EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

You get the same hostile towards business interpretation of labour policies from the FT, the economist and Bloomberg. All three say Labour currently offers brexit plus an ill-considered economic plans (e.g. The employee share ownership policy) plus a leadership that is more interested in foreign affairs than domestic policies.

Well, that's a fair spread of opinion from right to right.

The economist certainly is not right. On media bias/fact check they are all rated at least biased with high factual reporting.

You said labour is not hostile towards business but that is not how papers who write about business see it.

Zena Brabazon was one of the left-wing candidates who helped to get rid of Kober though, so I don't think this is a Momentum split issue, I think it's over personalities or local policy. Brabazon was definitely on the right side when it came to the HDV, along with most of the non-cabinet Labour members, and nearly everyone elsenin Haringey.

It’s wild how these magazines and newspapers for rich people, run by rich people, seem to be 100% against things that make rich people less rich.

The economist certainly is not right

Economically liberal which in some shorthand is referred to as right.

Presumably the HDV became ultra-toxic post Grenfell?

Or was it always that way? Usually with these things it's only the immediately affected who don't like the sound of their homes being demolished (funny that), most 'normal' folks will tell you they don't like the sound of it but are hardly likely to die in a ditch to stop it. It's interesting that in this case more seem to have mobilised against it.

In the 17 elections where the Economist has backed a party at a General Election they have backed the Tories 13 times, Labour 3 times and the Lib Dems once (at the last election). They backed Harold Wilson in 64, Blair in 2001 and 2005. As did Rupert Murdoch, that well known critic of capitalism.
The notion that it is not a right wing magazine is risible. The sort of nonsense that saw Ed Miliband portrayed as a dangerous radical.

Also wondering how an employee share ownership policy is hostile to business?

It's both equity and control, so it's fairly easy to see how that's a potential risk.

Some risks are worth taking, of course, but this one might have to be implemented alongside capital controls to stop businesses re-headquartering somewhere that they don't have to run it.

I guess the institutional racism of the Labour Party is too ingrained...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2019/feb/18/angela-smith-funny-tinge-racism-debate-video

Except that the policy suggested that the benefit of the equity goes to to the state, not the employees. So you suggest transfer of equity to the state and simultaneous capital controls. Keep in mind that there are nearly 6 m businesses in the UK, so you are not just scaring a few rich people.

BBC accidentally broadcasts sweary voiceover as Labour MPs resign

The policy is only for companies with 250+ people. With a max 10% of company shares. And employees get a flat rate dividend as well as representation on the companies board. This all sounds like a pretty good idea.

Also Germany and other places have had this system in place for years.

Sorry, backtracking

I actually think it is possible for people to change and that sometimes it's an overreaction to hold people to what they were like when they were much younger. But, he has always struck me as a chancer and opportunist.

+
I think it would not be unreasonable to say that some of the most mature, well-rounded, insightful people who may have the utmost integrity are exactly that because of having lived and dealt with the consequence of real life experience from 'mistakes', or a 'colourful' past. Yes, people can and do change if they have the right heart and these are far more likely to have a better, more resilient character.

I always find it concerning that there are young people harbouring career ambition as politicians and spending their time box ticking (debating societies etc) and being 'squeaky clean' to enter Westminster as a grad. That's not to suggest that there aren't any genuinely impassioned individuals with good reasons why they want to contribute to effecting change, but it seems preferable that politicians are drawn from elsewhere rather than groomed by the existing system.

Employee share ownership I think is very good. It is way more direct in addressing the problem of distribution of wealth of 'business' and reduces the amount of capital that can avoid taxation.

Employee control is good. In the same way Toyota delegated problem solving to the floor, re-investment vs distribution decisions can be made more sensibly rather than the operation of maximising shareholder returns on 1y horizons.

'Business' should be about more than maximal returns for shareholders. Given its expectation for govt support, policy making and its direct and disproportionate impact on society, why should it not have a commitment to more than an elite who control capital?

Perhaps gov't can operate policies to encourage employee ownership in targeted sectors as one part of trying to build a 'mittelstand' type framework and economic rebalancing to regenerate secondary activity in the UK

Yeah and Ejiofor was number two to Kober so all in it's probably not a great example, sorry ;)

At the moment we have auto companies who have closed door deals of large amounts of gov't funding relocating and firms like Dyson who have had r&d subsidised from gov't programs taking the development to locate plant elsewhere. That is off.

Gov't investment, subsidy etc is not there to go through well-oiled channels to the pockets of a few, but should be directly stimulating sustainable, long term development in the UK

There are people on Twitter calling for Theresa May to grant Honda a tax break to stay.

Which sounds rather like illegal state aid, does it not? And would, if I suggest, make JLR, Toyota, Ford and so on all immediately stick their hands out in expectation.

I think many in business would agree to a large degree with this.

The issue is how labour is trying to address this. Employee ownership for large companies is already encouraged through tax free share purchases. Expand on that rather expropriate and give the equity to a state fund.

Unions in Germany are different to unions in the UK, not as far to the left and they do not see business as the enemy.

ESG is becoming a big topic for business, with room for improvement but I think people already started to move on from quarterly shareholder returns. Guess what, companies with solid ESG are more valuable, so investors likes them.

Oh when an Englishman writes Deutsch:

Aber Corbyn mit seinen familiären Wurzeln in der Friedensbewegung der 1930er Jahre und seinem Umfeld aus weltfremden Oberschichtintellektuellen verkörpert ebenso wenig wie Blair die alte Labour-Volksseele. Und in seinem Windschatten sind zentrale Parteiämter an skrupellose Apparatschiks gegangen, die einen befremdlichen Führerkult pflegen und jeder abweichenden Meinung mit Hass begegnen.

from some wag on the internet:

Good to know that Chuka now believes if an organisation cannot be reformed from within then you should Leave. #betteroffout

so are there going to be by-elections now that things have changed and people deserve another vote to reflect that change?

"A Tory minister and four Conservative backbenchers appear poised to defect to the new Independent Group set up by disgruntled Labour MPs, it has been claimed.

Describing the breakaway group as “remarkably sensible people”, the minister told the Telegraph he was prepared to join the new party if the Government presses ahead with a no-deal Brexit.

It came as Anna Soubry sparked speculation she is preparing to jump ship after removing a Conservative Party slogan from her social media profile."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/18/tory-minister-four-conservative-backbench-mps-poised-join-new/ (paywall)

Can't just be me that's rooting for them to do it, can it? Go on, you know you want to...