Support NeoGAF

[CyclopsRock]

Do you think that that's right? Do you think it's just? Don't you think that such adjustments might be exacerbating the differences in living standards between the North and South, further dividing the nation along economic lines? Why do you think this to be "right", if indeed you do?

I don't think it's right, I don't think it's wrong. It's a-moral - it's simply the market defining a price, in the same way a doctor gets paid more than a cleaner. Why do you think this is "right", if indeed you do? Supply and demand, that's all there is to it. And I don't mean that in an arch-Libertarian "the market rules all!" way - People in London get paid more because companies need to pay them more to encourage them to live somewhere more expensive. If they could get away with paying them less, they would. But they can't.

I'm not really sure why whether it is right or wrong is relevant though. The government can't do anything about regional differences in salaries. It can do something about regional differences in benefits (and, indeed, public sector salaries) so the question is whether or not that is right.

Regarding the bolded - and you would wish such great poverty and suffering upon those of us in the North of England who have the misfortune of having to rely on benefits to survive...why, exactly? Because that's exactly what you're suggesting. Surely the solution to poverty in the East End is to give everyone a livable standard of pay/benefits? You don't make everybody else's portion bigger by taking bread from the mouths of the poor, no matter what your self-deluding "bootstraps" level of thinking might tell you.

For someone posting with so much self-righteousness, you sure don't bat an eyelid at making presumptions and putting words in people's mouths, do you?

I'm not choosing the south over the north. I was responding to this comment:

"The argument for the North's cost of living being 'less expensive' is met by every fucking big new project being South focussed such as public transport evolution, holding all of the focus from the Olympics regrowth/renewal of areas and so on."

Now re-read my post and tell me I'm choosing the South over the North, or that my solution is for people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. My point was that there are a lot of poor people in East London (ie the area that was redeveloped for the Olympics) and that the fact that London is such an expensive place to live makes it even harder. How is that choosing the South over the North? Does the opposite mean choosing the North instead, and wishing upon those that rely on benefits in the South "great poverty and suffering"? It's a ridiculous strawman.

Edit: And what do you mean by "Surely the solution to poverty in the East End is to give everyone a livable standard of pay/benefits?" That people wouldn't be so impoverished if they had money? Well yeah, obviously - how's that a solution? The problem is that education has failed them, their local area is riddled with crime and violence, and many kids are growing up without a family which drives them towards gangs. This isn't rocket science or a controversial appraisal - the tricky bit is how to solve this problem. The only long-term solution has to be equipping them with skills that employers want. Giving them benefits doesn't do this, and when unemployment in these areas is so high, forcing higher wages for those on the minimum wage benefits only those that get the jobs, and makes it even less likely that the rest will be hired.

There are things the government can do to help, I think, but "give everyone a livable standard of pay/benefits" isn't a solution, it's an end.

As for the rest of your posts on this page...well. It's as if you and the Tories you love so much don't want to win the next election, which, quite frankly, would suit me down to the ground.

I can't tell if you're joking or not. Capping benefits is almost single handedly the most popular policy the coalition has. You might not like it, but you'd be crazy to suggest it's a vote-loser. All their benefit reforms are - it's not just fox shooting, horse riding, Telegraph reading, home-counties dwelling property heirs that think benefits are too high, you know.

Fwiw, the only time I've ever voted Tory was for BoJo. But go ahead, keep making assumptions.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/09/redundancy-life-wasted-threat

I don't think it's right, I don't think it's wrong. It's a-moral - it's simply the market defining a price, in the same way a doctor gets paid more than a cleaner.

Reminded me of this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8410489.stm

 

[CyclopsRock]

Reminded me of this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8410489.stm

Yes? I'm confused about how this is relevant to what I said?

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Yes? I'm confused about how this is relevant to what I said?

Didn't say it was.

 

[Clay Davis]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/09/redundancy-life-wasted-threat

upsetting read.

