comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 9 minutes ago
How on earth is it the party members fault when the MP’s put up the choice between 2 individuals so clearly at odds with each other on tax and borrowings?
Talk about ignoring the elephant in the room, and if you believe the non dom argument with Sunak and his wife didn’t cause uproar or that the eat out to help scheme didn’t significantly increase the rate of the virus then you haven’t even been reading the room.
You stick to the racism theory. I’ll leave it there
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to more interesting topics, how much do you think banker bonuses cap impacted banking operations and risk taking versus the increased cap and liquidity requirements, ring fencing and stress testing?
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 9 minutes ago
How on earth is it the party members fault when the MP’s put up the choice between 2 individuals so clearly at odds with each other on tax and borrowings?
Talk about ignoring the elephant in the room, and if you believe the non dom argument with Sunak and his wife didn’t cause uproar or that the eat out to help scheme didn’t significantly increase the rate of the virus then you haven’t even been reading the room.
You stick to the racism theory. I’ll leave it there
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to more interesting topics, how much do you think banker bonuses cap impacted banking operations and risk taking versus the increased cap and liquidity requirements, ring fencing and stress testing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I genuinely don’t know and certainly don’t have the knowledge to even guess. All I said was that we don’t know what positive impact it could have had were we not to cap bonuses and said I’m sure there are other ways to implement damage limitation.
That’s all.
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 9 minutes ago
How on earth is it the party members fault when the MP’s put up the choice between 2 individuals so clearly at odds with each other on tax and borrowings?
Talk about ignoring the elephant in the room, and if you believe the non dom argument with Sunak and his wife didn’t cause uproar or that the eat out to help scheme didn’t significantly increase the rate of the virus then you haven’t even been reading the room.
You stick to the racism theory. I’ll leave it there
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to more interesting topics, how much do you think banker bonuses cap impacted banking operations and risk taking versus the increased cap and liquidity requirements, ring fencing and stress testing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 3 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to more interesting topics, how much do you think banker bonuses cap impacted banking operations and risk taking versus the increased cap and liquidity requirements, ring fencing and stress testing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd keep my cash reserves in multiple banks below £85K.
Unless Kamkasi Kwasi in about to change that backstop as well. Wouldn't put is past it him and thicklizze!
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 5 minutes ago
You are clutching at straws to avoid saying the obvious!
This was not a choice between Labour and Conservatives.
Its was between two very distinct policy choices in the conservative party! The truth is anyone the conservatives put up against Sunak would have won because a large percentage of the membership was reabsorbed from UKIP.
William Hague suggested a rule change to avoid going to membership because he knew what would happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fwiw, I don't believe that inherent racism or Sunak's record had anything whatsoever to do with the membership's choice of Truss's agenda.
It was a binary choice between vastly different policy propositions: a measured, small-c, more compassionate conservatism, and an open pledge to fulfil the unashamedly hard right, low-tax, Singapore-on-Thames agenda.
The party was never, ever going to opt for the former. You could have switched the candidates, and the same agenda would have prevailed, without an iota of doubt.
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 5 minutes ago
You are clutching at straws to avoid saying the obvious!
This was not a choice between Labour and Conservatives.
Its was between two very distinct policy choices in the conservative party! The truth is anyone the conservatives put up against Sunak would have won because a large percentage of the membership was reabsorbed from UKIP.
William Hague suggested a rule change to avoid going to membership because he knew what would happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fwiw, I don't believe that inherent racism or Sunak's record had anything whatsoever to do with the membership's choice of Truss's agenda.
It was a binary choice between vastly different policy propositions: a measured, small-c, more compassionate conservatism, and an open pledge to fulfil the unashamedly hard right, low-tax, Singapore-on-Thames agenda.
The party was never, ever going to opt for the former. You could have switched the candidates, and the same agenda would have prevailed, without an iota of doubt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe you are right. I just don't think the demographics of the membership has the capacity to analyse it as you are doing.
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 5 minutes ago
You are clutching at straws to avoid saying the obvious!
This was not a choice between Labour and Conservatives.
Its was between two very distinct policy choices in the conservative party! The truth is anyone the conservatives put up against Sunak would have won because a large percentage of the membership was reabsorbed from UKIP.
William Hague suggested a rule change to avoid going to membership because he knew what would happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fwiw, I don't believe that inherent racism or Sunak's record had anything whatsoever to do with the membership's choice of Truss's agenda.
It was a binary choice between vastly different policy propositions: a measured, small-c, more compassionate conservatism, and an open pledge to fulfil the unashamedly hard right, low-tax, Singapore-on-Thames agenda.
The party was never, ever going to opt for the former. You could have switched the candidates, and the same agenda would have prevailed, without an iota of doubt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can see that. For me I believe Sunak had “blotted” his cv and that along with the stick on austerity and even more tax rises was enough to think “let’s at least try and stimulate things”.
Not that I had a vote of course
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 9 minutes ago
How on earth is it the party members fault when the MP’s put up the choice between 2 individuals so clearly at odds with each other on tax and borrowings?
Talk about ignoring the elephant in the room, and if you believe the non dom argument with Sunak and his wife didn’t cause uproar or that the eat out to help scheme didn’t significantly increase the rate of the virus then you haven’t even been reading the room.
You stick to the racism theory. I’ll leave it there
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to more interesting topics, how much do you think banker bonuses cap impacted banking operations and risk taking versus the increased cap and liquidity requirements, ring fencing and stress testing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I genuinely don’t know and certainly don’t have the knowledge to even guess. All I said was that we don’t know what positive impact it could have had were we not to cap bonuses and said I’m sure there are other ways to implement damage limitation.
That’s all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But as I mentioned some countries did cap bonuses and some didn’t, so presumably there would be some evidence?
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 9 minutes ago
How on earth is it the party members fault when the MP’s put up the choice between 2 individuals so clearly at odds with each other on tax and borrowings?
Talk about ignoring the elephant in the room, and if you believe the non dom argument with Sunak and his wife didn’t cause uproar or that the eat out to help scheme didn’t significantly increase the rate of the virus then you haven’t even been reading the room.
