The election 2015

[clivex]

tis' rather since advising businesses is what you do!

so i should advise businesses to keep hold of staff that they do not need for "social responsibility " then?

i should advise them to never review costs ?

or that inflation and interest rates are of no consequence?

that would be interesting...

 

[EC1]

what is emabarrasing Clive is that you are in a bubble where real life just doesn't exist...you seem oblivious to the fact that outside your bubble..people don't give bugger what figures you and your mates write down on back of a fag packet..they about as relevant to ordianry man as my speed figures...you are as important as Anorak man is.

people who have lived in this county long enough know for a fact..when the county is "doing well"..we get no benefit..and when its doing "poorly"..we get shagged harder

simple fact Clive...not everyone falls for the bollox you and your ilk spin

 

[simmo]

but answer the points or give up

answer what points? you haven't made any.

The laid off workers have been repeatedly referred to as "making a profit" and "hard working" on here. As if you and the others know exactly what their workload and productivity is

Not by me they haven't.

If Bgas can operate fully functioning with 6000 less staff then those staff are nothing more than an unnecessary overhead. Unnecessary overheads do not make a profit . full stop

Again, you are ignoring what Centrica themselves are saying about it.

They clearly believe they can function so its pretty clear that in their judgement there was not enough work to go round

Not what Centrica are saying.

the idea that businesses have a "social Responsibility" on or should even be obliged to keep non prodcutive staff, is simply ludicrous

It was agreed hundreds of years ago that businesses are run better where they have a social responsibility by some of the biggest Tories in history. We're moving pre-Industrial Revolution to think otherwise.

If you think you are going to have a vibrant growing economy with businesses constantly hamstrung by such restrictions you are out of your mind. As i made very clear and even a five year old would understand NO business will invest if it forced in any way to retain staff and costs it does not need

The only person who has mentioned restrictions is you. I have suggested that they have a social responsibility. I did not, in any way, indicate that this should be legislated.

If business doesnt invest or (more likely) relocates to better managed economies then everyone loses

They'd have a hard job doing that in this instance.[/QUOTE]

 

[simmo]

so i should advise businesses to keep hold of staff that they do not need for "social responsibility " then?

i should advise them to never review costs ?

or that inflation and interest rates are of no consequence?

that would be interesting...

You should advise them that if they are making obscene profits, then they have a social responsibility to not shed jobs for the sake of making even more obscene profits at the cost of people's lives.

I don't agree with EC1's inflation point, so I won't answer that.

 

[EC1]

re the inflation Clive..the country was booming financially in the 80's...ordinary man losing his home because of 15% interest rates..htf is he better off when we have a "healthy" economy?

its a con..simple as..spun by such as you and the media..we all need to work harder..we are all in it together con..complete bollox

 

[clivex]

You should advise them that if they are making obscene profits, then they have a social responsibility to not shed jobs for the sake of making even more obscene profits at the cost of people's lives.

I don't agree with EC1's inflation point, so I won't answer that.

No. The actual profit net profit margins are far from excessive for a start but you do not retain jobs just because you are making a profit. If you maximise profits you have more to invest in the business and will also attract more investment. Rather than maintaining an inflated cost.

Any business should have just the right number of staff to function perfectly for its clients and for a reasonable workload to be shared and thus retain good staff. No more no less

If they can let such a high number go then it suggests that bgas was grossly over staffed

what i will say is that centricas statement was clumsy refering to profits as the motivation. You avoid that. They simply should have said "we are chucking out the sicknotes, thickos and coffin dodgers"

 

[EC1]

I'll give you some first hand experience of living in a "boom" economy and listening to "experts" like Clive...when you are an ordinary person. Unlike many here i assume Clive is spouting to people who didn't live through times..and experience them..well i have done..and i've heard all such as Clive's sh1te many times over