I can't imagine living life like that. must be so unbearably soul destroying and depressing and then to have almost everyone shit on you and call you skiver and the like?

credit to the tories though, they've played this perfectly.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Didn't say it was.

The quoting was arbitrary, was it? Brilliant.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

The quoting was arbitrary, was it? Brilliant.

No. There're 5 words before the link.

 

[Pie and Beans]

When those vital NHS workers (depending on their region they may be paid handsomely or not so much if certain rumblings play out) plunge deep into you CyclopsRock and manage to extract that stick lodged up your lower intestine, I've got £5 on it being coloured blue.

Doctors getting paid more than cleaners. Cleaners worth more than bankers. Its a little nice forum jokey exchange. Christ.

Jessops on the way out now. Still not entirely sure where all these unemployment figures are coming from showing progress unless those books are being seriously cooked. All the retail hits alone are gonna tot up to 10,000 people soon enough. High Streets are fast becoming ghost towns.

 

[CyclopsRock]

No. There're 5 words before the link.

Fair enough, my bad. Sorry for jumping the gun!

When those vital NHS workers (depending on their region they may be paid handsomely or not so much if certain rumblings play out) plunge deep into you CyclopsRock and manage to extract that stick lodged up your lower intestine, I've got £5 on it being coloured blue.

Bupa*, dear boy.

 

[defel]

Ive broadly agreed with the Tories on their economic policies but in the last few months their stances towards both immigration and Europe have become far too extreme for me to consider voting for them.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Ive broadly agreed with the Tories on their economic policies but in the last few months their stances towards both immigration and Europe have become far too extreme for me to consider voting for them.

They haven't really announced their European policy yet. Cams imminent speech should clear up quite a few details (as well as give us something useful to digest re: UKIP's impact on the Tory vote come 2015 I think).

 

[Clay Davis]

Jessops on the way out now. Still not entirely sure where all these unemployment figures are coming from showing progress unless those books are being seriously cooked. All the retail hits alone are gonna tot up to 10,000 people soon enough. High Streets are fast becoming ghost towns.

I wonder if the work programme has anything to do with the number of unemployed coming down during a time when large numbers are being made redundant?

 

[phisheep]

Jessops on the way out now.

Good thing too. Horrible pricing and outdated business model.

 

[Deadman]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20978487

MPs call for '32% salary increase'

MPs have suggested a 32% hike in their pay to the Commons expenses watchdog, it has been revealed.

Members said they deserved an £86,250 salary in an anonymous survey conducted by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa).

The research also found more than a third think they should keep final salary pensions.

The findings emerged as Ipsa published a report on its initial consultation into pay and pensions.

The Commons voted against a 1% pay rise in 2011 and, last year, agreed to extend the pay freeze into 2013.

But the survey found that 69% thought they were underpaid on their current salary of £65,738.

The average level suggested for the appropriate level of pay was £86,250.


YouGov conducted online interviews with 100 MPs on Ipsa's behalf, and weighted the results slightly to represent the Commons by party, gender, year elected, and geography.

Conservative MPs were the most likely to believe they were underpaid, according to the results.

On average, Tories said their salary should be £96,740, while Lib Dems thought the right amount was £78,361 and Labour £77,322. Other parties put the figure at £75,091.

A fifth of those questioned said they should be paid £95,000 or more.

This would be funny if it weren't so terrible.

 

[SteveWD40]

Jessops on the way out now. Still not entirely sure where all these unemployment figures are coming from showing progress unless those books are being seriously cooked. All the retail hits alone are gonna tot up to 10,000 people soon enough. High Streets are fast becoming ghost towns.

High Streets round here are fast filling up with eateries and clothing shops, the business models that are not outdated unlike shit retailers, maybe thats where those workers have gone?

 

[angelkimne]

This would be funny if it weren't so terrible.

Eh. Most MP's could be getting much better pay. For far easier and less life consuming jobs. If I were in that position, I might consider myself underpaid. It's obviously not a tragedy that anybody's only earning £60k, but regardless.

