|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
With a little under three weeks to go until Britain’s general election, the Conservatives enjoy enough of a lead in the polls to deliver a modest, but good enough, majority, even if a volatile electorate, the chaos of Brexit, and the local distortions introduced by First Past The Post voting on a constituency-by-constituency basis, are making many commentators more cautious about the outcome, as, in my view, they should be.
Meanwhile, the full horror of what Labour has, should it win, in mind has become apparent with the publication of the party’s manifesto. Economically, it is, predictably enough, a prescription for the pauperization of Britain, but, as an exercise in power politics, it’s pretty smart. It further defines Labour as a party of the hard left, a definition that should confine it to the margins, but will not. The party still has a large reservoir of ‘tribal’ support, which has now been boosted by the involvement of radicalized young voters and the lumpen-intelligentsia. Labour may or may not prevail this time, but, with this identity and with policies that are more about securing and maintaining power than prosperity, it only has to win once.
Meanwhile, the law firm, Clifford Chance, has taken a look at one of Labour’s proposed new policies, the introduction of “Inclusive Ownership Funds”. The whole report is well worth reading, but Labour’s focus on the ownership of companies that it does not propose to nationalize outright is worth noting:
Labour is proposing that all large companies (those with more than 250 employees) should be required to transfer shares into an “Inclusive Ownership Fund” (IOF). Each year, for a decade, 1% of shares would be transferred into the IOF, until a 10% holding was reached. Smaller companies would be able to set up IOFs voluntarily.
The shares would be held and managed collectively by representatives of the employees. Dividends received by the IOF would be distributed to the employees up to a maximum of £500 each per year, with the balance paid as (effectively) tax to HM Treasury (with the stated intention that it would be spent on public services as a “social dividend”).
Scraps for the peasants, cake for the state: In this respect, at least, there’s nothing new about Labour is suggesting.
[…]
See Also:
(1) Sweden: The Price of Migration
(2) Brexit blocked: ‘Wretched’ reason UK didn’t quit EU in October, says constitutional expert
(3) Nigel Farage poll: Shock Election poll shows Labour HAEMORRHAGING seats – thanks to Farage
(4) ‘What did he expect?’ Britons RAGING at Corbyn’s Birmingham visit on IRA bomb anniversary
(5) ‘EU cannot defend Europe – especially with Brexit’ Nato chief’s damning reply to Macron
