Own Goal for the Tories

ballysmate

Thanks to the unrecognised but astounding work of the World Trade Organisation there really is no need for either an EU single market. Average import tariffs into the EU are 1.09 per cent for the United States – and it does not bear the cost of EU commissioners and hangers-on, bureaucrats, politicians and advisers, nor an EU parliament or an EU membership fee to gain access to what the Confederation of British Industry claims mistakenly is vital to our economic survival.

Canada, Switzerland and South Korea all have Free Trade agreements with the EU to gain access without cost to the erroneously titled “single market” and the Lisbon Treaty makes the EU duty-bound to give any country leaving – be it the UK or Scotland – the same deal.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/brian-mont ... -1-3634328

Is withdrawal from the EU the end of the world?
People asume that out trade with them would cease, but is that really the case?

finchy

Stevo 666 wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Out of interest, how many are publically endorsing the Lib-Dems?

Seeing as the Lib Dems were the only major party to propose taking measures to prevent massive private debt building up during the early part of the last decades, you'd think that more businesses would be supportive of them than the wise-after-the-event Tories with George "Let's copy the Irish" Osborne as Chancellor.

Presumably there is a good reason why businesses are not prepared to support Labour or the Lib Dems despite both parties pro-Euro stance. There are a few possibilities:
1. They don't think the Tories will take us out of the EU, or
2. EU exit is less important to them than Rick says, or
3. Labour and Lib Dem policy is in their view likely to harm UK business and the economy, which after all is the cornerstone of our economic prosperity.
Or a mixture of the above.

Anyway, good to see that we are the fastest growing country in the G7 - 2.8% year on year growth. Seems like the medicine is finally working.

Here's another possibility - these people were speaking in a personal capacity and are speaking out for the party they believe will best represent their individual interests.

Stevo_666

johnfinch wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Out of interest, how many are publically endorsing the Lib-Dems?

Seeing as the Lib Dems were the only major party to propose taking measures to prevent massive private debt building up during the early part of the last decades, you'd think that more businesses would be supportive of them than the wise-after-the-event Tories with George "Let's copy the Irish" Osborne as Chancellor.

Presumably there is a good reason why businesses are not prepared to support Labour or the Lib Dems despite both parties pro-Euro stance. There are a few possibilities:
1. They don't think the Tories will take us out of the EU, or
2. EU exit is less important to them than Rick says, or
3. Labour and Lib Dem policy is in their view likely to harm UK business and the economy, which after all is the cornerstone of our economic prosperity.
Or a mixture of the above.

Anyway, good to see that we are the fastest growing country in the G7 - 2.8% year on year growth. Seems like the medicine is finally working.

Here's another possibility - these people were speaking in a personal capacity and are speaking out for the party they believe will best represent their individual interests.

Given that a fair number of them are business owners or have a substantial investment in the business that they run, their own prosperity will in many cases be linked to the success of their business. So whatever the reason for their statement, the underlying reason is that these business leaders think that Tory policies are better for business than Labour or Lib Dems.

Given that these people probably have a good feel for what is good for a business (otherwise they wouldn't be in the position that they are in) their view does carry considerable weight.

finchy

Agreed, but businessmen and women still have their own prejudices, blind spots and weaknesses, just like you and me.

Stevo_666

johnfinch wrote:

Agreed, but businessmen and women still have their own prejudices, blind spots and weaknesses, just like you and me.

We're all human. But when you have a considerable number giving public support to one party (which has not happened before that I recall), combined with the fact that no business leaders have come out in support of labour, that is pretty telling.

And to label them all as just speaking up in their own personal interests is a massive assumption, no better than saying anyone who speaks up for Labour is doing so because they think they will get more benefits. I'm sure that many of those that have signed the statement will be sufficiently well off that money for them personally is not really an issue.

MisterMuncher

bompington wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

If Cameron wins then its down to Milliband & Balls being so damn inept, disjointed and disconnected from the real world.

There is hope then.

Of course, the letter from the 100 business leaders who think that Labour is good for business and investment in the UK will be out any minute now

Because so few businesses made money during their last tenure...

I think we all know that the credit-fuelled boom was hardly a plus point on Labour's record. And, to be fair, they can't escape the blame for the bust (especially as they claimed to have abolished busts!) but it's not clear the Tories would have done any better .
But that was the last Labour government, who were immensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich. I'm not sure that's true about the current mob, even if most of them are filthy rich (by any reasonable standards) themselves - Martin Freeman for instance: and as for Mr Muncher's rather pathetic ad hom attack on the journalist (scurrilous journalist is shown to be scurrilous! who'd have thought it) who dared to expose the hypocrisy, I'm not sure the time lapse makes a lot of difference - she was still his de facto wife, although perhaps he was only worth a couple of million back then, a state of poverty and oppression that would clearly explain why he was so keen on Arthur Scargill's party at the time.

De facto wife? No such thing.

