Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Admiral Yi]

Link dinnae work for me..

[mongers]

Link dinnae work for me..

Odd, works for me, I'll try and find a different one, it may be regionally locked?

Aberdeen, L&G impose penalties on property funds
Aberdeen and Legal & General tell UK property fund investors they can continue to sell but will get 15-17% less than previously. 

by Gavin Lumsden on Jul 07, 2016 at 13:03

(Update) Aberdeen Asset Management and Legal & General Investment Management have bucked the spate of commercial property fund suspensions saying they will continue to allow investors to sell holdings in their flagship bricks and mortar funds - but at a steep price.

Aberdeen has imposed a 17% 'dilution levy' on its £3.4 billion Aberdeen UK Property  fund and Legal & General has increased a 'fair value adjustment' on its £2.5 billion L&G UK Property  fund and its UK Property Feeder fund from 5% to 15% in response to the surge in investors selling out since the European Union referendum.

While investors alarmed by the potential impact of 'Brexit' on the property market can still withdraw their money from the funds, the measures mean they will get less than they would have previously.

Legal & General's fair value adjustment lowers the valuation of the L&G Property portfolio by 15% in line with the downturn in real estate prospects. In theory this applies to all the fund's investors although in practice only those who sell will be affected.

Aberdeen's 17% reduction in the selling price of its UK Property fund includes a 2% 'fair value adjustment'. It follows a 3.75% mark down of the fund on 29 June.

The moves set Aberdeen and Legal & General apart from their rivals. Since the referendum Aviva Investors, Canada Life Columbia Threadneedle, Henderson Global Investors and M&G have suspended trading in their physical commercial property funds, effectively locking in over £14.5 billion held by investors, while they find the cash to return to shareholders.

Aberdeen chief executive Martin Gilbert said he believed it was fairer to give investors the option to leave even if it was costly. Reducing the amount paid to departing investors would protect investors who remained in the fund, he said.
......

News search results here, some of these may work for you:
http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=aberdeen+asset+management+17%25&FORM=HDRSC6

[Josquius]

Ouch.
Just met with a girl i know who works as a nanny for a rich family in Switzerland.
Seems she made the stupid mistake a few months ago of getting her new contract done in sterling. Massive pay cut.

[Sheilbh]

The end of Kinnock's speech to the PLP was recorded
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/08/secret-recording-neil-kinnock-jeremy-corbyn-step-down-speech-to-mps-in-full

God knows, everybody here, no matter how old or how young, should understand the lessons. And never repeat that again. But there are some who, for whatever reason, are incapable of the instruction of reality. So they better wake up.

I don't know what case is being made by saying that – and I quote – 'Jeremy had the biggest majority in history' – he didn't. In 1988 – in a different electoral system, admittedly – my majority against Tony Benn was 88.6%. Tony got 11.4%, with the assistance of Dennis [Skinner], of course, and the assistance of Jeremy Corbyn, of course. No talk of unity or loyalty could suppress their enthusiasm. [Loud applause]

In the constituency parties, that in 1981 had overwhelmingly voted for Tony's leadership candidature, the result was Kinnock 82%, Benn 18%. Why? Because the constituency parties, the rank and file, had decided they'd had enough of posturing and hectoring and they wanted to give the Labour party a real chance of securing advance and power. And we gained 3.1m votes because of those people.

Now then, we can take further instruction from modern history, the way in which, in the supermarket, people said: 'I want to vote Labour, but I can't vote for Ed Miliband'. I heard it, oh yes I heard it. Apply the supermarket test for Jeremy Corbyn and see what answer you get.

We know what answer we're getting on the doorstep. Yes I've been around raising money like you Dennis [Skinner], for many, many, many years – I think it's probably a bit more than a million. I've been around raising money and I go on the doorstep and I talk to people. I quote one person, just one, out of hundreds in Cardiff three weeks ago. Well, he complained about Jeremy and I said, 'Honestly, his heart's in the right place, he wants to help people, he wants to help people like you.' He's a working-class guy, a fitter on what remains of the docks. And he said: 'I know he's saying it, because he thinks we're easy. We're not bloody easy. We're not listening, especially since he's weird.'

Now that is unfortunate. But you know. Everybody in this room knows, canvassing in the Welsh elections, in the Scottish elections, in the local elections, in the referendum – you know that is what you're getting from people who yearn to vote Labour but are inhibited by the fact that Jeremy is still our leader.

Let's face the facts. So here's some very, very, very recent history. I could explore it more but I'm not going to take everybody's time with this speech.

Nobody has ever said, Dennis, that this parliamentary party considers itself or should be considered to be more important than the rank and file, whether they paid three quid or whether they've given their lives to this movement. Whether they've threatened their managers, whether they've ruined their careers through their commitment to this movement. Nobody has said, ever, however recent or long-established members' party membership is, that we are superior.

