comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted about a minute ago
comment by RRRU-ben a-moo-REENG (U17054)
posted about an hour ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 39 minutes ago
Business support during lockdown (Inc furlough) £140 billion
Economic black hole £20 billion

Pay back what you owe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Banks bailed out with £133bn of taxpayers’ money 2008-2009. Still owe £30bn.

Economic black hole £20bn.

Pay back what you owe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
privatise the profits...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Eh?

How do you propose anyone does that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's what they did, I know you're not as young as you once were but surely you remember 2008?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Cheeky fwcker

Ok. On a personal level I believe we should have let market forces dictate their future but that's by the by now. They've paid back £130bn of the £133bn bail out. There is a payback model in place and it's working.

This "black hole" is a remaining balance that is very secure. That is all there is to it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s £30bn of the bailouts to pay back still.

More widely (beyond the very direct cost), there’s compound interest they could have been paying at a fair rate on the loans, there’s the cost of what else could have been done with £133bn of taxpayer’s cash (as well as part of the £1tn reserve guaranteed to further cover them), there’s the damage they did to the wider economy (which has cumulatively cost *far* more than £133bn), there’s their contribution to the damage done to actual people’s lives as a result of austerity…

Meanwhile, the Treasury is due to pay out over £150bn to the Bank of England over the next four years to cover interest payments to commercial banks, on top of the £30bn already paid out in 2023.

Bailed them out, then went back to the business-as-usual model of subsidising commercial banking whilst they turn literally facking insane profits via their once again unrestricted gambling.

It’s just another way of funnelling working people’s taxes to the ultra rich, and another part of the reason why we’re closing in on 1% of the population controlling as much wealth as the bottom 90% combined.

comment by RRRU-ben a-moo-REENG (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted about a minute ago
comment by RRRU-ben a-moo-REENG (U17054)
posted about an hour ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 39 minutes ago
Business support during lockdown (Inc furlough) £140 billion
Economic black hole £20 billion

Pay back what you owe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Banks bailed out with £133bn of taxpayers’ money 2008-2009. Still owe £30bn.

Economic black hole £20bn.

Pay back what you owe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
privatise the profits...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Eh?

How do you propose anyone does that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's what they did, I know you're not as young as you once were but surely you remember 2008?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Cheeky fwcker

Ok. On a personal level I believe we should have let market forces dictate their future but that's by the by now. They've paid back £130bn of the £133bn bail out. There is a payback model in place and it's working.

This "black hole" is a remaining balance that is very secure. That is all there is to it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s £30bn of the bailouts to pay back still.

More widely (beyond the very direct cost), there’s compound interest they could have been paying at a fair rate on the loans, there’s the cost of what else could have been done with £133bn of taxpayer’s cash (as well as part of the £1tn reserve guaranteed to further cover them), there’s the damage they did to the wider economy (which has cumulatively cost *far* more than £133bn), there’s their contribution to the damage done to actual people’s lives as a result of austerity…

Meanwhile, the Treasury is due to pay out over £150bn to the Bank of England over the next four years to cover interest payments to commercial banks, on top of the £30bn already paid out in 2023.

Bailed them out, then went back to the business-as-usual model of subsidising commercial banking whilst they turn literally facking insane profits via their once again unrestricted gambling.

It’s just another way of funnelling working people’s taxes to the ultra rich, and another part of the reason why we’re closing in on 1% of the population controlling as much wealth as the bottom 90% combined.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It’s being paid back. It’s up to the government as to whether they apply interest and having not done so, can’t go back now.

Best of luck closing in on that 1%. You’ll need it, because that 1% will move wealth, invest abroad or whatever. They’ve far more intelligence and have far better advice than any government will ever have. Nothing this government is or will be doing will change that one iota. Never has done

Just consider this world we live in for a moment:

We all work hard, spend most of what we earn literally just keeping ourselves alive, and pay our taxes. Most of the rest of the cash we have sits in accounts with retail banks, who “look after” it for us until we need it. They don’t give us any interest on our deposits nowadays (or very few do, anyway), and many of them require us to actually pay them a subscription fee for this “looking after” service.

Meanwhile, those same banks need someone to look after their spare cash too (because they have too much to look after themselves). So they ask the Bank of England to do it. So the Bank of England probably does the same as the retail banks, doesn’t it? Zero interest, and a subscription fee for the service?

