Coronavirus Thread (Off Topic, Politics) (361 Viewers)

fernandopartridge · Jul 9, 2020

I heard Sunak on the radio, he's useless, style over substance. Anybody impressed by him is part of the problem.

There is absolutely no recognition of the reasons why people aren't spending, no attempt at all to address these. To assume that the public is using restaurants due to cost just exposes the Tory underlying philosophy.

CCFCSteve · Jul 9, 2020

wingy said:
It's been a saturated sector for a while now .
Quite a few failures prior to this .
One of the hopes of local authorities trying to drive a recovery in City centres but failing I think.

Poor business models, opening way too many restaurants (wasting a load on capex in leasehold premises ! - see Jamies Italian !) in poor locations, next to direct competitors. A mixture of greed and stupidity

CCFCSteve · Jul 9, 2020

fernandopartridge said:
I heard Sunak on the radio, he's useless, style over substance. Anybody impressed by him is part of the problem.

There is absolutely no recognition of the reasons why people aren't spending, no attempt at all to address these. To assume that the public is using restaurants due to cost just exposes the Tory underlying philosophy.

Possibly a little unfair Fernando. I’m guessing it’s partly trying to encourage those wavering about whether to stop in or go out (many are just in a stay in and get a deliveroo/take away routine now) to take the plunge and also encouraging people to go on nights they wouldn’t ordinarily (I think the vouchers are Mon - Weds) to help plug some of the turnover gap for quieter part of the week. There’s been plenty of gov fuck ups during the outbreak but a lot of the financials assistance to businesses is reasonably thought out

Ps they can’t win to some extent though as others on here were calling for a cheque to go to every household to spend on whatever they want. Would’ve been crazy (in my view) in comparison with the furlough scheme for the reasons you’re highlighting and if you’re trying to keep people in work so they can get the economy going as soon as possible (when date)

fernandopartridge · Jul 9, 2020

CCFCSteve said:
Poor business models, opening way too many restaurants (wasting a load on capex in leasehold premises ! - see Jamies Italian !) in poor locations, next to direct competitors. A mixture of greed and stupidity

Some of that is down to the country basing an economy on inflated commercial and domestic property values rather than productive investment. I see no signs from Sunak (Stamp Duty holiday anybody?) that he recognises this issue.

Brighton Sky Blue · Jul 9, 2020

fernandopartridge said:
I heard Sunak on the radio, he's useless, style over substance. Anybody impressed by him is part of the problem.

There is absolutely no recognition of the reasons why people aren't spending, no attempt at all to address these. To assume that the public is using restaurants due to cost just exposes the Tory underlying philosophy.

After his first briefing appearance I think I compared him to a 6th form debating captain, he hasn’t changed my mind since then. Clearly a yes man brought in to do whatever Cummings tells him.

Brighton Sky Blue · Jul 9, 2020

CCFCSteve said:
Possibly a little unfair Fernando. I’m guessing it’s partly trying to encourage those wavering about whether to stop in or go out (many are just in a stay in and get a deliveroo/take away routine now) to take the plunge and also encouraging people to go on nights they wouldn’t ordinarily (I think the vouchers are Mon - Weds) to help plug some of the turnover gap for quieter part of the week. There’s been plenty of gov fuck ups during the outbreak but a lot of the financials assistance to businesses is reasonably thought out

Ps they can’t win to some extent though as others on here were calling for a cheque to go to every household to spend on whatever they want. Would’ve been crazy (in my view) in comparison with the furlough scheme for the reasons you’re highlighting and if you’re trying to keep people in work so they can get the economy going as soon as possible (when date)

I would still stand by the idea that a short term UBI would have been a simpler way of ensuring that nobody ‘fell through the cracks’ to be fair. Though not necessarily as a cheque but in the form of a debit card only usable at certain places, vouchers for shops etc as was mooted in the States.

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 9, 2020

fernandopartridge said:
I heard Sunak on the radio, he's useless, style over substance.

Hague was a far better local MP for his constituency.

David O'Day · Jul 9, 2020

Brighton Sky Blue said:
I would still stand by the idea that a short term UBI would have been a simpler way of ensuring that nobody ‘fell through the cracks’ to be fair. Though not necessarily as a cheque but in the form of a debit card only usable at certain places, vouchers for shops etc as was mooted in the States.

