Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Sampson]

15 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Yes it was a simple retort to a simple criticism.

 

I don't agree however that McDonald's would necessarily have loads of other things it 'needs' to spend profits on. Profit is income left over after all necessary costs have already been incurred. If the money needed to be spent, it would have been spent and their profit would be reduced accordingly. McDonalds have an choice as to where they spend their profit. One option is on increasing staff pay.

Profit is not income after all necessary costs have been incurred at that given time though. It's a snapshot of either the end of the year is financial year which was months prior by the time the accounts ate done which includes things like depreciation which often indicates new equipment needed etc.. Most companies will then make decisions and yearly budget based on these accounts not the other way round 

 

Shareholders will always have priority over staff due to them being the ones who crowdfunded the business for example and else no one would ever invest in anything.

 

Aren't McDonald's also in the middle of a huge rebranding effort with their McCafes in an attempt to have to challenge the growing competition they are getting from coffee houses like Starbucks and Costa? 

 

Again, I'm not saying they should or they shouldn't because I'm not privy to the goals, market, competition, planned creation of new jobs, potential investment and shareholder opinion within McDonalds but it's just a huge oversimplification to say just because a business makes large profits it should be putting that money into upping its wages. That's not how finances in a business work - having enough for rainy day after all planned investment, research into and reaction to competition, creation of new jobs, closing down certain unsustainable areas, encouragement of shareholder investment, repurching of outraged equipment, general infrastructure and a thousand and one regulations will all have to be thought about after seeing your yearly accounts long before a company even thinks about increasing wages. Let alone in an international company who have to take into account all these changes in every country they do business in.

Edited 2 May 2018 by Sampson

[Alf Bentley]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

I think the Lib Dem vote will again be highly concentrated in certain areas, they'll surely win Kingston/Richmond given the Brexit fallout.

 

Looking at it Labour need an 8% swing in Westminster - that's surely too much? Kensington an even bigger swing.

 

Minimal swing needed in Barnet and Wandsworth, I think they'll win those unless the Jewish community comes out to vote Conservative. 

 

It is pretty incredible, the demographics are starting to have a huge influence on areas now and people now longer seem bound by old tribal loyalties. 

 

That sounds like a reasonable assessment (though I lack local knowledge).

 

The only thing is that local factors can have a much bigger impact on results of council elections than General Elections: e.g. if the local council is being blamed for poor bin collections, if a local party is able to wage a good campaign in key wards, or if local candidates are already well-known and well-liked in the local community. So, particular key wards can swing much more or less than the local average - and particular councils can swing more or less than the national polls predict if the bins haven't been collected or a local paper has been publicising a big waste of council funds, personal corruption or unpopular policies. 

[Strokes]

6 minutes ago, toddybad said:

This is where short term capital is a problem. Companies continually have to appease investors by minimising pay to maximise profits every year rather than doing what is right by the people that work to make those profits. If you're in the black why shouldn't the money be spread more thickly?

I know these businesses and companies are just self interested, brexit hating, profit hording bastards! We should never listen to anything they have to say about the country’s direction, as they only care about what is good for them and there shareholders. Power to the people 

 

[Guest Kopfkino]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I haven't studied past results so have little idea, but....

- LDs at 12% looks higher than expected for London & recent national polls all show them rising. If they are picking up anti-Tory votes from Lab, then Lab could under-perform. If they're all ex-Tory votes in SW London, could be bad for Tories down there.

- Without the anti-semitism furore, Lab would probably be confident of taking Barnet, but it's an area with a big Jewish population so might be harder than expected

- Lab would normally have zero chance in Kensington & presumably only has the faintest chance because of Grenfell...even so, apart from a few areas, it is very, very rich; some Tory voters might stay at home in disgust over Grenfell or other issues, but cannot imagine Lab winning here

- General Election results (e.g. Battersea) suggest Lab might have a chance in Wandsworth, much less likely in Westminster...but I don't know details of wards, boundaries, opinion of local councils etc.

 

It's an extraordinary sign of the times that Lab has ANY chance in ANY of these councils, particularly under a leftist like Corbyn. I don't think even Blair won any of these councils, did he?

Of course, it's equally a sign of extraordinary times that an unpopular Tory govt has a chance of winning Lab seats in former industrial areas of the North and Midlands. 