Nope. The BoE instead pays a healthy interest rate on those banks’ deposits. And how can it afford to do that? Well, the Treasury pays for it. And how does the Treasury pay for it? From taxation. Tens of billions of quid a year it costs us all.

And in the meantime, we spend our spare hours arguing about benefit claimants and asylum seekers.

comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 58 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 2 minutes ago

Are you answerable to shareholders, are you sole owner, or one of several partners?

What kind of workers rights are you worried about?

Where is the balance between creating more lower-quality jobs or fewer higher-quality jobs?

How much (more?) would you be willing to shave off your own income for the benefit of your lower earners?

What's your purpose in life, your actual ambition?

What would you like people to say about you once you're gone?

I know it's a lot to ask, but I'm genuinely interested.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Blimey. I'll do my best here

1. Answerable to shareholders in one business, sole owner in two others and in partnership on another. Along with a some ND consultancies.

2. Rights from day 1. We already pay above minimum wage and are well ahead of things like bereavement time, care, sickness pay on day 1 and the like.

3. Bit of a mix although I'd like to offer well paid trainee jobs that develop into highly paid opportunities that help us retain key staff

4. I've refused salary increases to ensure some employees have earned more from the pot. When in difficulty during Covid I went without pay for 6 months voluntarily. I'd do what it takes to protect the business and employees until it became an untenable situation or the business is at risk. Only once have I made redundancies in a high loss making business I had been tasked to try and turn round. We sold it two years later for £1.

5. To do the best I can, Be a decent person (I know), take care of my family and gain as many life experiences as I can.

6. Managed to do the above. Liked by my employees and business partners for what I've tried to do selflessly and for my family to miss me but be content and strong enough to make their own happy paths in life.

Phew. Soul bared there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Very generous of you to share, thanks.

On 1: That was just to give an idea of the extent to which you're free to make your own business decisions

On 2: What's day 1 rights about then? What's new that you weren't doing before?

(To clarify: I haven't lived in the UK for over 40 years and never actually worked there, so I don't have a clue of labour legislation over there.)

On 3: Fair. As someone who's struggled with steady employment for going on 20 years (mostly self-employed) and who's re-qualified with a uni and master's degree in his mid-50s, I'd like to see more was done for a lot of people who are approaching retirement age and might still have valuable contributions to make. Can't speak for the UK, but there's barely anything going on in that regard here in Spain.

4. That sounds very decent of you. Out of curiosity, were those steps driven more by business concerns or a sense of fairness? I'd imagine a combination of both - or do notions of fairness not make for good employment practices?

5. Yeah, I guess most of us want to think of ourselves as 'decent people'. Some undoubtedly find a perverse, psychopathic pleasure in being bad, but I'm not sure even they consider themselves evil.

At what point does work start to get in the way of you having more life experiences than you have now? I don't know how old you are, but do you see a point where you retire in order to have more time to pursue other experiences?

6. I sincerely hope that's something you are able to take with you when the time comes.

comment by RRRU-ben a-moo-REENG (U17054)
posted 7 minutes ago
Just consider this world we live in for a moment:

We all work hard, spend most of what we earn literally just keeping ourselves alive, and pay our taxes. Most of the rest of the cash we have sits in accounts with retail banks, who “look after” it for us until we need it. They don’t give us any interest on our deposits nowadays (or very few do, anyway), and many of them require us to actually pay them a subscription fee for this “looking after” service.

Meanwhile, those same banks need someone to look after their spare cash too (because they have too much to look after themselves). So they ask the Bank of England to do it. So the Bank of England probably does the same as the retail banks, doesn’t it? Zero interest, and a subscription fee for the service?

Nope. The BoE instead pays a healthy interest rate on those banks’ deposits. And how can it afford to do that? Well, the Treasury pays for it. And how does the Treasury pay for it? From taxation. Tens of billions of quid a year it costs us all.

And in the meantime, we spend our spare hours arguing about benefit claimants and asylum seekers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Mental isn’t it because essentially we all want the same things in a way. It’s how we believe we should go about it.

I’m at the stage where I’m wholeheartedly sick of pretty much all politicians. It’s just Labour that’s getting it now from me as I see such ineptitude and narrow mindedness.