In the mid 80's we were renting and were looking to move..the first priority was to buy our own home..so we went looking at houses and getting a mortgage. At that time interest rates were 15%..a bad time..but circumstances made us want to make the move to owning. So we looked into it. To buy a rock bottom terraced house in the north then you were looking at paying twice..yes twice.. what you paid for renting. So in todays terms you would be paying a grand [twice the av for rented today]for a rock bottom property...this is when we doing well according to your Clive's of the day..ie working your nads off for little basically..but oooh the country is doing well financially. But on top of that..when you went for a mortgage they virtually told you you were an idiot..a total bufoon....if you wanted a repayment mortgage..they made it seem like if you wanted a mortgage the only one that was viable and sensible was an ENDOWMENT mortage..well i wouldn't have that idea on top of the ridiculous repaymnents. Yes the "experts" were virtually shaming people into endowmnent mortgages then..brilliant advice wasn't it????..well you pay like an ordinary mortage payment for 25 years..and then you get 10k back..brilliant isn't it?..the problem being..you actually still owe that much at the end rather than getting it back. Experts eh? Many people went down the Endowment route listening to the experts..to their expense

thats what i think of buisness and money advisors..complete selfish moneygrubbing muppets who just have one person's interest in mind. The public as a whole..fell for it..because if you tell a story often enough..people believe it..keep telling that story..keep repeating that mantra...tories are really good at it.

 

[EC1]

what i will say is that centricas statement was clumsy refering to profits as the motivation. You avoid that. They simply should have said diplomatically "we are chucking out the sicknotes, thickos and coffin dodgers"

lovely Clive...and you talk about generalsations

you couldn't create a cartoon cutout to represent you Clive seriously

 

[clivex]

You are getting worse.

Frnakly you have no idea of what i have been through and you have no idea of what i do and who i do it for and on what basis. None at all, so shove the personal stuff up your arse ....ok?

 

[clivex]

what i will say is that centricas statement was clumsy refering to profits as the motivation. You avoid that. They simply should have said diplomatically "we are chucking out the sicknotes, thickos and coffin dodgers"

lovely Clive...and you talk about generalsations

you couldn't create a cartoon cutout to represent you Clive seriously

Bypass...

 

[EC1]

i love how you ignore the booming 80's Clive..tells me a lot about how weak your argument is about working man having any interest in the countrys economic state

keep perpetuating the false bollox about ..we need a booming economy..no.."we" don't..its such as you that do

thats the crux of the whole thing...oooh we 20% need you arseholes to make us hold 80% of the wealth..work harder surfs

 

[EC1]

You are getting worse.

Frnakly you have no idea of what i have been through and you have no idea of what i do and who i do it for and on what basis. None at all, so shove the personal stuff up your arse ....ok?

the personal stuff i put up is reality that happened to me at the time Clive...i know how the game works..and i know all about "experts"..thats all i am putting across

I have no gripe against you personally..please don't think i have..not meant that way..just the fascade you put forward about how we all benefit from financial prosperity..we just don't

 

[Warbler]

the idea that businesses have a "social Responsibility" on or should even be obliged to keep non prodcutive staff, is simply ludicrous

Many of the world's corporations are falling over themselves to increasingly compete on their CSR record these days Clive. They have well funded departments doing precisely this. Just put "Annual CSR Report" into google with any of the top corporations (which includes some pretty unlikely characters). You could of course adopt the cynical arguement and suggest that the whole thing is a white wash, and only a reaction to empowered consumers as corporate strategists latch onto the idea of competing on their ethical credentials, and wouldn't otherwise have happened? you wouldn't be the first to suggest that this whole dash to CSR is insincere, but poor practise gets seized upon these days like it's never been before and can be enormously damaging

In the UK it probably started with Shell who lost a lot of ground over Brent Spa and then went and paid the Nigerian police to shoot environmental protestors about 6 months later. Today they're one of the more progressive having had their fingers burned. Nike is another who come to mind having got themselves in all sorts of ethical issues over sweat shop labour. Supermarket shelves are normally a good barometer of social trends, and you don't have to look far to see how they've changed and how they're much more sensitive to CSR than ever before. Car manufacturers are another sector who increasingly try and promote their environmental credentials to boost sales

To describe the CSR obligations of businesses as "ludicrious" is completely out of step with the more progressive corporate strategists. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to inform Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Michael Dell or Ted Turner of your views some time, I'm sure they'd readily come round to your 19th century world view the moment you told them they've been doing it all wrong for the last few decades.