 

I don't think it's extraordinary times tbh. Politics is swings and roundabouts. Support ebbs and flows, most places change hands even if infrequently.

 

I don't think Westminster has a chance of changing and other events are the only reason Kensington could change imo, if they both go then extraordinary but don't think it will happen. But looking at somewhere like Wandsworth, the votes that Thatcher effectively bought are dropping out and people moving in, whilst still wealthy, don't feel in the position they should be and simply have a different outlook on life. Labour vote in Wandsworth has been building for a while, it's not a one off.

 

We have a mayor who to anyone that's actually paid attention for the last two years has been near useless and failed on pretty much all of his election pledges. But he is approachable, loves a photo op, and says the right thing at the right time. He imo helps drive the Labour vote as much as anything.

 

That being said, this is being fought on national issues. Looking at last week's poll, it found Conservative councils tend to have better satisfaction ratings, not huge but statistically significant, and crucially that difference was driven by Labour voters being more satisfied with Con councils than the other way round. 

 

Maybe the confluence of factors is a bit out of the ordinary, but I don't think a lot of this should come as a shock, politics is swings and roundabouts at the end of the day.

 

If the Conservatives have 0 chance of getting my vote despite being more naturally sympathetic with them, what chance do they have. The only thing is I wouldn't vote Labour (if I lived across the road in Westminster I would though) whereas a lot of people are willing to. (I genuinely don't believe a lot of them want the current Labour party, but it's the only alternative)

[Carl the Llama]

Just pointing out we're on page 666, surely a Thatcher or Blair shout out is in order?

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I know these businesses and companies are just self interested, brexit hating, profit hording bastards! We should never listen to anything they have to say about the country’s direction, as they only care about what is good for them and there shareholders. Power to the people 

 

Well you explain how an economy based on minimising pay to maximise dividends is supposed to lead to a society that works for everybody then?

[Strokes]

6 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Well you explain how an economy based on minimising pay to maximise dividends is supposed to lead to a society that works for everybody then?

I’m not saying that I’m agreeing with you, it’s what globalisation and being in the EU has brought. I’d vote against it given the opportunity.

Edited 2 May 2018 by Strokes

[Guest Foxin_mad]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

I think the easiest thing to do here is watch McDonnell himself, a few days ago on Bloomberg. I think McDonnell is generally regarded as the more militant of the shadow cabinet so it makes sense to go to him - particularly given the key role he would have in any labour government. I think you'd be fair in saying his political career has been one of pretty radical thinking but, as somebody said the other day, it's not possible to stay like that in government. 

 

Watch the video via the link below. It is about 9 mins long and covers the recent lords vote over the customs union, his discussions with banks, renationisation etc.

Tell me, based on what he actually says, what is extreme about the labour position.

 

https://youtu.be/U8oPV0wVe4k

 

Most of what he says in that particular interview sounds relatively moderate, and reasoned made with thought, obviously the details of a new manifesto would need to be seen and analysed. Clarity on who is funding what and how is needed, I am still not convinced that the tax rises will be good for jobs or the economy but as long as he is happy to up the benefits for all.  

 

Given his history though I am not sure that he could ever be trusted in Government, once he is elected he is likely to change his tone, when his plans don't work, he is likely to change his tone. Again he is a clever man, he knows he is not going to get elected as a mouth frothing far left activist, but once he gets into power from appearing a reasonable man I would be concerned his attitude would change greatly. 

 

As characters, Corbyn and McDonnell are deeply concerning, these have a history of being very anti establishment, a leopard doesn't change its spots I am afraid.

[Rogstanley]

55 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Profit is not income after all necessary costs have been incurred at that given time though. It's a snapshot of either the end of the year is financial year which was months prior by the time the accounts ate done which includes things like depreciation which often indicates new equipment needed etc.. Most companies will then make decisions and yearly budget based on these accounts not the other way round 

 

Shareholders will always have priority over staff due to them being the ones who crowdfunded the business for example and else no one would ever invest in anything.

 

Aren't McDonald's also in the middle of a huge rebranding effort with their McCafes in an attempt to have to challenge the growing competition they are getting from coffee houses like Starbucks and Costa? 