Yep, Giving people what is in effect a groupon voucher when group on vouchers exist ism't really going to help. It's also likely to just move weekend trade from Weekends to the start of the week. HMRC don't think it will be good value for money either.

As you say it would of better to have a UBI even if it was a 1 off amount as that would actually create demand/

Brighton Sky Blue · Jul 9, 2020

David O'Day said:
Yep, Giving people what is in effect a groupon voucher when group on vouchers exist ism't really going to help. It's also likely to just move weekend trade from Weekends to the start of the week. HMRC don't think it will be good value for money either.

As you say it would of better to have a UBI even if it was a 1 off amount as that would actually create demand/

The American one off payment wasn’t great and it also wasn’t straightforward to claim. I’d have supported something for 3 months or thereabouts initially. The difficulty would be employers then taking people back on but as we’re seeing even with furlough some jobs couldn’t be saved.

chiefdave · Jul 9, 2020

Is the funding for the arts going to turn out to be a false promise? Seeing a lot of places saying they've been rejected for funding but nobody saying they were successful. Birmingham Museums Trust have posted that only 14 museums have been successful.

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Jul 9, 2020

fernandopartridge said:
I heard Sunak on the radio, he's useless, style over substance. Anybody impressed by him is part of the problem.

There is absolutely no recognition of the reasons why people aren't spending, no attempt at all to address these. To assume that the public is using restaurants due to cost just exposes the Tory underlying philosophy.

He seems like someone clued up on the finance industry, but clueless when it comes to business.

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Jul 9, 2020

Brighton Sky Blue said:
I would still stand by the idea that a short term UBI would have been a simpler way of ensuring that nobody ‘fell through the cracks’ to be fair. Though not necessarily as a cheque but in the form of a debit card only usable at certain places, vouchers for shops etc as was mooted in the States.

I'm still not convinced UBI would do nothing but increase inflation as companies know that that extra money is there and will try and get as much of it as possible. Plus giving it in terms of vouchers isn't necessarily going to help those struggling with rent, rates, utilities etc. If you're the type of person spending in shops when struggling to put food on the table vouchers to spend in shops isn't going to do anything to change that behaviour and chances are they'd just end up buying more and still having the problem.

So to stop people falling through the cracks it needs to be spent on those things that make them fall through the cracks, like utility bills. But does that then just become an extension of things like housing benefit with a bit of a rebrand? Plus it still doesn't help with the issue of companies hiking prices.

shmmeee · Jul 9, 2020

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
I'm still not convinced UBI would do nothing but increase inflation as companies know that that extra money is there and will try and get as much of it as possible. Plus giving it in terms of vouchers isn't necessarily going to help those struggling with rent, rates, utilities etc. If you're the type of person spending in shops when struggling to put food on the table vouchers to spend in shops isn't going to do anything to change that behaviour and chances are they'd just end up buying more and still having the problem.

So to stop people falling through the cracks it needs to be spent on those things that make them fall through the cracks, like utility bills. But does that then just become an extension of things like housing benefit with a bit of a rebrand? Plus it still doesn't help with the issue of companies hiking prices.

Nah, UBI done properly would claw back excess wealth from those who don’t need it and increase spending at the bottom on essentials. And besides isn’t the entire point of capitalism that that sort of price fixing isn’t possible?

Putting money into the working classes won’t be inflationary, unless you think they already meet all their basic needs.

David O'Day · Jul 9, 2020

shmmeee said:
Nah, UBI done properly would claw back excess wealth from those who don’t need it and increase spending at the bottom on essentials. And besides isn’t the entire point of capitalism that that sort of price fixing isn’t possible?

Putting money into the working classes won’t be inflationary, unless you think they already meet all their basic needs.

It's in no way inflationary. Only way it will be is if companies purposely inflate prices and as you say capitalism means that if some companies do this they will be undercut by others.

It's also a reliable way of creating demand if you taylor it so it has to be spent. It also helps with those genuinely struggling for rent and bills as they can use it on food which means they have more money for these.

You can also pay for it using the BoE in the same way that people liek Richard Murphy were advocating a "peoples QE".