Don’t start me on the last lot.

Our choice is trying to work out the best of the worst.

comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 58 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 2 minutes ago

Are you answerable to shareholders, are you sole owner, or one of several partners?

What kind of workers rights are you worried about?

Where is the balance between creating more lower-quality jobs or fewer higher-quality jobs?

How much (more?) would you be willing to shave off your own income for the benefit of your lower earners?

What's your purpose in life, your actual ambition?

What would you like people to say about you once you're gone?

I know it's a lot to ask, but I'm genuinely interested.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Blimey. I'll do my best here

1. Answerable to shareholders in one business, sole owner in two others and in partnership on another. Along with a some ND consultancies.

2. Rights from day 1. We already pay above minimum wage and are well ahead of things like bereavement time, care, sickness pay on day 1 and the like.

3. Bit of a mix although I'd like to offer well paid trainee jobs that develop into highly paid opportunities that help us retain key staff

4. I've refused salary increases to ensure some employees have earned more from the pot. When in difficulty during Covid I went without pay for 6 months voluntarily. I'd do what it takes to protect the business and employees until it became an untenable situation or the business is at risk. Only once have I made redundancies in a high loss making business I had been tasked to try and turn round. We sold it two years later for £1.

5. To do the best I can, Be a decent person (I know), take care of my family and gain as many life experiences as I can.

6. Managed to do the above. Liked by my employees and business partners for what I've tried to do selflessly and for my family to miss me but be content and strong enough to make their own happy paths in life.

Phew. Soul bared there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Very generous of you to share, thanks.

On 1: That was just to give an idea of the extent to which you're free to make your own business decisions. Mostly free in all of them

On 2: What's day 1 rights about then? What's new that you weren't doing before?

(To clarify: I haven't lived in the UK for over 40 years and never actually worked there, so I don't have a clue of labour legislation over there.)

The main one here for me is that you can’t simply dismiss someone within the 2 year period when they don’t perform as either they said they would or you deem it so. That’s going.

On 3: Fair. As someone who's struggled with steady employment for going on 20 years (mostly self-employed) and who's re-qualified with a uni and master's degree in his mid-50s, I'd like to see more was done for a lot of people who are approaching retirement age and might still have valuable contributions to make. Can't speak for the UK, but there's barely anything going on in that regard here in Spain.

We try and mix experience with raw talent and youth. You need both.

4. That sounds very decent of you. Out of curiosity, were those steps driven more by business concerns or a sense of fairness? I'd imagine a combination of both - or do notions of fairness not make for good employment practices?

Purely out of fairness. The alternative was letting people go.

5. Yeah, I guess most of us want to think of ourselves as 'decent people'. Some undoubtedly find a perverse, psychopathic pleasure in being bad, but I'm not sure even they consider themselves evil.

At what point does work start to get in the way of you having more life experiences than you have now? I don't know how old you are, but do you see a point where you retire in order to have more time to pursue other experiences?

I’m lucky in that I’m 90% in control of my own time so it’s not much of an obstacle.

6. I sincerely hope that's something you are able to take with you when the time comes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks. I’ve answered your subsidiary questions in this same post and added them on to yours.

comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted 4 hours, 5 minutes ago
The MAGA dummies are proclaiming it’s all about Fentanyl which is the latest buzzword to be used as an excuse for this to happen. Soon thicko MAGA folk will be saying ‘I don’t mind paying $25 for *insert newly expensive time* because Trump is stopping the fentanyl.

How would they even measure that success? Trumps daily imagined Fentanyl reports?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WATE

My fentynal will cossed me moor?

Trump OUT

comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 21 minutes ago

Thanks. I’ve answered your subsidiary questions in this same post and added them on to yours.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks again.

Regarding the fairness issue, I wasn't properly clear. I meant it more as regards the first sentence (about sharing from the pot) as opposed to the Covid furloughs, but you already replied that the furloughs were entirely about fairness, so I take that it would also apply to your general business approach. Good on you.


In terms of the day 1 issue, I don't quite get it. If you were already ahead of industry standards in most regards, what additional costs do you incur if you have to dismiss someone within that timeframe?