(Don't know why I always feel the need to defend politicians. I suppose it's because there's so much irrational hate.)

 

[Clay Davis]

Eh. Most MP's could be getting much better pay. For far easier and less life consuming jobs. If I were in that position, I might consider myself underpaid. It's obviously not a tragedy that anybody's only earning £60k, but regardless.

(Don't know why I always feel the need to defend politicians. I suppose it's because there's so much irrational hate.)

what's stopping them from taking those jobs? their passion for public service?

 

[CHEEZMO™]

We're all in this together.

 

[angelkimne]

what's stopping them from taking those jobs? their passion for public service?

A variety of possible factors aside from money, I imagine. That being one. You generally don't reach Parliament without a serious passion for politics, that goes beyond money.

Despite that passion, it's only natural to feel underpaid when you have the qualifications to earn much more. And when you're doing a job so absolutely life consuming. That throws your family and friends and life under the harsh eye of the mass media.

 

[Walshicus]

A variety of possible factors aside from money, I imagine. That being one. You generally don't reach Parliament without a serious passion for politics, that goes beyond money.

Despite that passion, it's only natural to feel underpaid when you have the qualifications to earn much more. And when you're doing a job so absolutely life consuming. That throws your family and friends and life under the harsh eye of the mass media.

I'm not saying that some politicians are corrupt, but most politicians are corrupt. The majority are in politics to profit from the connections they make there, and to profit from their ability to influence.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Those poor MPs and their £65,000 and benefits and perks and other jobs and bribes lobbying money and paid speaking jaunts and cushy deals once they leave. How will they survive without being paid the 100k they ~truly deserve~ just like scrounging poors deserve their below-inflation wage rises because we're all in this together or something.

 

[phisheep]

it's only natural to feel underpaid when you have the qualifications to earn much more. And when you're doing a job so absolutely life consuming. That throws your family and friends and life under the harsh eye of the mass media.

It's not all that life consuming. Really. There is pretty well bugger-all to do as a backbench MP aside from a bit of voting and a bit of committee work maybe. For all that people bang on about it being a full-time job, how come people manage to be, say, Chancellor of the Exchequer and be an MP at the same time eh?

 

[CyclopsRock]

It's not all that life consuming. Really. There is pretty well bugger-all to do as a backbench MP aside from a bit of voting and a bit of committee work maybe. For all that people bang on about it being a full-time job, how come people manage to be, say, Chancellor of the Exchequer and be an MP at the same time eh?

I think it's ridiculously unsociable though, if you want to have a family and don't live in London. You're expected to live in two places, but your family can't. Think of all the times that mum or dad (whoever the MP is) will miss a parents evening, have to cancel a family meal because there's an important vote, not be able to take their kid to their swimming lesson? They spend at least 3 days living away from home, which puts an even greater responsibility on their partner for any kids they might have. It's like the job was designed for twenty-somethings with no obligations, but it's done almost exclusively by 40+ people.

I posted this somewhere else re: the issue of wages, but I'll paste it here too. (NB I'm talking generally now, not to you, phisheep!)

I think we should pay as much as we need to in order to get the best people doing the job. I don't know what that number is. It might be higher than they currently earn, it might be (but I highly doubt it) less than they currently earn. Right now, the only talented people that become MPs are those that care more about either their ambition or their ability to change things than they do about money. Not only is this rare, but it's also potentially dangerous - terrible things have been done under the guise of ones best intentions.

Ultimately, I don't care about someone's intentions. If they're representing their constituents well, voting according to both their judgement and their manifesto, and performing well in any cabinet/shadow cabinet role they might have, that's great. If they aren't, the people can vote them out. Their will to make a difference doesn't mean anything to me, only their ability to. If this means we have to pay them double, so be it. What I don't want is for these people to ignore it as a job on financial grounds. Doubling every MP's salary would cost us, what £45 million extra a year. We are currently spending that every 8 hours on debt interest alone. If it gets even a slight improvement in the calibre of people in our parliament, I'm all for it.