You stick to the racism theory. I’ll leave it there
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to more interesting topics, how much do you think banker bonuses cap impacted banking operations and risk taking versus the increased cap and liquidity requirements, ring fencing and stress testing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I genuinely don’t know and certainly don’t have the knowledge to even guess. All I said was that we don’t know what positive impact it could have had were we not to cap bonuses and said I’m sure there are other ways to implement damage limitation.
That’s all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But as I mentioned some countries did cap bonuses and some didn’t, so presumably there would be some evidence?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m sure there will be or otherwise they’d all do the same thing if it was obvious as to which works and which doesn’t.
As I said, I genuinely don’t know and I’m not prepared to spend any time researching it.
Let me know what you find if you do
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 5 minutes ago
You are clutching at straws to avoid saying the obvious!
This was not a choice between Labour and Conservatives.
Its was between two very distinct policy choices in the conservative party! The truth is anyone the conservatives put up against Sunak would have won because a large percentage of the membership was reabsorbed from UKIP.
William Hague suggested a rule change to avoid going to membership because he knew what would happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fwiw, I don't believe that inherent racism or Sunak's record had anything whatsoever to do with the membership's choice of Truss's agenda.
It was a binary choice between vastly different policy propositions: a measured, small-c, more compassionate conservatism, and an open pledge to fulfil the unashamedly hard right, low-tax, Singapore-on-Thames agenda.
The party was never, ever going to opt for the former. You could have switched the candidates, and the same agenda would have prevailed, without an iota of doubt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m inclined to agree with this assessment, mindful that the membership of the party ≠ Conservative Party voters or the electorate at large.
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 5 minutes ago
You are clutching at straws to avoid saying the obvious!
This was not a choice between Labour and Conservatives.
Its was between two very distinct policy choices in the conservative party! The truth is anyone the conservatives put up against Sunak would have won because a large percentage of the membership was reabsorbed from UKIP.
William Hague suggested a rule change to avoid going to membership because he knew what would happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fwiw, I don't believe that inherent racism or Sunak's record had anything whatsoever to do with the membership's choice of Truss's agenda.
It was a binary choice between vastly different policy propositions: a measured, small-c, more compassionate conservatism, and an open pledge to fulfil the unashamedly hard right, low-tax, Singapore-on-Thames agenda.
The party was never, ever going to opt for the former. You could have switched the candidates, and the same agenda would have prevailed, without an iota of doubt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe you are right. I just don't think the demographics of the membership has the capacity to analyse it as you are doing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do wonder if the demographics of the party are starting to become a concern for Conservative HQ and the parliamentary party.
Their main problem with trying to balance it a little is, of course, the fact that in terms of relative wealth, under 40s are getting poorer year on year, working class people of all ages are getting poorer year on year, and even many in the relatively comfortable Tory heartlands are starting to see their businesses struggle and life become more difficult as a result of repeated Tory failures with the economy.
I think there are many who might have been Cameron voters who will now be reviewing what we now know about the disastrous failure that was Osborne's austerity (for the wider economy, not just the country's most vulnerable), the nation's crumbling infrastructure, struggling public services, the hard realities of Brexit, labour shortages and more, and thinking about whether they've been backing the right horse the last fifteen or twenty years.
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 17 seconds ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 9 minutes ago
How on earth is it the party members fault when the MP’s put up the choice between 2 individuals so clearly at odds with each other on tax and borrowings?
Talk about ignoring the elephant in the room, and if you believe the non dom argument with Sunak and his wife didn’t cause uproar or that the eat out to help scheme didn’t significantly increase the rate of the virus then you haven’t even been reading the room.
You stick to the racism theory. I’ll leave it there
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to more interesting topics, how much do you think banker bonuses cap impacted banking operations and risk taking versus the increased cap and liquidity requirements, ring fencing and stress testing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I genuinely don’t know and certainly don’t have the knowledge to even guess. All I said was that we don’t know what positive impact it could have had were we not to cap bonuses and said I’m sure there are other ways to implement damage limitation.
That’s all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But as I mentioned some countries did cap bonuses and some didn’t, so presumably there would be some evidence?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m sure there will be or otherwise they’d all do the same thing if it was obvious as to which works and which doesn’t.
As I said, I genuinely don’t know and I’m not prepared to spend any time researching it.
Let me know what you find if you do
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My point was I don’t think it made much of a difference, and pointed to what I consider based on experience much more tangible changes such as ring fencing and the stress testing landscape.
Which is why I moved on to reflect that it was a political rather than an economic move. Would you agree?
Note that this topic kicked off on the basis of the below;
“ And I genuinely don’t get this capping of bankers bonuses. They are employed to assess and take risk with money that isn’t theirs. That’s their job.
There will always be losses and gains in a role like that and I wish more businesses took assessed risks at times. If the rules on how much or how high a risk has to be changed then do that. Don’t discourage them from doing what they are skilled at. It’s a nonsense.”
I was wondering why you thought the cap on bankers bonuses “discouraged” bankers from doing what they were doing. You appeared to have linked bankers bonus capping to performance no? Apologies if I have misinterpreted!
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 20 seconds ago
Maybe you are right. I just don't think the demographics of the membership has the capacity to analyse it as you are doing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do wonder if the demographics of the party are starting to become a concern for Conservative HQ and the parliamentary party.
Their main problem with trying to balance it a little is, of course, the fact that in terms of relative wealth, under 40s are getting poorer year on year, working class people of all ages are getting poorer year on year, and even many in the relatively comfortable Tory heartlands are starting to see their businesses struggle and life become more difficult as a result of repeated Tory failures with the economy.
I think there are many who might have been Cameron voters who will now be reviewing what we now know about the disastrous failure that was Osborne's austerity (for the wider economy, not just the country's most vulnerable), the nation's crumbling infrastructure, struggling public services, the hard realities of Brexit, labour shortages and more, and thinking about whether they've been backing the right horse the last fifteen or twenty years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And yet we maybe condemned many more years of it which ever party wins and this time not out of choice especially if stagflation starts show its face.
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 17 seconds ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 9 minutes ago
How on earth is it the party members fault when the MP’s put up the choice between 2 individuals so clearly at odds with each other on tax and borrowings?