At least here in Spain, severance or redundancy pay (don't know if either is the appropriate term, tbh) is based on time worked - whereby it would necessarily be comparatively small for people you've employed for less than two years and presumably that shouldn't be too large a percentage of the people you intend to hire on a permanent basis?

What other significant costs do you incur that you weren't covering already?

comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 21 minutes ago

Thanks. I’ve answered your subsidiary questions in this same post and added them on to yours.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks again.

Regarding the fairness issue, I wasn't properly clear. I meant it more as regards the first sentence (about sharing from the pot) as opposed to the Covid furloughs, but you already replied that the furloughs were entirely about fairness, so I take that it would also apply to your general business approach. Good on you.


In terms of the day 1 issue, I don't quite get it. If you were already ahead of industry standards in most regards, what additional costs do you incur if you have to dismiss someone within that timeframe?

At least here in Spain, severance or redundancy pay (don't know if either is the appropriate term, tbh) is based on time worked - whereby it would necessarily be comparatively small for people you've employed for less than two years and presumably that shouldn't be too large a percentage of the people you intend to hire on a permanent basis?

What other significant costs do you incur that you weren't covering already?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The issue we have is that most are on very high salaries and minimum 3 month notice periods in an industry that doesn’t recognise their efforts in terms of rewards for up to 18 months.

If they’re not succeeding in that time frame you can let them go for non performance there and then with payment of notice period and holidays which along with what you’ve already paid out is a hefty sum.

Long term sickness and inability to do the job they were hired for is also a similar concern in that you can let them go within the 2 years. After that time period they can challenge your decision which again costs the business a lot of management time and money.

They won’t have that time period of two years and can claim unfair dismissal from day 1, which although time wasting still ends up costing a lot of time and money in legal fees. You’re often better off paying them off with a lump sum. Now who is going to take that risk?

comment by RRRU-ben a-moo-REENG (U17054)
posted 1 hour, 50 minutes ago
Just consider this world we live in for a moment:

We all work hard, spend most of what we earn literally just keeping ourselves alive, and pay our taxes. Most of the rest of the cash we have sits in accounts with retail banks, who “look after” it for us until we need it. They don’t give us any interest on our deposits nowadays (or very few do, anyway), and many of them require us to actually pay them a subscription fee for this “looking after” service.

Meanwhile, those same banks need someone to look after their spare cash too (because they have too much to look after themselves). So they ask the Bank of England to do it. So the Bank of England probably does the same as the retail banks, doesn’t it? Zero interest, and a subscription fee for the service?

Nope. The BoE instead pays a healthy interest rate on those banks’ deposits. And how can it afford to do that? Well, the Treasury pays for it. And how does the Treasury pay for it? From taxation. Tens of billions of quid a year it costs us all.

And in the meantime, we spend our spare hours arguing about benefit claimants and asylum seekers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tories love socialism, when it’s for the rich.

I see. I've no idea if that's specific to the industry or not, and I'm not sure of all the legal equivalents, but if I'm not mistaken, the legal notice period here is 15 days, and payment is 20 working days per year for nonperformance.

By comparison, 3 months notice and 3 months' pay are pretty hefty.

I can see how that could make a noticeable impact if you generally have to let go of a lot of people early on.

Legal costs are a tricky one - also on the part of the worker, I'd presume? In the event of disagreements, aren't there cheaper and faster arbitration options?

The owner of Vauxhall has announced plans to close its van making factory in Luton, putting about 1,100 jobs at risk.

BREXIT FOOOKING BRITAIN!!

comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 31 minutes ago
I see. I've no idea if that's specific to the industry or not, and I'm not sure of all the legal equivalents, but if I'm not mistaken, the legal notice period here is 15 days, and payment is 20 working days per year for nonperformance.

By comparison, 3 months notice and 3 months' pay are pretty hefty.

I can see how that could make a noticeable impact if you generally have to let go of a lot of people early on.

Legal costs are a tricky one - also on the part of the worker, I'd presume? In the event of disagreements, aren't there cheaper and faster arbitration options?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

There are but many employees knowing their time is up will play the game and inevitably businesses are pretty poor on legislation and up to date HR requirements.

It’s fairly easy to make a case and have a legal letter sent with very minimal cost. The cost in defending for the business can be quite onerous to the point you just pay the problem away.

comment by Maximus Decimus Meridius (U11781)
posted 31 minutes ago
The owner of Vauxhall has announced plans to close its van making factory in Luton, putting about 1,100 jobs at risk.