(Of course, all of this is based on their being reasonable evidence that this would occur. I don't advise raising it just for the sake of it.)

Edit: As an aside, I know plenty of people who'd love to be MP's and they're almost exclusively arrogant, self-aggrandising arseholes. That their desire to wield power over people is deemed an inherently positive virtue is, to me, bizarre.

 

[phisheep]

I think it's ridiculously unsociable though, if you want to have a family and don't live in London. You're expected to live in two places, but your family can't. Think of all the times that mum or dad (whoever the MP is) will miss a parents evening, have to cancel a family meal because there's an important vote, not be able to take their kid to their swimming lesson? They spend at least 3 days living away from home, which puts an even greater responsibility on their partner for any kids they might have. It's like the job was designed for twenty-somethings with no obligations, but it's done almost exclusively by 40+ people.

Not necessarily. I've been reading Crossman's diaries recently and one thing that stands out was how much time he was able to spend with his wife and children - more than many other people can manage.

I think we should pay as much as we need to in order to get the best people doing the job. I don't know what that number is. It might be higher than they currently earn, it might be (but I highly doubt it) less than they currently earn. Right now, the only talented people that become MPs are those that care more about either their ambition or their ability to change things than they do about money. Not only is this rare, but it's also potentially dangerous - terrible things have been done under the guise of ones best intentions.

The difficulty I have with this is that mostly the best people to do the job don't even apply. What we get is a bunch of professional politicians who have never thought of doing anything else. It's not the money, it's the selection process that is at fault.

Ultimately, I don't care about someone's intentions. If they're representing their constituents well, voting according to both their judgement and their manifesto, and performing well in any cabinet/shadow cabinet role they might have, that's great. If they aren't, the people can vote them out. Their will to make a difference doesn't mean anything to me, only their ability to. If this means we have to pay them double, so be it. What I don't want is for these people to ignore it as a job on financial grounds. Doubling every MP's salary would cost us, what £45 million extra a year. We are currently spending that every 8 hours on debt interest alone. If it gets even a slight improvement in the calibre of people in our parliament, I'm all for it.

(Of course, all of this is based on their being reasonable evidence that this would occur. I don't advise raising it just for the sake of it.)

Edit: As an aside, I know plenty of people who'd love to be MP's and they're almost exclusively arrogant, self-aggrandising arseholes. That their desire to wield power over people is deemed an inherently positive virtue is, to me, bizarre.

I think your "aside" catches the point nicely. There are plenty enough power-hungry people around to do the MP job even if there were no pay at all. Even if we pay them it doesn't change the mix of people who want to and have a chance of becoming MPs. And if we pay them double it doesn't change either. Not with the current setup.

My daughter once told me she wanted to sit for a chair (she meant "stand for a seat") and she is probably the nicest politest most compassionate person I have ever met. But she'd never get selected or voted for - just too nice.

That's one reason I'm rather - and somewhat reluctantly - in favour of the hereditary peers. They give parliamentary representation to the old, the ugly, the stupid, the financially embarrassed (for all of the above refer to the late Duke of Manchester, who I met a few times) that we would otherwise not get. They also give parliamentary representation to the sane, nonpolitical, commonsense stuff (for example in the late Earl of Onslow) that the House of Commons lacks.

 

[angelkimne]

It's not all that life consuming. Really. There is pretty well bugger-all to do as a backbench MP aside from a bit of voting and a bit of committee work maybe. For all that people bang on about it being a full-time job, how come people manage to be, say, Chancellor of the Exchequer and be an MP at the same time eh?

Generally I think government ministers get constituency agents or friendly neighbouring MP's to do lots of stuff for them.

Although my MP is particularly active. She's backbench and Labour but she's always doing stuff in the community, supporting this or that campaign, whatever. Might have skewed my perception.

Edit:

The difficulty I have with this is that mostly the best people to do the job don't even apply. What we get is a bunch of professional politicians who have never thought of doing anything else. It's not the money, it's the selection process that is at fault.