Now admittedly someone like Donald Trump would almost certainly endorse your view, but ............. well lets just say if that's the sort of role model

 

[Grasshopper]

I'll give you some first hand experience of living in a "boom" economy and listening to "experts" like Clive...when you are an ordinary person. Unlike many here i assume Clive is spouting to people who didn't live through times..and experience them..well i have done..and i've heard all such as Clive's sh1te many times over

In the mid 80's we were renting and were looking to move..the first priority was to buy our own home..so we went looking at houses and getting a mortgage. At that time interest rates were 15%..a bad time..but circumstances made us want to make the move to owning. So we looked into it. To buy a rock bottom terraced house in the north then you were looking at paying twice..yes twice.. what you paid for renting. So in todays terms you would be paying a grand [twice the av for rented today]for a rock bottom property...this is when we doing well according to your Clive's of the day..ie working your nads off for little basically..but oooh the country is doing well financially. But on top of that..when you went for a mortgage they virtually told you you were an idiot..a total bufoon....if you wanted a repayment mortgage..they made it seem like if you wanted a mortgage the only one that was viable and sensible was an ENDOWMENT mortage..well i wouldn't have that idea on top of the ridiculous repaymnents. Yes the "experts" were virtually shaming people into endowmnent mortgages then..brilliant advice wasn't it????..well you pay like an ordinary mortage payment for 25 years..and then you get 10k back..brilliant isn't it?..the problem being..you actually still owe that much at the end rather than getting it back. Experts eh? Many people went down the Endowment route listening to the experts..to their expense

thats what i think of buisness and money advisors..complete selfish moneygrubbing muppets who just have one person's interest in mind. The public as a whole..fell for it..because if you tell a story often enough..people believe it..keep telling that story..keep repeating that mantra...tories are really good at it.

Buying will always cost more than renting, EC1, because you are acquiring an asset when you buy. That's not getting shafted - it's straightforward.

Also, you seem to have made a conscious choice to enter the property market when interest rates were at their peak. I'm not judging you for this - you clearly had your reasons - but again, this doesn't mean you were getting shafted.....only that timing was against you.

As for an endowment mortgage over a repayment mortgage, the "attractiveness" of the former over the latter is that it reduces your outlay significantly, because you don't pay off any of the capital on your loan until the endowment matures. Admittedly, there is a degree of risk attached, which suits some, and doesn't suit others - but the choice is there for the individual to make. As for getting "shamed" into taking an endowment (general point) anyone doing so has only themselves to blame, in my view. A house purchase is the biggest burden anyone will take on (rich or poor) in the course of their life - and they should not therefore allow themselves to be brow-beaten into accepting something they don't want.....especially when there are probably another 20 banks/building-societies on the same High Street, who would be more than happy to provide a Capital & Interest/Repayment mortgage to the buyer.

You seem to think that every major business is run like Enron. It's simply not the case.

 

[EC1]

Buying will always cost more than renting, EC1, because you are acquiring an asset when you buy. That's not getting shafted - it's straightforward.

Also, you seem to have made a conscious choice to enter the property market when interest rates were at their peak. I'm not judging you for this - you clearly had your reasons - but again, this doesn't mean you were getting shafted.....only that timing was against you.

As for an endowment mortgage over a repayment mortgage, the "attractiveness" of the former over the latter is that it reduces your outlay significantly, because you don't pay off any of the capital on your loan until the endowment matures. Admittedly, there is a degree of risk attached, which suits some, and doesn't suit others - but the choice is there for the individual to make. As for getting "shamed" into taking an endowment (general point) anyone doing so has only themselves to blame, in my view. A house purchase is the biggest burden anyone will take on (rich or poor) in the course of their life - and they should not therefore allow themselves to be brow-beaten into accepting something they don't want.....especially when there are probably another 20 banks/building-societies on the same High Street, who would be more than happy to provide a Capital & Interest/Repayment mortgage to the buyer.