 

Again, I'm not saying they should or they shouldn't because I'm not privy to the goals, market, competition, planned creation of new jobs, potential investment and shareholder opinion within McDonalds but it's just a huge oversimplification to say just because a business makes large profits it should be putting that money into upping its wages. That's not how finances in a business work - having enough for rainy day after all planned investment, research into and reaction to competition, creation of new jobs, closing down certain unsustainable areas, encouragement of shareholder investment, repurching of outraged equipment, general infrastructure and a thousand and one regulations will all have to be thought about after seeing your yearly accounts long before a company even thinks about increasing wages. Let alone in an international company who have to take into account all these changes in every country they do business in.

I'm not saying they 'should' necessarily increase wages, just that using profit to pay for increased wages (rather than increasing prices as foxin claimed would be necessary) is a legitimate option that McDonald's have. 

 

Of course they will most likely choose to pay shareholders or invest in areas which they believe will increase profit long before they consider rewarding their staff with a substantial pay rise such as the one some of their staff are striking for. That's the nature of capitalism after all.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Most of what he says in that particular interview sounds relatively moderate, and reasoned made with thought, obviously the details of a new manifesto would need to be seen and analysed. Clarity on who is funding what and how is needed, I am still not convinced that the tax rises will be good for jobs or the economy but as long as he is happy to up the benefits for all.  

 

Given his history though I am not sure that he could ever be trusted in Government, once he is elected he is likely to change his tone, when his plans don't work, he is likely to change his tone. Again he is a clever man, he knows he is not going to get elected as a mouth frothing far left activist, but once he gets into power from appearing a reasonable man I would be concerned his attitude would change greatly. 

 

As characters, Corbyn and McDonnell are deeply concerning, these have a history of being very anti establishment, a leopard doesn't change its spots I am afraid.

Now that is an acceptable way of explaining that their characters concern you. Much better than your previous efforts. 

 

McDonnell has been like this for a while now. I'm interested to see whether he can get the business community onside with anything. Tbf there haven't been glowing endorsements and it's not likely as business can only say what will maximise share prices and tax rises won't do that but I have seen one or two business comments that aren't unsupportive. 

 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I’m not saying that I’m agreeing with you, it’s what globalisation and being in the EU has brought. I’d vote against it given the opportunity.

Sorry I just assumed sarcasm!

I'm not sure the EU has anything to do with it but fair enough.

[Alf Bentley]

11 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

I don't think it's extraordinary times tbh. Politics is swings and roundabouts. Support ebbs and flows, most places change hands even if infrequently.

 

I don't think Westminster has a chance of changing and other events are the only reason Kensington could change imo, if they both go then extraordinary but don't think it will happen. But looking at somewhere like Wandsworth, the votes that Thatcher effectively bought are dropping out and people moving in, whilst still wealthy, don't feel in the position they should be and simply have a different outlook on life. Labour vote in Wandsworth has been building for a while, it's not a one off.

 

We have a mayor who to anyone that's actually paid attention for the last two years has been near useless and failed on pretty much all of his election pledges. But he is approachable, loves a photo op, and says the right thing at the right time. He imo helps drive the Labour vote as much as anything.

 

That being said, this is being fought on national issues. Looking at last week's poll, it found Conservative councils tend to have better satisfaction ratings, not huge but statistically significant, and crucially that difference was driven by Labour voters being more satisfied with Con councils than the other way round. 

 

Maybe the confluence of factors is a bit out of the ordinary, but I don't think a lot of this should come as a shock, politics is swings and roundabouts at the end of the day.

 

If the Conservatives have 0 chance of getting my vote despite being more naturally sympathetic with them, what chance do they have. The only thing is I wouldn't vote Labour (if I lived across the road in Westminster I would though) whereas a lot of people are willing to. (I genuinely don't believe a lot of them want the current Labour party, but it's the only alternative)

 

I take your point about the ebbs and flows of electoral politics. Likewise, your point that socio-demographic change can alter the electoral politics of an area longer-term - and Wandsworth may be an example of this. 

National politics always play a big part in local elections and this time is no different, but local factors can always have an impact greater than they do in national elections. I'm not suggesting that applies this time more than any other, it was just a caveat really: despite national politics, local election results can produce unexpected results if the local council has done something unpopular, the local party is active or the local candidate well-liked. Local factors do have more impact.

