[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

[A1X]

I can't stand this Govt. - but profit is not, and should not be a dirty word.

My business makes money - we make a profit - employ people - we pay tax - to pay for public services - what's the problem with that?

Making profits responsibly is fine.

Making profits by neglecting national infrastructure meaning you have to pump sewage directly into the sea, impacting on coastal communities, is not.

I trust you can see a difference?

 

[West Hoathly Seagull]

We don't need a combined Conservative/Labour government but what we do need is Electoral reform!!

Ditch FPTP reform the HOL, give the electoral commission proper power and keep it well away from the ruling executive, Johnson has also demonstrated we need a written constitution. He may be gone but legacy leaves on lasting stain on our political system.

Exactly. Virtually every mature democracy in Europe has a coalition government of one kind or another, and it seems to have served them well, especially Germany, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries. Whenever one suggests coalition governments and Proportional Representation would work well here, the argument about Italy and its succession of governments is always thrown back at one. That is one country, and the political instability there is largely due to its political culture, rather than its voting system. It was no more stable when it had a form of FPTP, or when it was a dictatorship.

For what it's worth, I don't favour the pure PR system they have in Ireland, where number of seats almost exactly matches votes, as you have huge constituencies such as Galway-Sligo. I would be quite happy to have, say, four or five constituencies in each county still electing their own MPs by FPTP, as they do in Germany, along with a Sussex list, so that someone who doesn't want to vote Conservative in Wealden still gets represented, and someone who doesn't support Labour or the Greens in Brighton and Hove does as well.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Exactly. Virtually every mature democracy in Europe has a coalition government of one kind or another, and it seems to have served them well, especially Germany, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries. Whenever one suggests coalition governments and Proportional Representation would work well here, the argument about Italy and its succession of governments is always thrown back at one. That is one country, and the political instability there is largely due to its political culture, rather than its voting system. It was no more stable when it had a form of FPTP, or when it was a dictatorship.

For what it's worth, I don't favour the pure PR system they have in Ireland, where number of seats almost exactly matches votes, as you have huge constituencies such as Galway-Sligo. I would be quite happy to have, say, four or five constituencies in each county still electing their own MPs by FPTP, as they do in Germany, along with a Sussex list, so that someone who doesn't want to vote Conservative in Wealden still gets represented, and someone who doesn't support Labour or the Greens in Brighton and Hove does as well.

And I suspect that we would have a mature debate about the size of the constituencies (I'd favour the larger) but all the time people have their red or blue scarves tied so tightly around their necks that it stops the flow of blood upwards (as often demonstrated on NSC and even on recent occasions this thread ) I do get the feeling it's an uphill task.

However, posts like yours do make me feel it's worthwhile still trying

 

[Dorset Seagull]

The CEO of Shell makes £6.2M a year, the profits are £9.4B in three months. £6.5B is going to be paid out to shareholders.
Pensioners like me are paying £125 a month just for electricity, and goodness knows what it will be after the autumn.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1650389/shell-bonuses-huge-profits-energy-crisis-hits-britain

I agree bosses should be paid a good wage for their expertise, but nobody can spend that much in a lifetime. It is obscene.

The CEO is not the owner of the business and is an employee so is not relevant to the point I made. A CEO’s wage is determined by how much money he is able to make for the owners (shareholders) so will be reflected by that. An example is If you were in a position to offer a person £1m as they had the skills to make you £3m as a result then it would make sense to do that. However if that business is showing that profit because it is heavily subsidised, by say a government, then the CEO’s wage should be reduced accordingly to reflect that.

 

[vegster]

Sunak; Billionaire…. and man of the people.



Rishi Sunak reveals favourite McDonald’s food … which no longer exists
Former chancellor talks about preference for breakfast wrap, which went off menu in 2020.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...a-wrap-rishi-sunak-fails-mcdonalds-fact-check


Nice one, Rishi.

Man of the people....

 

[Lever]

Good point!

 

[Lever]

To be fair to PoTG, it is always worth checking the veracity of the source. That photo clearly wasn't 'seen in Lewes today' (yesterday now) as the twitter poster said it was. Always good to call out fake news.

