Boris - The Prime Minister

First thoughts on PMBoris, will he make a difference?


  • Total voters
    559
"When business starts bringing big bucks in after all this finishes, like they were before, it’s totally reasonable that they pay something back into the pot to help re establish fiscal normality."
Seems reasonable enough, on the basis that those same businesses actually received Government funds to ensure ongoing solvency.

If a business hasn't taken Government money, and has been able to remain solvent without assistance, then it should not be unreasonably penalised for being prudent.

Reward the prudent, punish the profligate.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
Seems reasonable enough, on the basis that those same businesses actually received Government funds to ensure ongoing solvency.

If a business hasn't taken Government money, and has been able to remain solvent without assistance, then it should not be unreasonably penalised for being prudent.

Reward the prudent, punish the profligate.
Exactly the point. Apart from the banks - we should always punish the banks regardless. They'll know what it's for, even if we don't.
 
Woopety-doo. My whole department was outsourceda little while ago now. In the past 10 years, I was threatened EVERY quarter with redundancy (I was finally made redundant in the 21st cycle after joining the company). We were told in as many words that there would be NO increases, and that bonuses would be dependant on team performance. Our first year, our team of 14 were given a TOTAL, after-tax amount of just over £1000 to be shared between us all who were regarded as over-achieving our performance ratings. Our team leader rated 11 of the 14 as over-achieved, and two had met their objectives. The last person had been on long-term illness. Based on her evaluation of her team, the bean-counters gave her the £1k. We ended having no bonuses, but a meal and piss-up instead.

If we wanted an increase, we would have to move jobs. Any additional training would be met by personal loans from the company - pay up front, pass the course, get 95% of the course fees back, 3.2% interest on the loan. Certification exams (£250 - £400 each) would be met by the company after management approval. Pay for the course, DO NOT expect the exam costs to be approved.

That is the reality of private sector.
That's the reality of working for a shit company.
 

TamH70

MIA
Re: the recent events - the Poo Poo Head thread is thataway --->

This is a Public Service Announcement from a slightly annoyed insomniac Jockistani who is now drinking decaffeinated coffee and wondering why, lord, oh why?
 
Seems reasonable enough, on the basis that those same businesses actually received Government funds to ensure ongoing solvency.

If a business hasn't taken Government money, and has been able to remain solvent without assistance, then it should not be unreasonably penalised for being prudent.

Reward the prudent, punish the profligate.
The danger is that we create yet more zombie businesses which only exist to pay back debt and have no space invest and grow

The money is going to get consumed financing irreducible cash burn; just keeping the doors open and plant serviceable so that it can be restarted. It’s not going to fund productivity. It can’t, since the businesses largely closed.

I think support to businesses is to be very focussed. Keep those with high capital investments going and write off much of the debt at the end. But don’t fund businesses where there are low barriers to entry.
 

Tool

LE
That's the reality of working for a shit company.
Yep. Unfortunately, that is the path that more and more companies were heading toward before CV19 started. Irrespective of what Boris does (trying to get back on track here), the private sector HAS to make money to generate cash flow. For the next decade or so, that is going to be very difficult.

*** edited to continue the thread ***
I feel that the banking sector are playing hard ball to pay back the government for enforcing regulation post-2008. My two banks are offering me support by opening their branches for shorter periods of the day and advising me to usse e-banking where possible. They MAY give a 3-month mortgage break (still not officially in place yet), and have given me a £350 overdraft at no cost. I already have an overdraft more than that with one bank. Because I do not have an overdraft with the other, this is of no value to me.
 
Last edited:
You keep doing whatever it is that you do and providing for all of us. I will do what I do and you can contact your MP with your ideas.
FWIW I contact my MP with monotonous regularity about various issues. The point is to let them know that you either agree or disagree with the various actions of Government And the reasons why. Further it is urge action in respect of certain issues and to let them know they are vulnerable to the electorate. There is no point viewing yourself as being on the losing side just because your choice didn’t get elected. You have a rep, use them!
 
Keep those with high capital investments going and write off much of the debt at the end.
Those are the businesses that tend to be well financed already.

To my mind, it would be immoral to support a business financially and not either a) be repaid, or b) provide that support as a purchase of equity in the business.

But don’t fund businesses where there are low barriers to entry.
Governments are notoriously bad at picking winners.
 
I feel that the banking sector are playing hard ball to pay back the government for enforcing regulation post-2008. My two banks are offering me support by opening their branches for shorter periods of the day and advising me to usse e-banking where possible. They MAY give a 3-month mortgage break (still not officially in place yet), and have given me a £350 overdraft at no cost. I already have an overdraft more than that with one bank. Because I do not have an overdraft with the other, this is of no value to me.
With respect, what do you expect them to do?

The "payback" notion is rubbish. Post 08 the government said two things.........first, lend money as fast as you can to kick-start the economy....and second, use the surplus bank capital to improve solvency ratios if you want to remain in business (via stricter prodential requirements).

You can't have it both ways.
 

Truxx

LE
Those are the businesses that tend to be well financed already.

To my mind, it would be immoral to support a business financially and not either a) be repaid, or b) provide that support as a purchase of equity in the business.



Governments are notoriously bad at picking winners.
I am inclined to agree here. Because business is so interwoven it is virtually impossible to put in place a support measure in one place that does not have an impact elsewhere.

Obviosly as a little fish in a big economy I have been giving this much thought. My inbox is full of messages from suppliers about how they are altering things. Almost exclusively they are telling me they can do less and it will take longer. On the other side I know that my clients will be all over the place as they too adapt to the new realities.

The current support packages are well meaning but clumsy.

My conclusion after a week of careful thought is that economic darwinism might have been a better long term approach. As it is the long term outcomes will be similar, but it will have cost a bucketload.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Those are the businesses that tend to be well financed already.

To my mind, it would be immoral to support a business financially and not either a) be repaid, or b) provide that support as a purchase of equity in the business.



Governments are notoriously bad at picking winners.
Governments are run by politicians, obviously, who will pick a course of action that will see them re-elected. It has nothing at all to do with picking 'winners'. :(
 

Truxx

LE
Governments are run by politicians, obviously, who will pick a course of action that will see them re-elected. It has nothing at all to do with picking 'winners'. :(
I also think that in this case they are genuinely trying to help.

But when virgin rock up with the begging bowl then one has to wonder who actually should be helped.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Virgin have just bought the Yorkshire Bank and the Clydesdale Bank so they should not be that short of Dosh!

OK, I know Virgin keep all their businesses separate only sharing the Virgin branding.
 
Those are the businesses that tend to be well financed already.

To my mind, it would be immoral to support a business financially and not either a) be repaid, or b) provide that support as a purchase of equity in the business.



Governments are notoriously bad at picking winners.
Taking equity is effectively nationalisation though. We’d end up with state owned zombie businesses with no real plan or means of divestment.

Like @Truxx, I tend to favour Darwinism. Hence my comment about not funding businesses in industries with low barriers to entry. As soon as this is over, entrepreneurs will step in and start new businesses in these sectors.

But in sectors which require large, long term investment it’s rather different.
 
Top