And forgive me, but how is it an ad hominem to point out that Staines bemoaning a lack of civic responsibility is grotesque hypocrisy coming from a twice convicted drink driver? I can think of few things that mark someone out as less responsible or more selfish.

bompington

MisterMuncher wrote:

De facto wife? No such thing.

And forgive me, but how is it an ad hominem to point out that Staines bemoaning a lack of civic responsibility is grotesque hypocrisy coming from a twice convicted drink driver? I can think of few things that mark someone out as less responsible or more selfish.

You need to brush up on your Latin. "De facto" means that, although something might not have formal, legal status, it effectively amounts to the same thing in practice: and I think we might be able to agree that, if you have lived with someone over a period of several years and have children with them, that amounts to approximately the same thing as being married to them. Enough that, if they were short of a hundred grand or so, you might reasonably consider subbing them a few quid out of your millions.
"Ad hominem" means attacking the man, not the argument ("tu quoque" - "you too" is similar). If Staines raises an issue about Freeman, that means you need to explain why he is wrong about Freeman, not what his own personal shortcomings are. Please feel free to do that.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Out of interest, how many are publically endorsing the Lib-Dems?

Seeing as the Lib Dems were the only major party to propose taking measures to prevent massive private debt building up during the early part of the last decades, you'd think that more businesses would be supportive of them than the wise-after-the-event Tories with George "Let's copy the Irish" Osborne as Chancellor.

Presumably there is a good reason why businesses are not prepared to support Labour or the Lib Dems despite both parties pro-Euro stance. There are a few possibilities:
1. They don't think the Tories will take us out of the EU, or
2. EU exit is less important to them than Rick says, or
3. Labour and Lib Dem policy is in their view likely to harm UK business and the economy, which after all is the cornerstone of our economic prosperity.
Or a mixture of the above.

Anyway, good to see that we are the fastest growing country in the G7 - 2.8% year on year growth. Seems like the medicine is finally working.

Is certainly good growth. Good old Lib Dem's - forcing Tories to increase the minimum tax free allowance (where you get the best spending return for your cut - rather than the top earner tax cuts which don't have the same multiplier effect). What would be good is an increase in productivity; France could take Fridays off too and still earn more per week....

That's why people aren't really feeling like it's growing as fast as it is.

Also for all debt scare mongerers, how come you're all OK with the level of overall indebtedness in the economy?

Is much higher than '07.

I think the economist consensus was that UK recovery was 18 months delayed as a result of austerity, which makes sense if you think about it.

Not quite sure how you can call cutting spending good 'medicine' for an economy.

I'm also a bit disturbed about Tory housing policy - seems every scheme they have in place is there to push the price even higher. I have taken a view that property prices are unsustainabley high and continue to grow at rapid pace (house prices London went up something like 8-10%, so a lot lot faster than people's earnings went up) and that will be the next shock to the economy. Annecdotally my mate just bought his first property - 1 bed flat 50 minutes outside of the centre in East London. £395,000. And that was the best he could find. Bonkers.

alihisgreat

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Out of interest, how many are publically endorsing the Lib-Dems?

Seeing as the Lib Dems were the only major party to propose taking measures to prevent massive private debt building up during the early part of the last decades, you'd think that more businesses would be supportive of them than the wise-after-the-event Tories with George "Let's copy the Irish" Osborne as Chancellor.

Presumably there is a good reason why businesses are not prepared to support Labour or the Lib Dems despite both parties pro-Euro stance. There are a few possibilities:
1. They don't think the Tories will take us out of the EU, or
2. EU exit is less important to them than Rick says, or
3. Labour and Lib Dem policy is in their view likely to harm UK business and the economy, which after all is the cornerstone of our economic prosperity.
Or a mixture of the above.

Anyway, good to see that we are the fastest growing country in the G7 - 2.8% year on year growth. Seems like the medicine is finally working.

Is certainly good growth. Good old Lib Dem's - forcing Tories to increase the minimum tax free allowance (where you get the best spending return for your cut - rather than the top earner tax cuts which don't have the same multiplier effect). What would be good is an increase in productivity; France could take Fridays off too and still earn more per week....

That's why people aren't really feeling like it's growing as fast as it is.

Also for all debt scare mongerers, how come you're all OK with the level of overall indebtedness in the economy?

Is much higher than '07.

I think the economist consensus was that UK recovery was 18 months delayed as a result of austerity, which makes sense if you think about it.

Not quite sure how you can call cutting spending good 'medicine' for an economy.

I'm also a bit disturbed about Tory housing policy - seems every scheme they have in place is there to push the price even higher. I have taken a view that property prices are unsustainabley high and continue to grow at rapid pace (house prices London went up something like 8-10%, so a lot lot faster than people's earnings went up) and that will be the next shock to the economy. Annecdotally my mate just bought his first property - 1 bed flat 50 minutes outside of the centre in East London. £395,000. And that was the best he could find. Bonkers.

