Do you want to discuss boring politics? (28 Viewers)
- Thread starter mrtrench
- Start date
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Who knows - but would you do the same hours over 4 days than 5 if you could?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Shes absolutely right that debt to GDP is manageable and that we need growth. Just mental if she thinks the way to do that is propping up energy companies and banker bonuses. That’s not how any of this works. There’s only so many super yachts you can sell. Eventually you need lots of people with disposable income.
Nick
Administrator
Tough one really. It would mean the extra hours mean less playing out time for 4 days but then I get a whole day off.
Let's say somebody works 9-7 Monday to Thursday, while it sounds good having Friday off you are much more limited to what you can do the rest of the week.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Why not 7-5? I used to do it a couple of days at an old place to get time off elsewhere and it’s barely noticeable TBH.
Nick
Administrator
When doing the school drop offs it's very noticeable.
Plus it would mean getting up much earlier so then more tired for playing out.
I used to do 4 on 4 off with 12 hour shifts. I got more days off but on those on you couldn't really do much.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Ah that’s fair I did do it on days I didn’t have the kids (so I could leave early to collect them on other days). WFH has been the real game changer there.
Nick
Administrator
Yeah. It would really depend I guess as a 3 day weekend would be nice but obviously it just means less can be done the other days.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
I used to work at a place that had flexitime. I worked out that to get to the office for 9am I had to leave my house at 7am due to horrific gridlock but if I left at 6:45am I'd be in just after 7am.
So that's what I did and got a stupid amount of work done in the 2 hours before anyone turned up. There was supposed to be a limit on days off with flexitime but I was getting so much work done my boss was perfectly happy for me to have a Monday or Friday off every week.
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
Put down the shovel Grenners you are well known for being economically illiterate
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
I imagine if there was a wholesale move to 4 day working, there is no reason why education couldn’t follow suit. You are talking about an extra 1.5 hours a day in reality.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Thing is though, not everybody would be allowed the same day off, surely.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Oh fuck off.
Stop making it sound like they're handing out charity.
They pay them for their labour, and if the company is making a profit they're clearly getting more benefit from it than it's costing them. The people are feeding the company, and in turn it's shareholders, not the other way round.
Companies can only exist if people exist. People can exist without companies.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
What is your job? You’ve never said?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
The school day does genuinely need to start later if anything
Propping up energy companies is a bit unfair. Energy companies would be ok buying at wholesale price and selling onto customers. The fact is people would freeze and business would go bust if they did that with no cap/freeze at the moment
The government assistance being provided is a good thing. How we pay for it is up for debate. I’d still be surprised if there isn’t a mechanism whereby energy companies (the big generators making the big profits) don’t share the pain. There’s even noises that many would now prefer a windfall tax rather than what the government is proposing so will see how it plays out
I agree though that there should be a greater focus on helping those most in need ahead of the proposed tax cuts and I’m also worried that the markets won’t be impressed with her plans/massive borrowing, increasing cost of borrowing/further weakening of pound. Will await detail from Kwarteng on Friday !
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
She's openly said she's fine with the rich benefitting first. How many times does she have to tell you whose side she's on?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Thats a different point really. There’s the current cost of living crisis which needs major intervention, and as people keep saying about energy measures it would’ve cost a lot less to avoid decades ago when people were banging on about reliance on Russia and the energy efficiency. But we are where we are.
Then there’s the overriding economic ideology she’s laid out since taking up the post which says “You get growth by making the rich richer”, which is why she’s averse to a windfall tax and her main priority is allowing bankers higher bonuses.
it’s the blinkered politics of old boys networks and Etonians that want to avoid tax basically and have built an entire cod economic theory that lets them say that without sounding like selfish arseholes.
Ultimately the energy crisis will cost billions and will have to be dealt with because the alternative is economic and social collapse. It’s the economic line that’s being pushed that disappoints me. Not coherent at all and just comes across as more short term looting by people that want to make a quick Buck.
I haven’t commented on who’s side I think she’s on and said before I have big reservations about her generally.
Can’t disagree with a lot of that shmmeee, I was commenting on the propping up energy companies comment.
I’m terms of wider policy, she’s obviously going for ‘growth’ and trying to encourage investment. I haven’t got an issue with this, however, it should be done in conjunction with helping those that need it most. Been saying for a while since inflation spiked the UC uplift should’ve returned.