Brighton Sky Blue · Jul 9, 2020

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
I'm still not convinced UBI would do nothing but increase inflation as companies know that that extra money is there and will try and get as much of it as possible. Plus giving it in terms of vouchers isn't necessarily going to help those struggling with rent, rates, utilities etc. If you're the type of person spending in shops when struggling to put food on the table vouchers to spend in shops isn't going to do anything to change that behaviour and chances are they'd just end up buying more and still having the problem.

So to stop people falling through the cracks it needs to be spent on those things that make them fall through the cracks, like utility bills. But does that then just become an extension of things like housing benefit with a bit of a rebrand? Plus it still doesn't help with the issue of companies hiking prices.

Well a large number of businesses small and large were closed for much of the last 3-4 months, so in practice people were limited in what they could spend money on beyond bills, rent and food. More to the point it would represent a temporary rise in income only at the bottom end of income, and a drop for many others. It was worthy of consideration at least.

clint van damme · Jul 9, 2020

Johnson was asked about UBI at PMQs last week. I can't remember his answer but I do remember it was as ambiguous as usual but I remember it because he didn't rule it out. Not that that means much with Johnson.

CCFCSteve · Jul 9, 2020

fernandopartridge said:
Some of that is down to the country basing an economy on inflated commercial and domestic property values rather than productive investment. I see no signs from Sunak (Stamp Duty holiday anybody?) that he recognises this issue.

Don’t disagree and in the past, at least, rampant credit card backed consumerism !

shmmeee · Jul 9, 2020

CCFCSteve said:
Don’t disagree and in the past, at least, rampant credit card backed consumerism !

Cant blame the individuals for going into debt when you suppress wages for decades.

CCFCSteve · Jul 9, 2020

shmmeee said:
Cant blame the individuals for going into debt when you suppress wages for decades.

Agree when people can’t afford the basics Shmmeee but I’ve known and seen plenty of people on great salaries racking up personal debt, living well beyond their means, it happens.

skybluetony176 · Jul 9, 2020

I was quite impressed when the rumours started flying around about high street vouchers for £500 for adults and £250 for children started flying around on Tuesday. Here’s why John Lewis and Boots to cut 5,300 jobs the day after it’s revealed there’s little help for the high street Boots and John Lewis announces major job losses and store closures. Coincidence I’m sure. Nothing yesterday for the high street. I think the Mirror summed it up best, we were promised a new deal and got a meal deal.

skybluetony176 · Jul 9, 2020

Still HMRC’s boss liked what Rishi Sunak came up with. Didn’t he?
Tax boss questions value of Sunak job schemes
That’s a no then.

Brighton Sky Blue · Jul 9, 2020

skybluetony176 said:
I was quite impressed when the rumours started flying around about high street vouchers for £500 for adults and £250 for children started flying around on Tuesday. Here’s why John Lewis and Boots to cut 5,300 jobs the day after it’s revealed there’s little help for the high street Boots and John Lewis announces major job losses and store closures. Coincidence I’m sure. Nothing yesterday for the high street. I think the Mirror summed it up best, we were promised a new deal and got a meal deal.

Johnson ate it

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Jul 9, 2020

shmmeee said:
Nah, UBI done properly would claw back excess wealth from those who don’t need it and increase spending at the bottom on essentials. And besides isn’t the entire point of capitalism that that sort of price fixing isn’t possible?

Putting money into the working classes won’t be inflationary, unless you think they already meet all their basic needs.

I' not convinced it won't have an inflationary effect. If capitalism worked properly we wouldn't need the likes of OFCOM, OFGEM to step in would we? Since we've brought the free market into a number of services we've not seen price increases stagnate or slow down.

Plus it's universal - everyone gets it regardless of wealth and income. It would be 'worth' more proportionally to the poorer but it's still not clawing back excess wealth.

You could have the argument that if this replaces the PA then those with higher incomes end up paying more tax which does that but when you take into account the effective tax rates of the very wealthy who can access tax havens and top accountants the larger burden will be on the middle. So you might close the gap between the poor and the middle but pushing the poor up slightly and the middle down, but the wealthy are relatively unscathed and the main issue with wealth disparity gets worse.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea or any worse than what we do now, but I don't think it's going to be this great solution some seem to think it will be. Minimum/Living wage was supposed to be a big leveller and its effect has been minimal. More people requiring food banks etc than ever before.

fernandopartridge · Jul 9, 2020

CCFCSteve said:
Agree when people can’t afford the basics Shmmeee but I’ve known and seen plenty of people on great salaries racking up personal debt, living well beyond their means, it happens.