Fair enough.
As long as it doesn’t prompt more silly sarcasm from him.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Making profits responsibly is fine.

Making profits by neglecting national infrastructure meaning you have to pump sewage directly into the sea, impacting on coastal communities, is not.

I trust you can see a difference?

Of course.

As I said, I can't stand this Govt, but profit should not be a dirty word - how would public services be funded unless companies made profits and paid tax?

 

[nicko31]

The CEO is not the owner of the business and is an employee so is not relevant to the point I made. A CEO’s wage is determined by how much money he is able to make for the owners (shareholders) so will be reflected by that. An example is If you were in a position to offer a person £1m as they had the skills to make you £3m as a result then it would make sense to do that. However if that business is showing that profit because it is heavily subsidised, by say a government, then the CEO’s wage should be reduced accordingly to reflect that.

These excess profits are generated not on the back of the skill of the CEO but out of others misery.

I hope Truss brings in a proper windfall tax with teeth, but frankly I’m holding my breath. Too many connections in government and the HOL to the fossil fuel industry.

The only justification in them retaining these profits in 100 percent investment in renewables

 

[Gwylan]

The CEO is not the owner of the business and is an employee so is not relevant to the point I made. A CEO’s wage is determined by how much money he is able to make for the owners (shareholders) so will be reflected by that..

The problem with this approach is that it encourages CEO to maximise profits for shareholders in dividends, rather than investing in infrastructure or new product development. Look at the figures on R&D: some countries like Israel and Korea spend four times as much on R&D as the UK does (the UK is about half the OECD average, pretty poor for an advanced economy). And look at the water companies with their Victorian infrastructure and refusal to build new reservoirs or to mend leaks.

Other countries have a much better balance between executive pay and investment: I'm not sure why that is but the UK is definitely lagging behind here.

 

[beorhthelm]

The problem with this approach is that it encourages CEO to maximise profits for shareholders in dividends, rather than investing in infrastructure or new product development. Look at the figures on R&D: some countries like Israel and Korea spend four times as much on R&D as the UK does (the UK is about half the OECD average, pretty poor for an advanced economy). And look at the water companies with their Victorian infrastructure and refusal to build new reservoirs or to mend leaks.

Other countries have a much better balance between executive pay and investment: I'm not sure why that is but the UK is definitely lagging behind here.

CEOs dont just make profits for dividends, also for investment, growth of the business, renumeration usually reflects all these. R&D is a misleading metric, label used to avoid some tax, gain some grants, or spending without certainty productive returns. some business are being signalled do not invest in the business, its dead, so motivation is to sweat assets, return money to shareholders to be deployed elsewhere. dividends are a benefit to country, larger tax revenues are raised than reinvesting. recipients then invest most that cash back in to other business, and so it goes round.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Southern Water for example (this article is from Aug 2021)

https://smartwatermagazine.com/blog...nvestments-and-too-important-be-driven-profit

Perhaps this is why the recent announcement that one of the UK’s biggest water companies would be “rescued” by an Australian investment bank, has been welcomed by some as an opportunity to improve things with a £1 billion cash injection.

But we should question why Southern Water, which provides water and treats sewerage for 4.7 million customers across Kent, Sussex, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, needs rescuing in the first place.

The bank set to take on the company, Macquarie, also has a highly questionable track record. As owner of Thames Water from 2007 to 2017, it revolutionised company finances to the benefit of shareholders, who in 2007 received a special dividend of £535 million despite profits that year being only £190 million.

In fact, during the decade of Macquarie control, Thames Water paid out dividends of more than £2.5 billion. Over the same period, debts increased from about £3.6 billion in 2007 to £10.2 billion by March 2016. The company was also responsible for widespread negligent sewerage leaks and a sharp increase in the company pension deficit. When Macquarie sold their final stake in Thames in 2017, company finances were severely depleted.

 

[A1X]

The problem with the water system is it’s neither one thing nor the other. It’s not publicly owned, meaning it can be invested in without a need to consider shareholders and the like, but nor is it properly privatised as there is no competition in the market.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Who knew there would be a worker shortage in care homes?

