100 Compamnies Sign Letter Supporting The Conservatives

[Gromit]

The Daily Torygraph have put together a letter which they have pursauded 100 companies to sign...

// Dear Sirs,
We run some of the leading businesses in the UK. We believe this Conservative-led Government has been good for business and has pursued policies which have supported investment and job creation.

David Cameron and George Osborne’s flagship policy of progressively lowering Corporation Tax to 20% has been very important in showing the UK is open for business. It has been a key part of their economic plan.

The result is that Britain grew faster than any other major economy last year and businesses like ours have created over 1.85m new jobs.

We believe a change in course will threaten jobs and deter investment. This would send a negative message about Britain and put the recovery at risk. //

A ringing endorsement. If you were going to vote Labour, would this change your mind?

[naomi24]

OG, let me put it this way. If you put your money into a bank account on the assumption that it will earn you interest, would you be happy for that interest to go to the teller who stamps your paying in book and whose wages for doing the job you’re already paying from the interest your money earns? The staff are not the company. The shareholders are the company. They’re the people who provide the money that enables the business to expand, hence creating more paid jobs. The workers’ invest only labour and for that they are paid. They can’t have it all ways.

[mikey4444]

OG...don't confuse people with common sense !

[naomi24]

Mikey, stuck eh? People with common sense aren't confused, but you are. ;o)

[dave50]

You are absolutely correct Naomi but there are so many that dont understand this simple concept.

[mushroom25]

//OG has made a powerful point. //

no, he's resurrected the long dead ghost of clause 4.

the labour party abolished the original meaning of clause 4 nearly 20 years ago. do you really believe if the labour party were to re-introduce it, they'd sweep to power on a populist vote?

[Haggisdj]

naomi24, I usually agree with what you have to say but in this instance, employees are stakeholders in a company not to be confused with shareholders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_%28corporate%29

[Deskdiary]

OG - "Shareholders just money suppliers, in the hope of profit"

If I invest in a company, is it wrong for me to hope for a return on my investment?

Yes shareholders are money suppliers, but without them there wouldn't be a company. I have seen so many times over the years when a company has been in trouble that shareholders have dug that little bit deeper to ensure its survival and thus the safeguarding of jobs - so trivialising them as 'just' money suppliers is to misunderstand their role.

Perhaps a more accurate description should be Money suppliers which in turn provides employment for a companies workforce, and hopefully results in a ROI.

Without the 'money suppliers' there is no company. Granted without workers there is no company.....but there are plenty more people who could become workers than could become shareholders.

They are interdependent, but the interdepdency is not equal.

[naomi24]

Haggisdj, I think you've interpreted that rather too literally. Deskdiary has summarised it well.

[mikey4444]

Naomi....read what OG has said here. He has echoed my views exactly, and in a lot less words than I would have used.

[naomi24]

Mikey, I’ve read what OG said and I’ve explained why I think he is wrong. He hasn’t responded. I’ll ask you a second time - why do you think that you and he are right? Please explain your reasoning.

[Marshwarble]

Could The Mirror get together the top 100 charities and have them sign one for Labour?

[mikey4444]

Naomi...I am not sure I can add anything more to what I have already posted on this subject.

[Old_Geezer]

It isn't wrong to hope for a return on a investment, but it doesn't make one more important that those whose livelihood is tied to the enterprise.

My bank account doesn't pay interest, and the money they make from holding mine does go towards paying the wages of the staff. Where else would they be paid from ?

[naomi24]

OG, If an employee leaves the job, he is replaced and your money pays his replacement’s wages, but if you withdraw your money from the company there is no job because there is no money for wages or for anything else and the company collapses.

[Old_Geezer]

You have to sell the shares to someone. Anyway might isn't right. If the employees all walk out on strike best if luck paying someone else.

[ladybirder]

OG // It isn't wrong to hope for a return on a investment, but it doesn't make one more important that those whose livelihood is tied to the enterprise. \\

I believe it does because if there were no investors there would be no jobs.

[Peter Pedant]

// I don't think the Labour party have any understanding how business works or how wealth is created that pays for their beloved 'public services'//

Balls wants to have a second go in the drivers seat
it is wise ?

[jomifl]

OG being a shareholder is not just a matter of collecting free money, most shareholders would get a bigger 'dividend' by putting their money in a bank. They are taking a gamble on making capital gains on the share prices, it doesn't cost the workers anything.

[naomi24]

OG, //might isn't right.//

It isn't 'might', It's the way business works and thrives. Without money it can't work - and hence, neither can anyone else.

[Old_Geezer]

Regardless whether there would be jobs (and workers collectives are not unknown) the workers stake is still their livelihood, how they feed and clothe themselves and their family. That is a much bigger stake than a shareholder has regardless of whether the investor has maximised their return. Investors may have influence but that doesn't change their stake.