Actually, I strongly agree with you here, that's the core issue.

Then again, I have no idea how to solve it. Politics attracts politicians.

Gotta try meritocracy/technocracy.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/10/seven-prisons-england-close

woooooooo

 

[Dambrosi]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...-england-close

woooooooo

They're privatizing probation now? Holy shit.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/13/private-firms-corporation-tax-nhs-profits

They're privatizing probation now? Holy shit.

I wonder if there's a way they could combine that with this.

Gotta compete with Nigeria and India, afterall. Need dem ~~INCENTIVES~~ yo.

 

[Tea and Toast]

You knew it was coming...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jan/14/hmv-prepares-call-administrators?CMP=twt_fd

 

[Pie and Beans]

Can't throw this one at the government since High Street shops refused to change for a decade and this is the result. Still, with all thats happening at the start of this year, theres gotta be something close to 10k jobs just disappearing into the mist and unemployment stats just not reflecting that. Something definitely stinks there, just as it always has.

 

[Burai]

Can't throw this one at the government since High Street shops refused to change for a decade and this is the result. Still, with all thats happening at the start of this year, theres gotta be something close to 10k jobs just disappearing into the mist and unemployment stats just not reflecting that. Something definitely stinks there, just as it always has.

Can we not throw it at councils raising rents and rates and raising the cost of town centre parking to the point where nothing can viably exist on the high street but bookies, charity shops, cash converters and Poundland?

Can we not throw it at the government for allowing multinational corporations like Starbucks to come into the UK, price our homegrown firms out of business and never pay a penny in tax?

It's pretty hard for the high street to adapt when there's so much bullshit being thrown at it with no government intervention.

 

[Pie and Beans]

Oh yeah, things need to change, I meant more you cant throw it any of the sides, since its not like Labour changed any of this stuff either, so theyre both guilty of letting things lie while not proactively changing shit that needed changing.

The long-lease stuff is definitely killing business, as is letting people trade on our soil but just not paying their dues which is in turn taking business away from and killing smaller fish in the pond who are playing by the rulebook.

But HMV was definitely a fucking dinosaur on the market. No coherent digital strategy, no real changes to their layouts across the land since the fucking turn of the millenium... you gotta get creative with this making people getting their asses off of the computer chairs, especially when those computer chairs are now anywhere with a seat thanks to tablets enabling easier internet shopping.

Politics is more about plugging holes than seeking them out most of the time, which is a damn shame. Theres a time thats going to be fast coming where governments the world over are going to have to start putting limits and sanctions on automation. Companies are gonna wanna save money as much as possible and just not employ a costly human being anymore, and problem is rapidly getting worse where its going to be a gigantic unavoidable problem probably this decade. Of course, politics is a high school prom popularity contest so nobody wants to willingly dig into a shit pie without being forced. What we need is a good ol' fashioned dictator really!

 

[nib95]

Can we not throw it at councils raising rents and rates and raising the cost of town centre parking to the point where nothing can viably exist on the high street but bookies, charity shops, cash converters and Poundland?

Can we not throw it at the government for allowing multinational corporations like Starbucks to come into the UK, price our homegrown firms out of business and never pay a penny in tax?

It's pretty hard for the high street to adapt when there's so much bullshit being thrown at it with no government intervention.

Hear, hear.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Can we not throw it at councils raising rents and rates and raising the cost of town centre parking to the point where nothing can viably exist on the high street but bookies, charity shops, cash converters and Poundland?

Can we not throw it at the government for allowing multinational corporations like Starbucks to come into the UK, price our homegrown firms out of business and never pay a penny in tax?

It's pretty hard for the high street to adapt when there's so much bullshit being thrown at it with no government intervention.

Councils for sure. Greedy cunts.