You seem to think that every major business is run like Enron. It's simply not the case.

you are talking well after the fact here Grass..easy to do...i can guarantee you that endowments were the "in" thing and you were made to feel daft if you didn't take them up..what a disaster they have been..easy to spot now the error..not so easy to refuse them then. very heavy selling of endowments was the order of the day.

have you any idea what 15% interest rates did to mortgages?..yes buying is more than rent...but at that time a rock bottom terraced house was double+ it was to buy than to rent of similar.

i don't think this generation has an idea what 15% interest rates make to a mortgage tbh..i didn't say i was getting shafted by the way..can't see how you have come to that conclusion...my point was........the country was apparantly booming ok?..and yet ordinary people were losing their homes. That was my point..its a fact..and it shows that "prosperity" has little effect on ordinary people..in fact..it can have the opposite effect. Its a myth...prosperity is a word that only applies if you have a lot to start with..80% of the country don't have what the other 20% have...so prosperity means..prosperous for the 20%.

As for getting shamed..i wasn't..i refused it..but a very large % of people fell..or went for the expert advice..and paid heavily..again... i don't see your point really..mine was that experts tell you what suits them at the time..ie the commisions on Endowments were a lot larger than Repayment mortgages..so as an advisor..what you going to advise? The individual taking that advice paid heavily in many cases

you seem to be trying to turn my own posts against me..i gain bugger all for posting my experiences bar ridicule and being talked to as though i wasn't there....whereas they are made to highlight cons that people fall for..they did then..and they will now..we must reduce the deficit etc..we must be more productive etc...oh yes..for whose benefit though eh?..not the man in the street. Man in the street is and always has been fodder for the purpose of exploitation.

I lived through those times..they aren't a few lines on Google to me..they are reality that happened..the tories will sell the same bollox to this generation..the uninitiated haven't yet experienced their ways...thats how they get in..through lack of people experiencing their games and thinking they are being looked after in some way..they aren't.

 

[clivex]

Many of the world's corporations are falling over themselves to increasingly compete on their CSR record these days Clive. They have well funded departments doing precisely this. Just put "Annual CSR Report" into google with any of the top corporations (which includes some pretty unlikely characters). You could of course adopt the cynical arguement and suggest that the whole thing is a white wash, and only a reaction to empowered consumers as corporate strategists latch onto the idea of competing on their ethical credentials, and wouldn't otherwise have happened? you wouldn't be the first to suggest that this whole dash to CSR is insincere, but poor practise gets seized upon these days like it's never been before and can be enormously damaging

In the UK it probably started with Shell who lost a lot of ground over Brent Spa and then went and paid the Nigerian police to shoot environmental protestors about 6 months later. Today they're one of the more progressive having had their fingers burned. Nike is another who come to mind having got themselves in all sorts of ethical issues over sweat shop labour. Supermarket shelves are normally a good barometer of social trends, and you don't have to look far to see how they've changed and how they're much more sensitive to CSR than ever before. Car manufacturers are another sector who increasingly try and promote their environmental credentials to boost sales

To describe the CSR obligations of businesses as "ludicrious" is completely out of step with the more progressive corporate strategists. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to inform Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Michael Dell or Ted Turner of your views some time, I'm sure they'd readily come round to your 19th century world view the moment you told them they've been doing it all wrong for the last few decades.

Now admittedly someone like Donald Trump would almost certainly endorse your view, but ............. well lets just say if that's the sort of role model

no. I said retaining a inflated workforce is ludicrous. Or being obliged to

that's a completely different thing

a corporation shouldn't want to get a reputation for high churn of staff (although it didn't harm GE with their policy of regenerating 5% every year) but that's with a view to maintaining their place in the labour market

 

[clivex]

Buffett is an investor not a ceo

 

[clivex]

Interest rates were 15% for a very very short window. Endowments did work for some. I ended up with a surplus

but the selling of some personal financial products in the past was very loose. It's been tightened up enormously now and they can't take commissions I believe .

if it's all a bit too capitalist here for some then I suggest that an emigration to Greece might be an option. See the alternative. And tehre are 5000 waiting a Calais who will quite willingly swap positions. Whichever way you look at it, the uk is one helluva a magnet now

if it wasn't for the dangerous issue of encouraging more and more boats I would let them all in tomorrow. The risks they have taken are incredible and they would make a damn good go of it here

 

[EC1]

what you mean is a boat load of exploitable people are available for future expolitation..a bit similar to how tories look on the next generation of the uninitiated voter

what you are also saying is..if any oiks out there have wised up..well you can p1ss off as there are lots of gullibles to replace you.

fits with my view of how it is really...you couldn't worded it better really there.