Possibly still the same issue with people on higher salaries, wages reduced by inflation but trying to maintain a standard of living they'd come accustomed to.

wingy · Jul 9, 2020

I guess there have been finance schemes in some form since day one .
For the big spends .
Thatcher exacerbated things in the modern era expanding to five years from three on things such as beds or fridges etc .
Doubt she's been alone in those relaxations.

shmmeee · Jul 9, 2020

CCFCSteve said:
Agree when people can’t afford the basics Shmmeee but I’ve known and seen plenty of people on great salaries racking up personal debt, living well beyond their means, it happens.

I think it’s the same across the board TBH, people expect the standard of living to improve and it hasn’t but a hyper consumerist society has continued.

But then I think all problems could be solved by higher wages for workers, soooo

Brighton Sky Blue · Jul 9, 2020

wingy said:
I guess there have been finance schemes in some form since day one .
For the big spends .
Thatcher exacerbated things in the modern era expanding to five years from three on things such as beds or fridges etc .
Doubt she's been alone in those relaxations.

Think too many people just get stuff on finance now rather than paying outright. Though the latter seems to help on 'Can't pay...' when the bailiffs can't take it!

fernandopartridge · Jul 9, 2020

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
I' not convinced it won't have an inflationary effect. If capitalism worked properly we wouldn't need the likes of OFCOM, OFGEM to step in would we? Since we've brought the free market into a number of services we've not seen price increases stagnate or slow down.

Plus it's universal - everyone gets it regardless of wealth and income. It would be 'worth' more proportionally to the poorer but it's still not clawing back excess wealth.

You could have the argument that if this replaces the PA then those with higher incomes end up paying more tax which does that but when you take into account the effective tax rates of the very wealthy who can access tax havens and top accountants the larger burden will be on the middle. So you might close the gap between the poor and the middle but pushing the poor up slightly and the middle down, but the wealthy are relatively unscathed and the main issue with wealth disparity gets worse.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea or any worse than what we do now, but I don't think it's going to be this great solution some seem to think it will be. Minimum/Living wage was supposed to be a big leveller and its effect has been minimal. More people requiring food banks etc than ever before.

Ofgen exists because a public monopoly was made a private one. Ofcom is different.

fernandopartridge · Jul 9, 2020

Anyway, Labour under Starmer has walked into an easy Tory trap. These utterly stupid centrists trying to appeal to people like them.

jordan210 · Jul 9, 2020

worth a watch if your wondering what having CV19 is like Guy is only in his 40s

David O'Day · Jul 9, 2020

fernandopartridge said:
Anyway, Labour under Starmer has walked into an easy Tory trap. These utterly stupid centrists trying to appeal to people like them.

What trap? It's a piss poor scheme that even HMRC wouldn't sign off on because it was was not value on the MPM rules.

A tory shouting "opposition for oppositions sake" isn't when the head of HMRC agrees that it is a poor scheme.

David O'Day · Jul 9, 2020

More easing, a sign that the Tories want to distract from their terrible 2 days.

Gyms etc should of been opened at the same time pubs were, easier to social distance and prevent excess aerosols there than in the oak at 2am

David O'Day · Jul 9, 2020

Indoor performance spaces still shut, you can socially distance there easily but I guess they don't have the lobby weight that pubs do

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Jul 9, 2020

fernandopartridge said:
Anyway, Labour under Starmer has walked into an easy Tory trap. These utterly stupid centrists trying to appeal to people like them.

If he hadn't it'd be the other side saying 'not questioning government or offering effective opposition'. Either way can't win.

fernandopartridge · Jul 9, 2020

David O'Day said:
What trap? It's a piss poor scheme that even HMRC wouldn't sign off on because it was was not value on the MPM rules.

A tory shouting "opposition for oppositions sake" isn't when the head of HMRC agrees that it is a poor scheme.

The trap that it appears Labour don't want to help (even if that isn't the case) +. Labour need to tell them it isn't going anywhere near far enough, not about what HMRC say. The public don't care about HMRC. I'm really not sure who this line is trying to appeal to.

Coronavirus Thread (Off Topic, Politics) (361 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency