actually there isn't), there would likely be a built-in leftward drag on other areas of policy.

Now you may or may not think this is a good thing, or you may not give a monkey's about Scottish politics, but these are the kinds of complications that you get with PR. The Germans and others seem to work it pretty well, but there is the obvious counter-example of Italy: or you could look at Spain or Belgium, who have both had long periods failing to form a government - but it doesn't seem to have made things any worse, at least.
How well it works in Scotland is not really clear yet, and around the world the scoreboard looks quite mixed. The Tory - lib coalition worked better than most people expected, but the way the lib dems got trashed doesn't exactly bode well for the future of coalition government in the UK.

Pros and cons, really.


* the Scottish spectrum probably runs something like Green - Labour - Lib dem - SNP - Tory at the mo. The Lib dems might be a more natural coalition fit for the Nats but there's this one big thing they disagree on... the SNP would hop into bed with anyone if they thought it might lead to independence.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

morstar wrote:

All that has been proven is that we are no longer a two and a few bits of parties, electoral system.
SNP, Lib Dem & Ukip + others are now claiming sizeable vote share and completely inconsistent representation.
FPTP is no longer fit for purpose. Labour will come round to that way of thinking very shortly which just leaves the Tories who currently have no reason to face this reality.
Shared power has some challenges but should provide more consistency than absurd lurches between ideologies.
Surely that is the key message the voters are sending.

I reckon Labour will hold onto the idea that FPFT is their chance of power, even if that's unlikely in reality while Corbyn is in charge of them.

That said, not sure I like the idea of the cross party paralysis that would likely result from PR.

there are talented people in many different parties and PR hasnt held Germany back has it?

just needs a mindset change.

Depends how well German might have done without it. I was thinking more of Italy. We can all choose our examples but in the end it won't happen for a long time, if at all.

tangled_metal

Every country is different. At the end of the day we'll all just be guessing what PR will be like for the UK general election. Once down that path unlikely to go back so best be sure it's right for the UK. I'm sure you don't want to see the likes of uup or Ukip with too much.power in a Tory "led" coalition. Tail wagging the dog anyone? Or Labour jumping left...oh sorry they've done that themselves. SNP might bring them back to centre.

Stevo_666

I think the supporters of PR on here are mainly driven by the main thought that they don't want the Tories in charge, without really thinking through what a mess PR could be with parties like UKIP, SNP etc potentially holding the balance of power. No thanks.