This government closed the Jersey loophole, and are closing the double Dutch one as we speak which will drive Amazon into paying some corporation tax, the royalty transfer payments on needs to be closed at EU level, and Luxembourg will probably veto it at every turn. Another problem is that Amazon also sell hardware at a loss (Kindle) which means they don't actually make any money right now, and corporation tax is charged on profits. If Amazon don't show a profit, or a meagre one, then they won't pay very much tax at all.

Another area that needs to be looked at it charity shops. I know it won't be very good PR, but charity shops are undercutting independent businesses and they get rates relief, plus they don't have high overheads. It's why more and more charity shops are popping up on high streets where regular businesses can't survive and in many cases they seek to drive local competition out of business. In an area near me an Oxfam Bookshop opened up and the advertising in the window was all aimed at the local Waterstones which eventually shut down because they couldn't survive the low priced second hand competition.

 

[CyclopsRock]

It's pretty hard for the high street to adapt when there's so much bullshit being thrown at it with no government intervention.

Can we not throw it at councils raising rents and rates and raising the cost of town centre parking to the point where nothing can viably exist on the high street but bookies, charity shops, cash converters and Poundland?

So are they intervening or not? Is it positive or negative? I'm confused...

Can we not throw it at the government for allowing multinational corporations like Starbucks to come into the UK, price our homegrown firms out of business and never pay a penny in tax?

I'm not sure how Starbucks priced out UK competition. They're basically the most expensive coffeeshop in the highstreet, certainly more expensive than Costa and Nero - who are both British. Indeed, Costa is actually larger than Starbucks in the UK (and the second largest, behind them, in the entire world - they started right here in good ol' Blighty!) I think the reason Starbucks came to be a big player in the UK wasn't by "pricing our homegrown firms out of business" - it was because, before Starbucks came along, coffee here was awful. There was hardly anywhere that did a decent coffee, and it was so hit and miss that most people didn't bother. What Starbucks brought was not only a much better coffee in general, but a familiar consistency that a lot of people actually like - and, indeed, are willing to pay a premium for, as they are more expensive. What they did, though, was give rise to a huge culture of coffee drinking in the UK that hardly existed before they got here. Indeed, the UK drinks over double the volume of non-instant coffee now compared with 1997 (the year Starbucks first opened in the UK), and the percentage of coffee consumed in the UK that was purchased in a coffee shop has increased about 250% in the same time. Say what you want about Starbucks and tax, but I think they've had a very positive impact in the UK's coffee industry.

 

[phisheep]

Can we not throw it at councils raising rents and rates and raising the cost of town centre parking to the point where nothing can viably exist on the high street but bookies, charity shops, cash converters and Poundland?

Rents are mostly private sector, there's very little the council can do. There're hugely influenced by big companies on long leases with upward-only rent reviews, and propped up by "businesses" that have no stock costs, no staff costs and pay no rates (that'll be charity shops). Rents will come down if the landlords can't get the rents they want. Ending charitable exemption would help, as would a statutory right to break clauses. Councils can't do anything about either of these. It would also help (though there would be a heck of a row about it and it would disadvantage small landlords) if instead of there being rates relief for empty properties there were doubled rates on empty properties, so encouraging landlords to do whatever deal they can get rather than hold out for more and leave shops empty. Councils can't do anything about that either.

Rates are mostly set nationally (well, subject to the Valuation Office and local valuation officers, which again depends on rents, see above - and divided into London versus The Rest). Again there's not much a council can do. One problem is that the Small Business Relief is worked out on the size of the shop (well, rateable value) not the size of the business. I get 100% relief at the moment: would love to have started in a bigger shop but too risky, would love to move to one but too expensive in the short term (long-term would be fine, but short-term cashflow/risk precludes it for about another 2 years). Big business in small shop gets 100% relief, small business in big shop gets none.

But none of that is the councils fault. Well, some is: the amount taken in rates against the rateable value I think is - but that's far less important to small businesses than the rateable value in the first place and the reliefs available.