 

I've been following politics since at least 1980 and don't remember any of the 4 councils in question ever going Labour (maybe Wandsworth, early 80s?), though my memory may be failing me.

The fact that we are even discussing the possibility of such councils going red at a time when Labour is the 2nd biggest party in parliament and is behind in the national polls suggests this is extraordinary.

 

The general election showed that thriving, cosmopolitan big cities and areas with a lot of young people shifted towards Labour, whereas struggling industrial/ex-industrial areas, fishing ports & seaside towns shifted towards the Tories, if anything.

 

In France, many struggling ex-industrial areas now vote Front National (previously Communists), while the French Socialists did well until recently in thriving cities and some stable rural areas. We might be seeing a similar shift.

 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

10 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Well you explain how an economy based on minimising pay to maximise dividends is supposed to lead to a society that works for everybody then?

Its a bigger issue than that. Board members have a responsibility to the sustainability of the business, staff, and its future. Say this year they decide to give all UK staff a pay rise to £10 a hour minimum, I would say they also need to increase all more senior roles at a similar rate otherwise it is not fair. I have no idea how much this would cost the business but it would be significant.

 

In 3 years times with all the health taxes and anti fast food talk going on at present, markets tastes etc. change, say McDonalds has a terrible year like Toys R Us or a few terrible years, suddenly the business is in trouble because it dished out pay rises, the staff will be the first ones cut, closures, restructures etc.. Its unlikely because the board wont allow this but it happens (granted probably not to organisations like McDonalds). Its a very fine line between a profitable businesses and not. 

 

Again what was missed by many was if we suddenly start dishing out £10 a hour wages to unskilled people, we then need to start paying skilled people more, this triggers are whole load of pay rises then inflation. Then the people at the bottom still cant afford anything because everything has gone up in price....the £15 a hour!

[Strokes]

6 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Sorry I just assumed sarcasm!

I'm not sure the EU has anything to do with it but fair enough.

It’s enabled an environment where the companies can grow beyond moral standards and stops us taking back control of it.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

7 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Now that is an acceptable way of explaining that their characters concern you. Much better than your previous efforts. 

 

McDonnell has been like this for a while now. I'm interested to see whether he can get the business community onside with anything. Tbf there haven't been glowing endorsements and it's not likely as business can only say what will maximise share prices and tax rises won't do that but I have seen one or two business comments that aren't unsupportive. 

 

I suppose it depends if he can convince business that his 'plans for growth' would offer an environment where paying x% extra tax would be outweighed by x% extra growth, and x% extra tax for executives can create a much better country for them and their children to live in. If we can become better at R&D and Tech this would increase profits potentially. 

 

Really a good way to do this and I am not seeing too much from either side on this is to invest a lot in national and regional infrastructure (energy (power stations), preferably green, rail or rail replacements, good road links/expansion, more fibre, housing, schools, hospitals). Our infrastructure investment has been poor for a long time now under successive governments, we simply do not have enough infrastructure for our population. 

[Alf Bentley]

35 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Just pointing out we're on page 666, surely a Thatcher or Blair shout out is in order?

 

Keeping it decent....

 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Its a bigger issue than that. Board members have a responsibility to the sustainability of the business, staff, and its future. Say this year they decide to give all UK staff a pay rise to £10 a hour minimum, I would say they also need to increase all more senior roles at a similar rate otherwise it is not fair. I have no idea how much this would cost the business but it would be significant.

 

In 3 years times with all the health taxes and anti fast food talk going on at present, markets tastes etc. change, say McDonalds has a terrible year like Toys R Us or a few terrible years, suddenly the business is in trouble because it dished out pay rises, the staff will be the first ones cut, closures, restructures etc.. Its unlikely because the board wont allow this but it happens (granted probably not to organisations like McDonalds). Its a very fine line between a profitable businesses and not. 

 

Again what was missed by many was if we suddenly start dishing out £10 a hour wages to unskilled people, we then need to start paying skilled people more, this triggers are whole load of pay rises then inflation. Then the people at the bottom still cant afford anything because everything has gone up in price....the £15 a hour!