BREXIT FOOOKING BRITAIN!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

And hundred are being offered relaxation to their other factory.

As for it being down to Brexit? It’s down to the penalties being imposed by the government on production (or lack of) of electric vehicles.

The infrastructure for electric cars isn't here. Pretty shameful tbh.

comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 48 seconds ago
The infrastructure for electric cars isn't here. Pretty shameful tbh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure is good for it in the big cities, once you’re outside the M25 you’re having to rely on a petrol station to charge up or you’re stranded.

comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 9 minutes ago
The infrastructure for electric cars isn't here. Pretty shameful tbh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It’s far better than it used to be but still shockingly poor in many rural areas. I can get to Celtic Park nowadays without worrying about it since only this season to be honest.

Most service stations have fast chargers now and they are finally getting used to the idea that if you’re going to install them; then do at least 12 at a time.

Also some bespoke fast charging sites springing up. At long last.

comment by Maximus Decimus Meridius (U11781)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 48 seconds ago
The infrastructure for electric cars isn't here. Pretty shameful tbh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure is good for it in the big cities, once you’re outside the M25 you’re having to rely on a petrol station to charge up or you’re stranded.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Range anxiety is a thing

EV market is slacking because it’s becoming more expensive to charge a car then to fill one up with petrol.

comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Maximus Decimus Meridius (U11781)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 48 seconds ago
The infrastructure for electric cars isn't here. Pretty shameful tbh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure is good for it in the big cities, once you’re outside the M25 you’re having to rely on a petrol station to charge up or you’re stranded.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Range anxiety is a thing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Last time I headed home, can't remember where exactly, but half the chargers were broken.
Glad to hear that it's getting better.

comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Maximus Decimus Meridius (U11781)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 48 seconds ago
The infrastructure for electric cars isn't here. Pretty shameful tbh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure is good for it in the big cities, once you’re outside the M25 you’re having to rely on a petrol station to charge up or you’re stranded.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Range anxiety is a thing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charging at home is interesting when the nearest parking space is usually 3 streets away from.the house.

NEW: HMRC has "concerns" about company linked to Tommy Robinson — after director (ex-wife) apparently borrowed £400,000 before it declared insolvency

He and friends set up string of firms which declared £1m in profit before abruptly winding up

Latest on Hope & Pride Ltd here:

https://x.com/gabriel_pogrund/status/1861357672043356325?s=46&t=bPTrpdgNggCdz9igvhmVyw

Britain’s biggest grifter in grifting shock

comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Maximus Decimus Meridius (U11781)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 48 seconds ago
The infrastructure for electric cars isn't here. Pretty shameful tbh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure is good for it in the big cities, once you’re outside the M25 you’re having to rely on a petrol station to charge up or you’re stranded.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Range anxiety is a thing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charging at home is interesting when the nearest parking space is usually 3 streets away from.the house.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

One of our sons who works for us has that issue. Lives in London and we incentivise them to have electric company cars. So annoying.

Better than the one who ordered a ridiculous vehicle and contributed to salary sacrifice mind, only to find that Podpoint or whoever could only lay cable via his neighbours drive who in turn refused him permission

comment by Maximus Decimus Meridius (U11781)
posted 9 minutes ago
EV market is slacking because it’s becoming more expensive to charge a car then to fill one up with petrol.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

If you only use service stations then yes. A home charger changes all that. Then it’s far more cost effective.

BREAKING: Russia has just banned Deputy PM Angela Rayner and 15 other Cabinet Ministers from entering the country:

1. Angela Rayner
2. Yvette Cooper
3. Shabana Mahmood
4. Rachel Reeves
5. Pat McFadden
6. Ed Milliband
7. Wes Streeting
8. Steve Reed
9. Johnathan Reynolds
10. Liz Kendall
11. Jo Stevens
12. ⁠Bridget Phillipson
13. ⁠Hillary Benn
14. Lucy Powell
15. Angela Smith
16. Maria Eagle

Journalists banned include:

1. Tom Ball, The Times
2. Dan Woodlan, Daily Mail

I’m sure they’re crying in their cornflakes