Parking is double-edged. Our council recently introduced on-street parking charges to great hoohah from residents, shoppers and the local press - but every independent shopkeeper I've talked to says it has been good for business. People love now being able to park near the shops and trade is up. Sure, it is more expensive than free, but free was never available as all the parking spaces were always taken up by commuters/employers/residents parking all day. And the charges are cheaper than parking in the multistoreys which are further away.

Part of the problem is it is very difficult for individual traders to get through to the Council for stuff they want. But in our street all the traders have banded together to lobby the council, and we're getting a lot done: we've got a (temporary) abatement of rates for the entire street owing to council-sponsored building works disrupting footfall, got signage, got Christmas lights for the first time ever, getting funding for street improvements and so on. And the street's gone from being half-empty of shops to full (except for one monstrosity owned by a Dutch company) in the last 12 months. Stuff can be done.

One of the problems is that advertising is fuckin' expensive - but again we are collaborating on that.

Can we not throw it at the government for allowing multinational corporations like Starbucks to come into the UK, price our homegrown firms out of business and never pay a penny in tax?

There's something in that, but it's not Starbucks (or at least not on price, as Cyclops said).

A big part of the problem is groups offshoring profits through intra-group licensing arrangements so they can show a loss in the UK subsidiary. Some of that can be fixed by plugging loopholes, but that won't go all the way.

My feeling is that there should be a way - where, say, a UK company is declaring a loss for 16 straight years to avoid tax - of prosecuting the directors personally for trading while insolvent. A few prosecutions like that and pretty soon companies will run out of directors unless they start trading honestly (or at least as honestly as the rest of us). Trouble is, they're not usually technically insolvent (because of parent company guarantees on loans and suchlike, but that is kind of sleight of hand when the only reason the parent company exists is to offshore the profits in the first place) and there'd need to be a bunch of legal changes to make it stick.

There might not be a need for legislation though. Even a tough White Paper might be enough to scare the buggers into playing ball.

- Stuff -

Spot on as usual. Except about councils. I think their hands are tied more than is apparent. More freedom to do creative things with local enterprise zones/vary rateable values/penalise commercial landlords for empty properties or whatever would help a great deal, but it isn't in the councils' hands.

 

[kurtrussell]

It's pretty hard for the high street to adapt when there's so much bullshit being thrown at it with no government intervention.

I don't see why the government should intervene? HMV was clearly a failing model - if there was still a demand for what it provided, then it wouldn't have gone out of business in the first place.

Ultimately, for the high street to survive, it needs to adapt to provide a service and/or experience that the internet can't provide - NOT be sheltered by the government. Where we will struggle with this as a country is that the British do not give good customer service. Customer service has only recently improved in London due to the high amount of incoming EU workers in the service industry.

Regardless: If the high street is doomed, it's because there's not a real need for it anymore and not for any real political reasons (unless you count the huge Labour Party debt that we're all going to be paying off for the next two generations).

 

[Visualante2]

1 in 5 jobs created under the current government are simply job seekers on the work programme, many are paid JSA only to work in high street stores further displacing the retail labour market. Hypocrisy at its finest, Tories accused Labour of doing this but at least they were providing qualifications. How many more are people from the work programme pushed into self employment, destined to fail?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/15/statistics-doubt-coalition-500000-jobs

 

[Psychotext]

Here we fucking go: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...ers-could-be-exempt-from-corporation-tax.html

10 years from now and you wont recognise the NHS.

 

[kitch9]

Can we not throw it at councils raising rents and rates and raising the cost of town centre parking to the point where nothing can viably exist on the high street but bookies, charity shops, cash converters and Poundland?

Can we not throw it at the government for allowing multinational corporations like Starbucks to come into the UK, price our homegrown firms out of business and never pay a penny in tax?

It's pretty hard for the high street to adapt when there's so much bullshit being thrown at it with no government intervention.

Couple of points:

Starbucks would pay rates along with everyone else.

HMV would pay tax only if they were profitable, which it appears they weren't...