More history. Perhaps this is a time to a remind. In 1906 and then in the constitution of 1918, in clause 1 they laid down that it would be the purpose of the Labour party to establish and retain, in parliament and in the country, a political Labour party. Everybody's happy. [At this point Kinnock is asked to finish.] I'm finishing now in a moment – well, I'm finishing the speech in a moment. [Loud applause]

In 1918, in the shadow of the Russian revolution, they made a deliberate, conscious, ideological choice, that they would not pursue the syndicalist road, that they would not pursue the revolutionary road – it was a real choice in those days. They would pursue the parliamentary road to socialism.

It is why, in all of the subsequent constitutions, we had a provision that requires the leader of the Labour party – that used to be, as Dennis will recall, to be elected only by the PLP. We worked like hell – Dennis, myself and many others – to change that to make sure that the rank and file would have a direct voice, that trade unions would be part of it, councils would be part of it, activists would be part of it, so we got one member one vote.

Because we are a democratic socialist party, committed to a parliamentary road to power, it is vital, essential, irreplaceable, that the leader of this party has substantial – at least substantial, if not majority – support from those who go to the country and seek election to become lawmakers, the way chosen by the people who established the Labour party.

Now remember history, remember that history, remember the people that joined the party are joining a party committed to the parliamentary road and that makes it crucial to have a leader that enjoys the support of the parliamentary Labour party.

A final, final point. Steve Reed made a very fine contribution. There will be no split! There will be no retreat! Dammit, this is our party! I've been in it for 60 years, I'm not leaving it to anybody!

All we need is for Gordon to reach for his crisis-lectern

[Sheilbh]

And on an unrelated note another reason I'm left wanting Theresa May to be our next Prime Minister
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/08/andrea-leadsom-suggests-she-would-make-better-pm-as-she-has-children

[Ed Anger]

As long as she rounds up Geordies and sends them to camps.

[Sheilbh]

As long as she rounds up Geordies and sends them to camps.

Fetch me Alan Shearer, the Wookie and Solo.

[Ed Anger]

I laughed.

[fromtia]

I listened to Kinnocks speech with great enthusiasm. He makes all sorts of wonderful points and remains a fabulous speaker. It's a great point, that the Labour Party exists to pursue a parliamentary road to power, a parliamentary path to democratic socialism and so forth. It's excellent criticism of Corbyn and friends but my big objection of course is that the supposedly moderate PLP is barely distinguishable from the Tories in terms of policy. They like foreign wars and business and they aren't overtly racist (but they might be closet anti semites )and they dont say awful things about gay people but are they advancing any kind of agenda based on what the Labour party was founded on. Perhaps not.

[Admiral Yi]

I listened to Kinnocks speech with great enthusiasm. He makes all sorts of wonderful points and remains a fabulous speaker. It's a great point, that the Labour Party exists to pursue a parliamentary road to power, a parliamentary path to democratic socialism and so forth. It's excellent criticism of Corbyn and friends but my big objection of course is that the supposedly moderate PLP is barely distinguishable from the Tories in terms of policy. They like foreign wars and business and they aren't overtly racist (but they might be closet anti semites )and they dont say awful things about gay people but are they advancing any kind of agenda based on what the Labour party was founded on. Perhaps not.

What policy path should Labour be following?

[Tamas]

Frankly, both Tory candidates scare me.

But I am enjoying the fact that those who put so much stock into the unbearable situation of being "ruled" by unelected people in Brussels, now be ruled by an unelected PM for years, exposing this Leave argument as another BS to hide arrogance and racism as the true motivators

[Josquius]

The pm is always unelected

[Tamas]

The pm is always unelected

Well yes and no. You vote on a party knowing who would they make PM. I bet none of the Tory voters consented with their vote to have a choice between these two lovely ladies.

[Agelastus]

The pm is always unelected

Well yes and no. You vote on a party knowing who would they make PM. I bet none of the Tory voters consented with their vote to have a choice between these two lovely ladies.

Fundamentally our system is based on voting for your local MP (which is why personal followings can be important - see the Chamberlains for example who took Birmingham with them when the patriarch switched parties, or, for more modern times, Douglas Carswell.)

At a General Election you are also voting for the manifesto.

Who the PM is is utterly inconsequential - mid-parliamentary term changes used to be the norm, not the exception (see Eden, MacMillan, Douglas-Home, Callaghan, Major and Brown for the post 1945 examples.) Whoever started this craze for talking about "unelected PMs" did a serious disservice to our system.

[Richard Hakluyt]

It is an issue that has possibly come into prominence due to the more presidential style of recent PMs; with cabinet government it seems unnecessary  to trouble the people with who should be primus inter pares. Of course I would also argue that it was unnecessary to trouble the people with an EU referendum. Leave us to our beer and skittles and do your jobs you lazy bastard politicians  !!