[tweet]1560540490877075459[/tweet]

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Of course, there will be a massive shortage of care homes, as the managers won't be able to pay the heating bills, so we won't actually need Asian workers to come over.

 

[Gwylan]

CEOs dont just make profits for dividends, also for investment, growth of the business, renumeration usually reflects all these. R&D is a misleading metric, label used to avoid some tax, gain some grants, or spending without certainty productive returns. some business are being signalled do not invest in the business, its dead, so motivation is to sweat assets, return money to shareholders to be deployed elsewhere. dividends are a benefit to country, larger tax revenues are raised than reinvesting. recipients then invest most that cash back in to other business, and so it goes round.

Of course R&D is slightly misleading but it's a good general guide. Having spent a week in Israel interviewing some of their start-ups, the country spends an insane amount of money on R&D - there's nothing misleading about that.

And yes, the profits can be reinvested in infrastructure but we're bad at that too. Look at these figures from the World Bank - 109th in the world when it comes to that. It's true that most of the leaders here start from a low base but we're behind every European country too. We have an energy crisis and how many power stations have we built this century? The last nuclear power station was built in 1995.

If you want to look at another metric, let's consider investment in skills training which, according to this report has stagnated and is half that of the EU.

So, it's not just R&D that's an area of concern

 

[Fignon's Ponytail]

Of course, there will be a massive shortage of care homes, as the managers won't be able to pay the heating bills.

How long until we see campaigns asking for donations of blankets, jumpers and coats to care homes....?

 

[vegster]

Yes business owners should reap the rewards of taking the risk involved in starting a business. I think that this is often forgotten by employees that get paid for doing a days work without the risk of losing anything in return. Eg. Their house

However there comes a point when the business owner has a comfortable life and should then prioritise raising the standards for those they employ rather than continue to grow their own wealth. I think this is where the controversy sits between the Boss and the Workers with regard to how much is too much for either party

A fair call. Overall however, " Trickle Down " economics isn't working as can be seen in our low wage economy. There needs to be a sea change in our economy as mostly its a race to the bottom regarding wages.

It's insane that people in work need Universal Credit and food banks to survive..

 

[drew]

Yes business owners should reap the rewards of taking the risk involved in starting a business. I think that this is often forgotten by employees that get paid for doing a days work without the risk of losing anything in return. Eg. Their house

However there comes a point when the business owner has a comfortable life and should then prioritise raising the standards for those they employ rather than continue to grow their own wealth. I think this is where the controversy sits between the Boss and the Workers with regard to how much is too much for either party

If a business fails then the employees are at risk of losing everything if they can't pay mortgages/rent etc. Yes, they might be able to go and get another job but that goes for the owner as well. Employees, whether they admit it or not are invested in the success of their employer.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Southern Water for example (this article is from Aug 2021)

https://smartwatermagazine.com/blog...nvestments-and-too-important-be-driven-profit

Perhaps this is why the recent announcement that one of the UK’s biggest water companies would be “rescued” by an Australian investment bank, has been welcomed by some as an opportunity to improve things with a £1 billion cash injection.

But we should question why Southern Water, which provides water and treats sewerage for 4.7 million customers across Kent, Sussex, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, needs rescuing in the first place.

The bank set to take on the company, Macquarie, also has a highly questionable track record. As owner of Thames Water from 2007 to 2017, it revolutionised company finances to the benefit of shareholders, who in 2007 received a special dividend of £535 million despite profits that year being only £190 million.

In fact, during the decade of Macquarie control, Thames Water paid out dividends of more than £2.5 billion. Over the same period, debts increased from about £3.6 billion in 2007 to £10.2 billion by March 2016. The company was also responsible for widespread negligent sewerage leaks and a sharp increase in the company pension deficit. When Macquarie sold their final stake in Thames in 2017, company finances were severely depleted.

Oh for the good old days of blue flag beaches.

[tweet]1560502577560690689[/tweet]



This country is being asset stripped!