 

[phisheep]

1 in 5 jobs created under the current government are simply job seekers on the work programme, many are paid JSA only to work in high street stores further displacing the retail labour market. Hypocrisy at its finest, Tories accused Labour of doing this but at least they were providing qualifications.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/15/statistics-doubt-coalition-500000-jobs

Pinch of salt time. For all that governments talk about creating jobs, they can't do so. The more they try to directly create jobs the more they distort the immediate market, and its been that way for something like a century. It's not really about Tories v Labour it is about government doing something that is long-term sensible versus short-term electable. Which I is why I'm reluctant to get ris of the old-fashioned House of Lords.

 

[Suairyu]

BritGAF thread has been infected with malware. I blame the health secretary.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

BritGAF thread has been infected with malware. I blame the health secretary.

I got that Chrome warning just now as well. D:

 

[phisheep]

Here we fucking go: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...ers-could-be-exempt-from-corporation-tax.html

10 years from now and you wont recognise the NHS.

Two responses to that:

(a) so what? Level playing field is OK

(b) Why? what about the rest of us?

Proper answer is probably to have the NHS pay corporation tax and VAT like everybody else so that everybody's on a level playing field. But I guess that won't wash.

 

[Psychotext]

Level playing field is just another step towards the privatisation of more NHS function. You may want that... I don't.

As a government entity I'm really struggling to see why anyone would need to be able to compete against the NHS. Can we hire some private politicians to compete with the shower of clowns we have?

 

[CyclopsRock]

As a government entity I'm really struggling to see why anyone would need to be able to compete against the NHS. Can we hire some private politicians to compete with the shower of clowns we have?

Well, I guess the point is that it's not in anyone's interest for private health companies - and bear in mind this includes companies like Specsavers who fulfil NHS functions but whom the NHS actually has no equivalent of - to be more expensive than they are. With Healthcare it's often hard to see the benefits but they do exist (though one should look at two areas that are more or less beyond the remit of the NHS - cosmetic surgery and laser eye surgery, both of which are tremendously competitive markets and has seen huge reductions in costs for the customers). I think the problem is that, too often, we look at "What's best for the NHS?" When the real question should be "What's best for the public?"

If we compare it to something like the BBC, it's easier to see, with the same logic more or less applying. If you ask your question again - why, as a government institution, we need anyone to compete against the BBC - it becomes a bit clearer; the BBC probably don't want people to compete with them, but that doesn't mean it's not in our best interest that Channel 4, ITV and even Sky are able to. Competition breeds improvement, not just in those seeking to make profit, but also in those that don't, because they're still forced to compete with those that do. Without competition, how do we know what value is? As long as the NHS takes on the improvements that the private sector manage to make, they should always be able to "stay ahead" as they have no need to make profit. This report suggests that private companies are 15% behind the NHS even without a profit margin, due to taxes. The further from an equal playing field there is, the less able to compete they are, and the less the NHS will have to improve. It's us that suffers.

Edit: Incidentally, if it's free at the point of use, would you mind the entire thing being privatised? Assuming you had reason to believe it'd stay that way? (Akin to free schools - privately run, publicly funded).

 

[kurtrussell]

Here we fucking go: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...ers-could-be-exempt-from-corporation-tax.html

10 years from now and you wont recognise the NHS.

What's the problem with this? I already have to pay extra to provide private healthcare for my family to make up for the increasingly outdated, stretched and unviable NHS, so why shouldn't they get some tax breaks to provide me higher quality healthcare for my money?

 

[CHEEZMO™]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21012657

 

[Deacan]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21012657

We are all in this together!

 

[CHEEZMO™]

We are all in this together!

But Edwina Currie told me there was no poverty in Britain. Why doesn't that guy just sign up for BENEFITS and get a 6-bedroom supermanshion with PLASMA TELLIES and IPHONES like all those dirty fuckin scroungers I read about in the Mail do???

Clearly this guy is having it too easy. Someone should take his van away so he's ~incentivised~ into getting a better job. That's the way to do it!