Talk about ignoring the elephant in the room, and if you believe the non dom argument with Sunak and his wife didn’t cause uproar or that the eat out to help scheme didn’t significantly increase the rate of the virus then you haven’t even been reading the room.
You stick to the racism theory. I’ll leave it there
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to more interesting topics, how much do you think banker bonuses cap impacted banking operations and risk taking versus the increased cap and liquidity requirements, ring fencing and stress testing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I genuinely don’t know and certainly don’t have the knowledge to even guess. All I said was that we don’t know what positive impact it could have had were we not to cap bonuses and said I’m sure there are other ways to implement damage limitation.
That’s all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But as I mentioned some countries did cap bonuses and some didn’t, so presumably there would be some evidence?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m sure there will be or otherwise they’d all do the same thing if it was obvious as to which works and which doesn’t.
As I said, I genuinely don’t know and I’m not prepared to spend any time researching it.
Let me know what you find if you do
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My point was I don’t think it made much of a difference, and pointed to what I consider based on experience much more tangible changes such as ring fencing and the stress testing landscape.
Which is why I moved on to reflect that it was a political rather than an economic move. Would you agree?
Note that this topic kicked off on the basis of the below;
“ And I genuinely don’t get this capping of bankers bonuses. They are employed to assess and take risk with money that isn’t theirs. That’s their job.
There will always be losses and gains in a role like that and I wish more businesses took assessed risks at times. If the rules on how much or how high a risk has to be changed then do that. Don’t discourage them from doing what they are skilled at. It’s a nonsense.”
I was wondering why you thought the cap on bankers bonuses “discouraged” bankers from doing what they were doing. You appeared to have linked bankers bonus capping to performance no? Apologies if I have misinterpreted!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ll try and say what I was meaning in this.
I believe we have lost serious talent overseas due to potential earnings for bankers. I also think that capping anyone’s earnings as a political move (in this I agree) just discouraged any venture capitalists or indeed large private concerns.
“If they cap bankers, why wouldn’t they eventually cap others?”
To me it’s a disincentive to invest in the uk.
The decision to cap these bonuses was effectively a punishment to everyone in banking as some sort of lesson to be learned for “risking the shop”. There must be other ways to encourage properly assessed risk with sensible checks and balances other than lowering earnings surely
Its not always as simple as that. I work in and with venture capitalists. And the bane of our existence are hedge funds. You can never be sure the motive behind acquisitions these days. And in my experience its never for the medium or longer term good of the companies. So to encourage short term thinking is not something to be encouraged imo.
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 4 minutes ago
Its not always as simple as that. I work in and with venture capitalists. And the bane of our existence are hedge funds. You can never be sure the motive behind acquisitions these days. And in my experience its never for the medium or longer term good of the companies. So to encourage short term thinking is not something to be encouraged imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My point is to control the short term thinking and any other measures possible to prevent abuse.
Granted it may prove impossible but to me a simplistic capping of bonuses just does not cut it.
Also just to note the cap was on material risk takers within banks, it didn’t apply to your folk on £21k working in the high street branch.
Did we see a banking brain drain within the UK, or indeed Europe where this was also implemented?
As above, I think it was a political move, a popular one at that, which is why it’s reversal seems to odd. I don’t see it changing our banking industry, but it has cost political capital.
The whole structure of banking remuneration is out very odd, recognising (both positively and negatively) short term impacts often driven significantly by external factors that the risk takers had no control over.
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 4 minutes ago
Its not always as simple as that. I work in and with venture capitalists. And the bane of our existence are hedge funds. You can never be sure the motive behind acquisitions these days. And in my experience its never for the medium or longer term good of the companies. So to encourage short term thinking is not something to be encouraged imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My point is to control the short term thinking and any other measures possible to prevent abuse.
Granted it may prove impossible but to me a simplistic capping of bonuses just does not cut it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As a behavioural shifter I agree capping bonuses doesn’t cut it. But I guess we’d settled on a “status quo” of a cap, and so to remove it with IMO no reasonable economic justification, and negative political consequences, was brainless.
“To me it’s a disincentive to invest in the uk.“
Funny you should say that…
Austerity damaging investment:
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy-growth-idUKBRE89F0H620121016
Brexit uncertainty damaging investment:
https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-uncertainty-means-uk-is-univestable-bernstein-says-2018-11?amp
https://www.ft.com/content/bd81b917-658a-3b99-a810-7f1b343ecb1e
Brexit deal damages investment:
https://www.bruegel.org/blog-post/shadow-brexit-guessing-economic-damage-uk
https://www.cityam.com/derivatives-hit-city-of-london-suffers-2-3-trillion-brexit-loss-in-a-single-month/?amp=1
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-22/how-a-year-of-brexit-thumped-britain-s-economy-and-businesses
Tax cut debacle damaging investment:
https://www.ft.com/content/beed72ad-413b-49ed-9508-b3e71e216ad0
https://amp.theguardian.com/business/live/2022/oct/03/pound-rally-45p-tax-u-turn-recession-fears-markets-factories-business-live
Seems like the Tories are absolute experts at smashing any hopes of inward investment.
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 4 minutes ago
Its not always as simple as that. I work in and with venture capitalists. And the bane of our existence are hedge funds. You can never be sure the motive behind acquisitions these days. And in my experience its never for the medium or longer term good of the companies. So to encourage short term thinking is not something to be encouraged imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My point is to control the short term thinking and any other measures possible to prevent abuse.
Granted it may prove impossible but to me a simplistic capping of bonuses just does not cut it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As a behavioural shifter I agree capping bonuses doesn’t cut it. But I guess we’d settled on a “status quo” of a cap, and so to remove it with IMO no reasonable economic justification, and negative political consequences, was brainless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed we should have put in measures before removing caps but my point was on depending upon caps as some kind of deterrent that worked on its own.
A lot more thought needs put in other than simply capping bonuses is my thought
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 9 minutes ago
Also just to note the cap was on material risk takers within banks, it didn’t apply to your folk on £21k working in the high street branch.
Did we see a banking brain drain within the UK, or indeed Europe where this was also implemented?
As above, I think it was a political move, a popular one at that, which is why it’s reversal seems to odd. I don’t see it changing our banking industry, but it has cost political capital.