 

[EC1]

Interest rates were 15% for a very very short window. Endowments did work for some. I ended up with a surplus

again ,,easy in hindsight..when they were 15%..no bugger knew how long that was for..you should be grateful you ended up with a surplus..i know a few who haven't and its not a good place to be imo

 

[clivex]

again ,,easy in hindsight..when they were 15%..no bugger knew how long that was for..you should be grateful you ended up with a surplus..i know a few who haven't and its not a good place to be imo

Don't agree. It was seen everywhere as a spike for all sorts of reasons

 

[archie]

I don't think that interest rates were ever actually at 15%. From memory, on Black Wednesday the rate was raised from 10% to 12% and a further raise to 15% was promised. However, like most other Tory promises, it was retracted and the rate actually went down to 10% again the next day.
Endowment mortgages did work for some people and they had a pretty good run for about 20 years but you were obviously taking a bet on financial markets for a 25 year period and, after the mid 90s this was always going to be a losing bet. My own policy that was meant to cover a £20k mortgage eventually paid out £15k but I'd already paid off my mortgage by that stage so it was just another investment by then. One time it was an advantage though was when I was out of work for getting on for 3 years. As I was on income support, the state paid the interest on my mortgage which for an endowment mortgage is 100% of the monthly outlay.

That aside, I'm wholly on the northern leftie side in this particular discussion. I think that the next couple of years will show just what a good job the LibDems did in moderating the last government.

 

[clivex]

Really Archie? And what has been the most striking initiative since the lib dems were "moderating them"

a significant increase in the minimum wage.

 

[Grasshopper]

you are talking well after the fact here Grass..easy to do...i can guarantee you that endowments were the "in" thing and you were made to feel daft if you didn't take them up..what a disaster they have been..easy to spot now the error..not so easy to refuse them then. very heavy selling of endowments was the order of the day.

have you any idea what 15% interest rates did to mortgages?..yes buying is more than rent...but at that time a rock bottom terraced house was double+ it was to buy than to rent of similar.

i don't think this generation has an idea what 15% interest rates make to a mortgage tbh..i didn't say i was getting shafted by the way..can't see how you have come to that conclusion...my point was........the country was apparantly booming ok?..and yet ordinary people were losing their homes. That was my point..its a fact..and it shows that "prosperity" has little effect on ordinary people..in fact..it can have the opposite effect. Its a myth...prosperity is a word that only applies if you have a lot to start with..80% of the country don't have what the other 20% have...so prosperity means..prosperous for the 20%.

As for getting shamed..i wasn't..i refused it..but a very large % of people fell..or went for the expert advice..and paid heavily..again... i don't see your point really..mine was that experts tell you what suits them at the time..ie the commisions on Endowments were a lot larger than Repayment mortgages..so as an advisor..what you going to advise? The individual taking that advice paid heavily in many cases

you seem to be trying to turn my own posts against me..i gain bugger all for posting my experiences bar ridicule........

I got my first mortgage in 1988.....something my own circumstances forced upon me, so please don't assume I don't have insight or experience about what is being discussed. In fact, I worked for a high street bank at the time, and they refused to give me a mortgage......so I went and got one somewhere else......and had no pressure to take an endowment over a repayment - the choice was mine.

You're problem is you take your own experince and then try to extroplate it to "80%" of the population when, of course, it's never that simple.

When you put forward an argument, it's only an "opinion". When an alternative to your worldview is put forward, you call it "ridicule"......which basically renders any further discussion on the matter pointless.

 

[marbler]

you are talking well after the fact here Grass..easy to do...i can guarantee you that endowments were the "in" thing and you were made to feel daft if you didn't take them up...

I've no idea of the merits of arguments in this debate but I can see how you feel EC.

I've found myself questioning decisions I myself made years ago in relation to something completely different to the housing market...i've talked about this to whom it may concern once or twice, to which they refer to 'things changing', or reality being altered afterwards by events (essentially rendering my own experience as more unique/limited/random than I thought in the wider context of everyone else), but I always refer to the event at the time as to what affected my decision making.

Regardless of whether you are right or wrong I understand what your saying, ec1.

A big part of living in the moment is the risk of making a bad or risky judgement, this is something people shouldn't crucify other people about, just accept that it happens and move on.