Generally people at the top get much bigger pay rises than at the bottom anyway so I'm less than convinced that McDonald's burger flippers getting a pay rise means the ceo needs another half mil tbh.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I suppose it depends if he can convince business that his 'plans for growth' would offer an environment where paying x% extra tax would be outweighed by x% extra growth, and x% extra tax for executives can create a much better country for them and their children to live in. If we can become better at R&D and Tech this would increase profits potentially. 

 

Really a good way to do this and I am not seeing too much from either side on this is to invest a lot in national and regional infrastructure (energy (power stations), preferably green, rail or rail replacements, good road links/expansion, more fibre, housing, schools, hospitals). Our infrastructure investment has been poor for a long time now under successive governments, we simply do not have enough infrastructure for our population. 

Pages 11-15 of the labour manifesto.

The £250b investment they talk about is over 10 years - £25b a year is a very, very manageable number to borrow, well within historical norms as a % of GDP.

 

 

[Guest]

Can't upload the other pages as too big.

 

Go to pages 11-15 at https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/ 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

10 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Generally people at the top get much bigger pay rises than at the bottom anyway so I'm less than convinced that McDonald's burger flippers getting a pay rise means the ceo needs another half mil tbh.

Not thinking about the people at the top they get enough already. I am talking the burger flipper supervisors, team leaders etc. in McDonalds, probably currently on £12 a hour, if you increase their staff pay, you have to increase them too.

[Strokes]

17 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Not thinking about the people at the top they get enough already. I am talking the burger flipper supervisors, team leaders etc. in McDonalds, probably currently on £12 a hour, if you increase their staff pay, you have to increase them too.

If McDonald’s gave all staff a £2 per hour payrise, it would cost them about £265m based on 85,000 uk staff at an average of 30 hour week (which is a total guess).

What were their profit figures in £s..?

Edited 2 May 2018 by Strokes

[Innovindil]

12 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Not thinking about the people at the top they get enough already. I am talking the burger flipper supervisors, team leaders etc. in McDonalds, probably currently on £12 a hour, if you increase their staff pay, you have to increase them too.

Optimistic. Shift running floor managers are paid around £9/hr. Money only gets decent at McDonald's if you reach 2nd assist/1st assistant. Even then it's hard to work out the per hour since they get paid a monthly salary, not hour rate. 

 

They would 100% want an increase if basic crew workers were getting paid £10/hr. 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Can't upload the other pages as too big.

 

Go to pages 11-15 at https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/ 

Its all a bit too woolly for me, not just Labour this is all parties.

 

I actually think HS2 is a waste of time and money, I would rather spend the money on upgrading and electrifying existing routes. By the time HS2 is complete it will be outdated. I personally think we should be looking at investing in something more ground breaking, if we are going for this innovative R&D led ground breaking nation then we should be looking at something like hyperloop for suitability. 

 

I would look at tax incentives for business to operate outside London. Perhaps Tax incentives to companies that commit large % revenue to R&D and Staff Development. 

 

Energy wise we really should be think outside the box a bit more, certainly not paying the French to build a nuclear plant. Again they say 'green energy' what does this mean? I support the use of tidal barrages on many large estuaries, this could supply the majority of our power needs as an Island nation. All new builds should have solar, wind generation, water collection for flushing etc etc etc there is so much that no one appears to get down in writing. 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

4 minutes ago, Strokes said:

If McDonald’s gave all staff a £2 per hour payrise, it would cost them about £262m based on 85,000 uk staff at an average of 30 hour week (which is a total guess).

What were their profit figures in £s..?

287.5m 2016, so already a bit of an issue.

 

4 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Optimistic. Shift running floor managers are paid around £9/hr. Money only gets decent at McDonald's if you reach 2nd assist/1st assistant. Even then it's hard to work out the per hour since they get paid a monthly salary, not hour rate. 

 

They would 100% want an increase if basic crew workers were getting paid £10/hr. 

Just a random guess I have no idea but know there are all kinds of star grades etc., my point being that if you pay the bottom staff more you have to them pay their supervisors more else a bigger chain of people will be getting pissed off. Of course then you have a skilled person going in there and seeing people getting paid  not much less than them and they then want a pay rise.

 

You have to do this is a balanced and logical way. 

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

287.5m 2016, so already a bit of an issue.

It’s not looking good is it? and that’s without taking the extra employers national insurance contributions into account.