I personally think there’s better, more effective, albeit less ideological ways to spend/borrow to achieve her goals but will await the details
Ps I’ve read various commentary on bankers bonuses. Again, I have no issue with it on its own. firstly, the higher the bonus, the more the in individual has earned for the bank, the higher the income tax and corporation tax generated. In addition, I understand that many banks ended up just paying far higher fixed/basic salaries with lower bonuses to compensate….so rewarding non performance. If bonuses are paid for correct behaviours (not encouraging 2008 style conduct) and it encourages banks/lenders etc to set up/grow their practices here due to their being less fixed staff cost, that’s no bad thing
Appreciate many will be disgusted by the policy but that’s the flip side. Like most things it needs correct controls put in place though
Appreciate many will be disgusted by the policy but that’s the flip side. Like most things it needs correct controls put in place though
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I'd always be more for growth where you invest in projects to provide jobs and stimulate spending among other businesses. Worked in the 1930s, even worked to a degree when Obama did it in the US. And that's easier to do if you don't instead hand the money to a few people who, to be perfectly blunt, have more than enough already.
Her monetary policy seems to be everything people slagged Corbyn for (borrow and spend without any concept of where that money's coming from) without the social conscience that he had. She's for the few, not the many!
As I said, there’s plenty of better, more effective ways to achieve her goals
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
What percentage of the population is going to get this windfall? We’re talking percentage points. How many bankers are being paid in the UK this paying UK taxes? You’re talking a percentage of percentage points. How many banks pay all their taxes in the UK even on UK profits? Banks are notorious for aggressive tax avoidance.
I’m not sure people even bother to read my posts properly these days
But either way, as you say, it’s relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things. It’s been done to try to diverge from EU on some banking regs as they won’t give equivalence. If it encourages more employment and activity here so be it
Ps if the individual is not paying taxes in the Uk they’re unlikely to benefit from the uncapping of their bonus ?!
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
It’s been done because 7000 banking jobs migrated to the EU as a direct result of Brexit. They’re trying to woo them back but as an industry expert pointed out the other day they didn’t leave because of bonuses they left because of access to market. They may get some individuals to return but it’s highly unlikely to be in great numbers and even less likely that the business will return with them. It’s a desperate attempt to mitigate brexit losses and they’ve even got the nerve to try and sell it as a brexit bonus. The contempt for the electorate grows.I’m not sure people even bother to read my posts properly these days
But either way, as you say, it’s relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things. It’s been done to try to diverge from EU on some banking regs as they won’t give equivalence. If it encourages more employment and activity here so be it
Ps if the individual is not paying taxes in the Uk they’re unlikely to benefit from the uncapping of their bonus ?!
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
My issue with bankers bonuses is that it signals an amnesiac moment about why we limited them in the first place. This is straight out the 80s playbook of “big bang, take all the restraints off finance” and every time that ends in a crash after a period of unequal growth. It’s not even close to the top 100 issues the U.K. economy faces but was her first policy out the gate. Which suggests to me she’s bought and paid for.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
The desperation. Like Truss hasn’t been in government the last 6 years, one of brexits chief cheerleaders (once she changed her mind) and one of brexits chief architects (once she changed her mind).
www.telegraph.co.uk
After six wasted years, Liz Truss is about to deliver a Brexit that actually works
Unlike the declinists who have no answers, the Prime Minister sees a radical opportunity to kick-start growth
www.telegraph.co.uk
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
So because removing the fracking ban won't result in fracking because of the controls in place we're going to... relax the controls.
Great.
Great.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
When this guy is saying it won’t work by any measurement it’s probably worth ditching the idea and move onto a tangible problem that will help the majority of people not a minority
Fracking won’t work in UK says founder of fracking company Cuadrilla
Chris Cornelius says geology is too challenging and government’s support is merely ‘soundbites’
For anyone not wanting to read the article is about comments made recently by Chris Cornelius of original fracking exploration in the UK firm, Cuadrilla. He’s basically said fracking is unworkable and uneconomical in the UK because of the geology in the UK and he admits that even if it was viable it would have no effect on prices to the consumer because it would be sold on the international market not domestic. Who exactly does our government work for? Because it isn’t us.
JAM See
Well-Known Member
Interesting...
www.theguardian.com
Catholics outnumber Protestants in Northern Ireland for first time
Demographic shift shown in census was expected but will still deliver psychological blow to unionists
jimmyhillsfanclub
Well-Known Member
7000 was nothing in the grand scheme of things and I think there has actually been a net increase in UK roles post Brexit. The roles moved (created) because companies were forced to set up new EU operations so we can’t woo most/all of them back. As I said the bonus cap decision is a minor attempt to differentiate/diverge from some EU banking rules as the EU won’t be providing equivalence (even though I believe New York/US has it - bizarre !). It’s unlikely to make much of a difference on its own
In terms of total tax take from banks, Dublin/New York was about 30%, while we’re around 45%. So it’s important we find ways to remain competitive/attractive in other ways. Our tax take was projected to go up and Dublin/other countries going down, however pretty sure I recall tax surcharge (8%) has/is being reduced from next year.
I think we all agree though the bonus cap decision is pretty irrelevant policy announcement overall. I only commented on it as there’s a flip side to the argument
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
In the grand scheme of things? I guess it depends on how you measure it, 7k of jobs or by the amount of revenue generated by 7k of jobs in the sector with unfettered access to the EU market.