The whole structure of banking remuneration is out very odd, recognising (both positively and negatively) short term impacts often driven significantly by external factors that the risk takers had no control over.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Undoubtedly it was a political move. And yet another in my mind that doesn’t work.
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 5 minutes ago
“To me it’s a disincentive to invest in the uk.“
Funny you should say that…
Austerity damaging investment:
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy-growth-idUKBRE89F0H620121016
Brexit uncertainty damaging investment:
https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-uncertainty-means-uk-is-univestable-bernstein-says-2018-11?amp
https://www.ft.com/content/bd81b917-658a-3b99-a810-7f1b343ecb1e
Brexit deal damages investment:
https://www.bruegel.org/blog-post/shadow-brexit-guessing-economic-damage-uk
https://www.cityam.com/derivatives-hit-city-of-london-suffers-2-3-trillion-brexit-loss-in-a-single-month/?amp=1
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-22/how-a-year-of-brexit-thumped-britain-s-economy-and-businesses
Tax cut debacle damaging investment:
https://www.ft.com/content/beed72ad-413b-49ed-9508-b3e71e216ad0
https://amp.theguardian.com/business/live/2022/oct/03/pound-rally-45p-tax-u-turn-recession-fears-markets-factories-business-live
Seems like the Tories are absolute experts at smashing any hopes of inward investment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you say so although as I’ve mentioned before, which party is best at attracting inward investment?
I don’t think for a second that Labour or anyone else is.
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 9 minutes ago
Also just to note the cap was on material risk takers within banks, it didn’t apply to your folk on £21k working in the high street branch.
Did we see a banking brain drain within the UK, or indeed Europe where this was also implemented?
As above, I think it was a political move, a popular one at that, which is why it’s reversal seems to odd. I don’t see it changing our banking industry, but it has cost political capital.
The whole structure of banking remuneration is out very odd, recognising (both positively and negatively) short term impacts often driven significantly by external factors that the risk takers had no control over.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Undoubtedly it was a political move. And yet another in my mind that doesn’t work.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn’t work politically or economically? Economically I agree, politically I think it was a useful tool, and it’s removal made Kwartang look like a useless tool #satire
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 5 minutes ago
“To me it’s a disincentive to invest in the uk.“
Funny you should say that…
Austerity damaging investment:
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy-growth-idUKBRE89F0H620121016
Brexit uncertainty damaging investment:
https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-uncertainty-means-uk-is-univestable-bernstein-says-2018-11?amp
https://www.ft.com/content/bd81b917-658a-3b99-a810-7f1b343ecb1e
Brexit deal damages investment:
https://www.bruegel.org/blog-post/shadow-brexit-guessing-economic-damage-uk
https://www.cityam.com/derivatives-hit-city-of-london-suffers-2-3-trillion-brexit-loss-in-a-single-month/?amp=1
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-22/how-a-year-of-brexit-thumped-britain-s-economy-and-businesses
Tax cut debacle damaging investment:
https://www.ft.com/content/beed72ad-413b-49ed-9508-b3e71e216ad0
https://amp.theguardian.com/business/live/2022/oct/03/pound-rally-45p-tax-u-turn-recession-fears-markets-factories-business-live
Seems like the Tories are absolute experts at smashing any hopes of inward investment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you say so although as I’ve mentioned before, which party is best at attracting inward investment?
I don’t think for a second that Labour or anyone else is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Investment in the party or the country?
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 12 minutes ago
“To me it’s a disincentive to invest in the uk.“
Funny you should say that…
Austerity damaging investment:
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy-growth-idUKBRE89F0H620121016
Brexit uncertainty damaging investment:
https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-uncertainty-means-uk-is-univestable-bernstein-says-2018-11?amp
https://www.ft.com/content/bd81b917-658a-3b99-a810-7f1b343ecb1e
Brexit deal damages investment:
https://www.bruegel.org/blog-post/shadow-brexit-guessing-economic-damage-uk
https://www.cityam.com/derivatives-hit-city-of-london-suffers-2-3-trillion-brexit-loss-in-a-single-month/?amp=1
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-22/how-a-year-of-brexit-thumped-britain-s-economy-and-businesses
Tax cut debacle damaging investment:
https://www.ft.com/content/beed72ad-413b-49ed-9508-b3e71e216ad0
https://amp.theguardian.com/business/live/2022/oct/03/pound-rally-45p-tax-u-turn-recession-fears-markets-factories-business-live
Seems like the Tories are absolute experts at smashing any hopes of inward investment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eight links Rosso.
Impressive. Most impressive
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 12 minutes ago
“To me it’s a disincentive to invest in the uk.“
Funny you should say that…
Austerity damaging investment:
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy-growth-idUKBRE89F0H620121016
Brexit uncertainty damaging investment:
https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-uncertainty-means-uk-is-univestable-bernstein-says-2018-11?amp
https://www.ft.com/content/bd81b917-658a-3b99-a810-7f1b343ecb1e
Brexit deal damages investment:
https://www.bruegel.org/blog-post/shadow-brexit-guessing-economic-damage-uk
https://www.cityam.com/derivatives-hit-city-of-london-suffers-2-3-trillion-brexit-loss-in-a-single-month/?amp=1
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-22/how-a-year-of-brexit-thumped-britain-s-economy-and-businesses
Tax cut debacle damaging investment:
https://www.ft.com/content/beed72ad-413b-49ed-9508-b3e71e216ad0
https://amp.theguardian.com/business/live/2022/oct/03/pound-rally-45p-tax-u-turn-recession-fears-markets-factories-business-live
Seems like the Tories are absolute experts at smashing any hopes of inward investment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eight links Rosso.
Impressive. Most impressive
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And an hour of my life gone reminding myself of each and every catastrophic economic decision the Tories have made over the last decade
Sign in if you want to comment
Arguing w/strangers cause I'm lonely thread
Page 3019 of 4933
3020 | 3021 | 3022 | 3023 | 3024
posted on 3/10/22
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 9 minutes ago
How on earth is it the party members fault when the MP’s put up the choice between 2 individuals so clearly at odds with each other on tax and borrowings?
Talk about ignoring the elephant in the room, and if you believe the non dom argument with Sunak and his wife didn’t cause uproar or that the eat out to help scheme didn’t significantly increase the rate of the virus then you haven’t even been reading the room.
You stick to the racism theory. I’ll leave it there
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to more interesting topics, how much do you think banker bonuses cap impacted banking operations and risk taking versus the increased cap and liquidity requirements, ring fencing and stress testing?
posted on 3/10/22
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 9 minutes ago
How on earth is it the party members fault when the MP’s put up the choice between 2 individuals so clearly at odds with each other on tax and borrowings?
Talk about ignoring the elephant in the room, and if you believe the non dom argument with Sunak and his wife didn’t cause uproar or that the eat out to help scheme didn’t significantly increase the rate of the virus then you haven’t even been reading the room.
You stick to the racism theory. I’ll leave it there
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to more interesting topics, how much do you think banker bonuses cap impacted banking operations and risk taking versus the increased cap and liquidity requirements, ring fencing and stress testing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I genuinely don’t know and certainly don’t have the knowledge to even guess. All I said was that we don’t know what positive impact it could have had were we not to cap bonuses and said I’m sure there are other ways to implement damage limitation.
That’s all.
posted on 3/10/22
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 9 minutes ago
How on earth is it the party members fault when the MP’s put up the choice between 2 individuals so clearly at odds with each other on tax and borrowings?
Talk about ignoring the elephant in the room, and if you believe the non dom argument with Sunak and his wife didn’t cause uproar or that the eat out to help scheme didn’t significantly increase the rate of the virus then you haven’t even been reading the room.
You stick to the racism theory. I’ll leave it there
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to more interesting topics, how much do you think banker bonuses cap impacted banking operations and risk taking versus the increased cap and liquidity requirements, ring fencing and stress testing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 3 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to more interesting topics, how much do you think banker bonuses cap impacted banking operations and risk taking versus the increased cap and liquidity requirements, ring fencing and stress testing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd keep my cash reserves in multiple banks below £85K.
Unless Kamkasi Kwasi in about to change that backstop as well. Wouldn't put is past it him and thicklizze!
posted on 3/10/22
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 5 minutes ago
You are clutching at straws to avoid saying the obvious!
This was not a choice between Labour and Conservatives.
Its was between two very distinct policy choices in the conservative party! The truth is anyone the conservatives put up against Sunak would have won because a large percentage of the membership was reabsorbed from UKIP.
William Hague suggested a rule change to avoid going to membership because he knew what would happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fwiw, I don't believe that inherent racism or Sunak's record had anything whatsoever to do with the membership's choice of Truss's agenda.
It was a binary choice between vastly different policy propositions: a measured, small-c, more compassionate conservatism, and an open pledge to fulfil the unashamedly hard right, low-tax, Singapore-on-Thames agenda.
The party was never, ever going to opt for the former. You could have switched the candidates, and the same agenda would have prevailed, without an iota of doubt.
posted on 3/10/22
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 5 minutes ago
You are clutching at straws to avoid saying the obvious!
This was not a choice between Labour and Conservatives.
Its was between two very distinct policy choices in the conservative party! The truth is anyone the conservatives put up against Sunak would have won because a large percentage of the membership was reabsorbed from UKIP.
William Hague suggested a rule change to avoid going to membership because he knew what would happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fwiw, I don't believe that inherent racism or Sunak's record had anything whatsoever to do with the membership's choice of Truss's agenda.
It was a binary choice between vastly different policy propositions: a measured, small-c, more compassionate conservatism, and an open pledge to fulfil the unashamedly hard right, low-tax, Singapore-on-Thames agenda.
The party was never, ever going to opt for the former. You could have switched the candidates, and the same agenda would have prevailed, without an iota of doubt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe you are right. I just don't think the demographics of the membership has the capacity to analyse it as you are doing.
posted on 3/10/22
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 5 minutes ago
You are clutching at straws to avoid saying the obvious!
This was not a choice between Labour and Conservatives.
Its was between two very distinct policy choices in the conservative party! The truth is anyone the conservatives put up against Sunak would have won because a large percentage of the membership was reabsorbed from UKIP.
William Hague suggested a rule change to avoid going to membership because he knew what would happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fwiw, I don't believe that inherent racism or Sunak's record had anything whatsoever to do with the membership's choice of Truss's agenda.
It was a binary choice between vastly different policy propositions: a measured, small-c, more compassionate conservatism, and an open pledge to fulfil the unashamedly hard right, low-tax, Singapore-on-Thames agenda.
The party was never, ever going to opt for the former. You could have switched the candidates, and the same agenda would have prevailed, without an iota of doubt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can see that. For me I believe Sunak had “blotted” his cv and that along with the stick on austerity and even more tax rises was enough to think “let’s at least try and stimulate things”.
Not that I had a vote of course
posted on 3/10/22
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 9 minutes ago
How on earth is it the party members fault when the MP’s put up the choice between 2 individuals so clearly at odds with each other on tax and borrowings?
Talk about ignoring the elephant in the room, and if you believe the non dom argument with Sunak and his wife didn’t cause uproar or that the eat out to help scheme didn’t significantly increase the rate of the virus then you haven’t even been reading the room.
You stick to the racism theory. I’ll leave it there
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to more interesting topics, how much do you think banker bonuses cap impacted banking operations and risk taking versus the increased cap and liquidity requirements, ring fencing and stress testing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I genuinely don’t know and certainly don’t have the knowledge to even guess. All I said was that we don’t know what positive impact it could have had were we not to cap bonuses and said I’m sure there are other ways to implement damage limitation.
That’s all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But as I mentioned some countries did cap bonuses and some didn’t, so presumably there would be some evidence?
posted on 3/10/22
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 9 minutes ago
How on earth is it the party members fault when the MP’s put up the choice between 2 individuals so clearly at odds with each other on tax and borrowings?
Talk about ignoring the elephant in the room, and if you believe the non dom argument with Sunak and his wife didn’t cause uproar or that the eat out to help scheme didn’t significantly increase the rate of the virus then you haven’t even been reading the room.
You stick to the racism theory. I’ll leave it there
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to more interesting topics, how much do you think banker bonuses cap impacted banking operations and risk taking versus the increased cap and liquidity requirements, ring fencing and stress testing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I genuinely don’t know and certainly don’t have the knowledge to even guess. All I said was that we don’t know what positive impact it could have had were we not to cap bonuses and said I’m sure there are other ways to implement damage limitation.
That’s all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But as I mentioned some countries did cap bonuses and some didn’t, so presumably there would be some evidence?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m sure there will be or otherwise they’d all do the same thing if it was obvious as to which works and which doesn’t.
As I said, I genuinely don’t know and I’m not prepared to spend any time researching it.
Let me know what you find if you do
posted on 3/10/22
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 5 minutes ago
You are clutching at straws to avoid saying the obvious!
This was not a choice between Labour and Conservatives.
Its was between two very distinct policy choices in the conservative party! The truth is anyone the conservatives put up against Sunak would have won because a large percentage of the membership was reabsorbed from UKIP.
William Hague suggested a rule change to avoid going to membership because he knew what would happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fwiw, I don't believe that inherent racism or Sunak's record had anything whatsoever to do with the membership's choice of Truss's agenda.
It was a binary choice between vastly different policy propositions: a measured, small-c, more compassionate conservatism, and an open pledge to fulfil the unashamedly hard right, low-tax, Singapore-on-Thames agenda.
The party was never, ever going to opt for the former. You could have switched the candidates, and the same agenda would have prevailed, without an iota of doubt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m inclined to agree with this assessment, mindful that the membership of the party ≠ Conservative Party voters or the electorate at large.
posted on 3/10/22
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 5 minutes ago
You are clutching at straws to avoid saying the obvious!
This was not a choice between Labour and Conservatives.
Its was between two very distinct policy choices in the conservative party! The truth is anyone the conservatives put up against Sunak would have won because a large percentage of the membership was reabsorbed from UKIP.
William Hague suggested a rule change to avoid going to membership because he knew what would happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fwiw, I don't believe that inherent racism or Sunak's record had anything whatsoever to do with the membership's choice of Truss's agenda.
It was a binary choice between vastly different policy propositions: a measured, small-c, more compassionate conservatism, and an open pledge to fulfil the unashamedly hard right, low-tax, Singapore-on-Thames agenda.
The party was never, ever going to opt for the former. You could have switched the candidates, and the same agenda would have prevailed, without an iota of doubt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe you are right. I just don't think the demographics of the membership has the capacity to analyse it as you are doing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do wonder if the demographics of the party are starting to become a concern for Conservative HQ and the parliamentary party.
Their main problem with trying to balance it a little is, of course, the fact that in terms of relative wealth, under 40s are getting poorer year on year, working class people of all ages are getting poorer year on year, and even many in the relatively comfortable Tory heartlands are starting to see their businesses struggle and life become more difficult as a result of repeated Tory failures with the economy.
I think there are many who might have been Cameron voters who will now be reviewing what we now know about the disastrous failure that was Osborne's austerity (for the wider economy, not just the country's most vulnerable), the nation's crumbling infrastructure, struggling public services, the hard realities of Brexit, labour shortages and more, and thinking about whether they've been backing the right horse the last fifteen or twenty years.
posted on 3/10/22
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 17 seconds ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 9 minutes ago
How on earth is it the party members fault when the MP’s put up the choice between 2 individuals so clearly at odds with each other on tax and borrowings?
Talk about ignoring the elephant in the room, and if you believe the non dom argument with Sunak and his wife didn’t cause uproar or that the eat out to help scheme didn’t significantly increase the rate of the virus then you haven’t even been reading the room.
You stick to the racism theory. I’ll leave it there
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to more interesting topics, how much do you think banker bonuses cap impacted banking operations and risk taking versus the increased cap and liquidity requirements, ring fencing and stress testing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I genuinely don’t know and certainly don’t have the knowledge to even guess. All I said was that we don’t know what positive impact it could have had were we not to cap bonuses and said I’m sure there are other ways to implement damage limitation.
That’s all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But as I mentioned some countries did cap bonuses and some didn’t, so presumably there would be some evidence?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m sure there will be or otherwise they’d all do the same thing if it was obvious as to which works and which doesn’t.
As I said, I genuinely don’t know and I’m not prepared to spend any time researching it.
Let me know what you find if you do
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My point was I don’t think it made much of a difference, and pointed to what I consider based on experience much more tangible changes such as ring fencing and the stress testing landscape.
Which is why I moved on to reflect that it was a political rather than an economic move. Would you agree?
Note that this topic kicked off on the basis of the below;
“ And I genuinely don’t get this capping of bankers bonuses. They are employed to assess and take risk with money that isn’t theirs. That’s their job.
There will always be losses and gains in a role like that and I wish more businesses took assessed risks at times. If the rules on how much or how high a risk has to be changed then do that. Don’t discourage them from doing what they are skilled at. It’s a nonsense.”
I was wondering why you thought the cap on bankers bonuses “discouraged” bankers from doing what they were doing. You appeared to have linked bankers bonus capping to performance no? Apologies if I have misinterpreted!
posted on 3/10/22
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 20 seconds ago
Maybe you are right. I just don't think the demographics of the membership has the capacity to analyse it as you are doing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do wonder if the demographics of the party are starting to become a concern for Conservative HQ and the parliamentary party.
Their main problem with trying to balance it a little is, of course, the fact that in terms of relative wealth, under 40s are getting poorer year on year, working class people of all ages are getting poorer year on year, and even many in the relatively comfortable Tory heartlands are starting to see their businesses struggle and life become more difficult as a result of repeated Tory failures with the economy.
I think there are many who might have been Cameron voters who will now be reviewing what we now know about the disastrous failure that was Osborne's austerity (for the wider economy, not just the country's most vulnerable), the nation's crumbling infrastructure, struggling public services, the hard realities of Brexit, labour shortages and more, and thinking about whether they've been backing the right horse the last fifteen or twenty years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And yet we maybe condemned many more years of it which ever party wins and this time not out of choice especially if stagflation starts show its face.
posted on 3/10/22
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 17 seconds ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 9 minutes ago
How on earth is it the party members fault when the MP’s put up the choice between 2 individuals so clearly at odds with each other on tax and borrowings?
Talk about ignoring the elephant in the room, and if you believe the non dom argument with Sunak and his wife didn’t cause uproar or that the eat out to help scheme didn’t significantly increase the rate of the virus then you haven’t even been reading the room.
You stick to the racism theory. I’ll leave it there
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to more interesting topics, how much do you think banker bonuses cap impacted banking operations and risk taking versus the increased cap and liquidity requirements, ring fencing and stress testing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I genuinely don’t know and certainly don’t have the knowledge to even guess. All I said was that we don’t know what positive impact it could have had were we not to cap bonuses and said I’m sure there are other ways to implement damage limitation.
That’s all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But as I mentioned some countries did cap bonuses and some didn’t, so presumably there would be some evidence?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m sure there will be or otherwise they’d all do the same thing if it was obvious as to which works and which doesn’t.
As I said, I genuinely don’t know and I’m not prepared to spend any time researching it.
Let me know what you find if you do
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My point was I don’t think it made much of a difference, and pointed to what I consider based on experience much more tangible changes such as ring fencing and the stress testing landscape.
Which is why I moved on to reflect that it was a political rather than an economic move. Would you agree?
Note that this topic kicked off on the basis of the below;
“ And I genuinely don’t get this capping of bankers bonuses. They are employed to assess and take risk with money that isn’t theirs. That’s their job.
There will always be losses and gains in a role like that and I wish more businesses took assessed risks at times. If the rules on how much or how high a risk has to be changed then do that. Don’t discourage them from doing what they are skilled at. It’s a nonsense.”
I was wondering why you thought the cap on bankers bonuses “discouraged” bankers from doing what they were doing. You appeared to have linked bankers bonus capping to performance no? Apologies if I have misinterpreted!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ll try and say what I was meaning in this.
I believe we have lost serious talent overseas due to potential earnings for bankers. I also think that capping anyone’s earnings as a political move (in this I agree) just discouraged any venture capitalists or indeed large private concerns.
“If they cap bankers, why wouldn’t they eventually cap others?”
To me it’s a disincentive to invest in the uk.
The decision to cap these bonuses was effectively a punishment to everyone in banking as some sort of lesson to be learned for “risking the shop”. There must be other ways to encourage properly assessed risk with sensible checks and balances other than lowering earnings surely
posted on 3/10/22
Its not always as simple as that. I work in and with venture capitalists. And the bane of our existence are hedge funds. You can never be sure the motive behind acquisitions these days. And in my experience its never for the medium or longer term good of the companies. So to encourage short term thinking is not something to be encouraged imo.
posted on 3/10/22
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 4 minutes ago
Its not always as simple as that. I work in and with venture capitalists. And the bane of our existence are hedge funds. You can never be sure the motive behind acquisitions these days. And in my experience its never for the medium or longer term good of the companies. So to encourage short term thinking is not something to be encouraged imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My point is to control the short term thinking and any other measures possible to prevent abuse.
Granted it may prove impossible but to me a simplistic capping of bonuses just does not cut it.
posted on 3/10/22
Also just to note the cap was on material risk takers within banks, it didn’t apply to your folk on £21k working in the high street branch.
Did we see a banking brain drain within the UK, or indeed Europe where this was also implemented?
As above, I think it was a political move, a popular one at that, which is why it’s reversal seems to odd. I don’t see it changing our banking industry, but it has cost political capital.
The whole structure of banking remuneration is out very odd, recognising (both positively and negatively) short term impacts often driven significantly by external factors that the risk takers had no control over.
posted on 3/10/22
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 4 minutes ago
Its not always as simple as that. I work in and with venture capitalists. And the bane of our existence are hedge funds. You can never be sure the motive behind acquisitions these days. And in my experience its never for the medium or longer term good of the companies. So to encourage short term thinking is not something to be encouraged imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My point is to control the short term thinking and any other measures possible to prevent abuse.
Granted it may prove impossible but to me a simplistic capping of bonuses just does not cut it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As a behavioural shifter I agree capping bonuses doesn’t cut it. But I guess we’d settled on a “status quo” of a cap, and so to remove it with IMO no reasonable economic justification, and negative political consequences, was brainless.
posted on 3/10/22
“To me it’s a disincentive to invest in the uk.“
Funny you should say that…
Austerity damaging investment:
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy-growth-idUKBRE89F0H620121016
Brexit uncertainty damaging investment:
https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-uncertainty-means-uk-is-univestable-bernstein-says-2018-11?amp
https://www.ft.com/content/bd81b917-658a-3b99-a810-7f1b343ecb1e
Brexit deal damages investment:
https://www.bruegel.org/blog-post/shadow-brexit-guessing-economic-damage-uk
https://www.cityam.com/derivatives-hit-city-of-london-suffers-2-3-trillion-brexit-loss-in-a-single-month/?amp=1
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-22/how-a-year-of-brexit-thumped-britain-s-economy-and-businesses
Tax cut debacle damaging investment:
https://www.ft.com/content/beed72ad-413b-49ed-9508-b3e71e216ad0
https://amp.theguardian.com/business/live/2022/oct/03/pound-rally-45p-tax-u-turn-recession-fears-markets-factories-business-live
Seems like the Tories are absolute experts at smashing any hopes of inward investment.
posted on 3/10/22
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 4 minutes ago
Its not always as simple as that. I work in and with venture capitalists. And the bane of our existence are hedge funds. You can never be sure the motive behind acquisitions these days. And in my experience its never for the medium or longer term good of the companies. So to encourage short term thinking is not something to be encouraged imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My point is to control the short term thinking and any other measures possible to prevent abuse.
Granted it may prove impossible but to me a simplistic capping of bonuses just does not cut it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As a behavioural shifter I agree capping bonuses doesn’t cut it. But I guess we’d settled on a “status quo” of a cap, and so to remove it with IMO no reasonable economic justification, and negative political consequences, was brainless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed we should have put in measures before removing caps but my point was on depending upon caps as some kind of deterrent that worked on its own.
A lot more thought needs put in other than simply capping bonuses is my thought
posted on 3/10/22
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 9 minutes ago
Also just to note the cap was on material risk takers within banks, it didn’t apply to your folk on £21k working in the high street branch.
Did we see a banking brain drain within the UK, or indeed Europe where this was also implemented?
As above, I think it was a political move, a popular one at that, which is why it’s reversal seems to odd. I don’t see it changing our banking industry, but it has cost political capital.
The whole structure of banking remuneration is out very odd, recognising (both positively and negatively) short term impacts often driven significantly by external factors that the risk takers had no control over.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Undoubtedly it was a political move. And yet another in my mind that doesn’t work.
posted on 3/10/22
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 5 minutes ago
“To me it’s a disincentive to invest in the uk.“
Funny you should say that…
Austerity damaging investment:
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy-growth-idUKBRE89F0H620121016
Brexit uncertainty damaging investment:
https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-uncertainty-means-uk-is-univestable-bernstein-says-2018-11?amp
https://www.ft.com/content/bd81b917-658a-3b99-a810-7f1b343ecb1e
Brexit deal damages investment:
https://www.bruegel.org/blog-post/shadow-brexit-guessing-economic-damage-uk
https://www.cityam.com/derivatives-hit-city-of-london-suffers-2-3-trillion-brexit-loss-in-a-single-month/?amp=1
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-22/how-a-year-of-brexit-thumped-britain-s-economy-and-businesses
Tax cut debacle damaging investment:
https://www.ft.com/content/beed72ad-413b-49ed-9508-b3e71e216ad0
https://amp.theguardian.com/business/live/2022/oct/03/pound-rally-45p-tax-u-turn-recession-fears-markets-factories-business-live
Seems like the Tories are absolute experts at smashing any hopes of inward investment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you say so although as I’ve mentioned before, which party is best at attracting inward investment?
I don’t think for a second that Labour or anyone else is.
posted on 3/10/22
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 9 minutes ago
Also just to note the cap was on material risk takers within banks, it didn’t apply to your folk on £21k working in the high street branch.
Did we see a banking brain drain within the UK, or indeed Europe where this was also implemented?
As above, I think it was a political move, a popular one at that, which is why it’s reversal seems to odd. I don’t see it changing our banking industry, but it has cost political capital.
The whole structure of banking remuneration is out very odd, recognising (both positively and negatively) short term impacts often driven significantly by external factors that the risk takers had no control over.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Undoubtedly it was a political move. And yet another in my mind that doesn’t work.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn’t work politically or economically? Economically I agree, politically I think it was a useful tool, and it’s removal made Kwartang look like a useless tool #satire
posted on 3/10/22
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 5 minutes ago
“To me it’s a disincentive to invest in the uk.“
Funny you should say that…
Austerity damaging investment:
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy-growth-idUKBRE89F0H620121016
Brexit uncertainty damaging investment:
https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-uncertainty-means-uk-is-univestable-bernstein-says-2018-11?amp
https://www.ft.com/content/bd81b917-658a-3b99-a810-7f1b343ecb1e
Brexit deal damages investment:
https://www.bruegel.org/blog-post/shadow-brexit-guessing-economic-damage-uk
https://www.cityam.com/derivatives-hit-city-of-london-suffers-2-3-trillion-brexit-loss-in-a-single-month/?amp=1
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-22/how-a-year-of-brexit-thumped-britain-s-economy-and-businesses
Tax cut debacle damaging investment:
https://www.ft.com/content/beed72ad-413b-49ed-9508-b3e71e216ad0
https://amp.theguardian.com/business/live/2022/oct/03/pound-rally-45p-tax-u-turn-recession-fears-markets-factories-business-live
Seems like the Tories are absolute experts at smashing any hopes of inward investment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you say so although as I’ve mentioned before, which party is best at attracting inward investment?
I don’t think for a second that Labour or anyone else is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Investment in the party or the country?
posted on 3/10/22
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 12 minutes ago
“To me it’s a disincentive to invest in the uk.“
Funny you should say that…
Austerity damaging investment:
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy-growth-idUKBRE89F0H620121016
Brexit uncertainty damaging investment:
https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-uncertainty-means-uk-is-univestable-bernstein-says-2018-11?amp
https://www.ft.com/content/bd81b917-658a-3b99-a810-7f1b343ecb1e
Brexit deal damages investment:
https://www.bruegel.org/blog-post/shadow-brexit-guessing-economic-damage-uk
https://www.cityam.com/derivatives-hit-city-of-london-suffers-2-3-trillion-brexit-loss-in-a-single-month/?amp=1
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-22/how-a-year-of-brexit-thumped-britain-s-economy-and-businesses
Tax cut debacle damaging investment:
https://www.ft.com/content/beed72ad-413b-49ed-9508-b3e71e216ad0
https://amp.theguardian.com/business/live/2022/oct/03/pound-rally-45p-tax-u-turn-recession-fears-markets-factories-business-live
Seems like the Tories are absolute experts at smashing any hopes of inward investment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eight links Rosso.
Impressive. Most impressive
posted on 3/10/22
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 12 minutes ago
“To me it’s a disincentive to invest in the uk.“
Funny you should say that…
Austerity damaging investment:
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy-growth-idUKBRE89F0H620121016
Brexit uncertainty damaging investment:
https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-uncertainty-means-uk-is-univestable-bernstein-says-2018-11?amp
https://www.ft.com/content/bd81b917-658a-3b99-a810-7f1b343ecb1e
Brexit deal damages investment:
https://www.bruegel.org/blog-post/shadow-brexit-guessing-economic-damage-uk
https://www.cityam.com/derivatives-hit-city-of-london-suffers-2-3-trillion-brexit-loss-in-a-single-month/?amp=1
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-22/how-a-year-of-brexit-thumped-britain-s-economy-and-businesses
Tax cut debacle damaging investment:
https://www.ft.com/content/beed72ad-413b-49ed-9508-b3e71e216ad0
https://amp.theguardian.com/business/live/2022/oct/03/pound-rally-45p-tax-u-turn-recession-fears-markets-factories-business-live
Seems like the Tories are absolute experts at smashing any hopes of inward investment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eight links Rosso.
Impressive. Most impressive
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And an hour of my life gone reminding myself of each and every catastrophic economic decision the Tories have made over the last decade
Page 3019 of 4933
3020 | 3021 | 3022 | 3023 | 3024