The overall level of debt is almost irrelevant, since government debt is different in nature to personal debt.. and lets not forget it was also increasing every year between 2001 and 2007. Interest payments are the only concern with the overall level of debt, the actual amount of debt isn't significant provided it is within reason.

Regardless of this its completely natural for a government to run a budget deficit during a recession and therefore for the overall level of debt to increase.

Let say you have balanced books before a recession, your budget will then passively turn into a deficit because tax receipts will fall and the welfare spend will increase (these are 'automatic stabilizers') .. Then add to that any active policies like a fiscal stimulus, which many would argue is the correct way to tackle a recession (at least once the interest rate hits the zero lower bound), and your overall debt level is rising because you're running a budget deficit for a few years.

rick_chasey

:roll: not sure you understood what I saying there.

(The clue was in calling them debt scare mongerers)

iron-clover

At the end of the day all of them are liars and cheats in one way or another. I don't like the conservatives as they seem to love those who are already well off and don't really seem to care about those near the bottom of the pile, but then I don't like Labour all that much because they go the other way.
The LibDems seem fairly sensible, but after the Tuition fees debarkle (I'd just got a place at uni when they announced that and saw its impact about half way through) I'll never believe anything they promise ever again- as far as I'm concerned they should just pack up right now.

Then there are all the other flavours of awful from the smaller parties.

Until there is some mechanism of making the parties actually stick to their manifestos I can't say I'd trust any of them- but as the lawmakers they'd just change it anyway.

thegreatdivide

iron-clover wrote:

The LibDems seem fairly sensible, but after the Tuition fees debarkle (I'd just got a place at uni when they announced that and saw its impact about half way through)

I can see the impact on your education too. It's spelt 'debacle'.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Is certainly good growth. Good old Lib Dem's - forcing Tories to increase the minimum tax free allowance (where you get the best spending return for your cut - rather than the top earner tax cuts which don't have the same multiplier effect). What would be good is an increase in productivity; France could take Fridays off too and still earn more per week....

That's why people aren't really feeling like it's growing as fast as it is.

Good you agree about the growth aspect. And it's clear that business is very strongly in favour of the Conservatives. Given that pretty much all tax revenue stems from businesses - either paid directly by businesses/their owners or by the people employed by them, this is a critical point. I think the phrase here is 'The goose that lays the golden egg'.

As for productivity, you can prove lots with stats - see here for why France's productivity is measured as being higher than the UK:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/02/17/chuka-umunna-is-right-france-is-more-productive-than-the-uk-but-why/
And let's not forget France's high levels of unemployment, low growth, stiflingly high taxes, declining GDP per capita etc. Possibly worst of all for France, inward investment has suffered a catastrophic decline - 77pc according this article - most likely due to their overtly business unfriendly, hard left policies:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/10609141/Foreign-investment-in-France-slips-to-27-year-low.html
Are you seriously holding up France as economic model to which the UK should aspire? :roll:

finchy

Stevo - if you'd ever spent any time in France, you'd know that it is the bureaucracy over there that strangles things. I needed six different stamped forms (from different local government offices) just to get a room in a student hall! It's absolutely f^^king ridiculous and according to all of my French friends, it's even worse when doing anything in business.

But is our economy really any better? Sure, we have lower (official) unemployment, but we also have crippling private debt problems, people's savings are being wiped out, houses are a distant dream for many young people, we'll need to invest a load of money in infrastructure works in the future, we're going to have to start paying back all that PFI/PPP money, our health system is facing massive financial problems as we waddle our way to an increasingly obese future...

Basically we've just kicked the can down the road time and time again, under governments of all political colours. I don't think that I (or anyone else - businessmen, unionists, you, Rick, economists, government ministers) have all the solutions, but I don't for one second believe that this country has a secure future.

rick_chasey

Was more making the point a French worker produces 20% more per hour than a UK worker.

I.e. UK productivity is very low.

As for business leaders - fairly sure they were all unanimously against abolishing child labour at the time since it was bloody expensive to replace them all with adults. Doesn't mean it's correct or good does it? They're fairly self interested. Would imagine the business leader of the structured credit business at HSBC would be quite keen for the regulation to be slackened. Not sure that'd be a good thing generally.

finchy

^^ I also seem to remember them whingeing and whining about having to pay minimum wage and what a disaster that would be.

rick_chasey

iron-clover wrote:

Until there is some mechanism of making the parties actually stick to their manifestos I can't say I'd trust any of them- but as the lawmakers they'd just change it anyway.

Well that's utterly bonkers isn't it.

Think about how that would play out for a minute.

Stevo_666

johnfinch wrote:

Stevo - if you'd ever spent any time in France, you'd know that it is the bureaucracy over there that strangles things. I needed six different stamped forms (from different local government offices) just to get a room in a student hall! It's absolutely f^^king ridiculous and according to all of my French friends, it's even worse when doing anything in business.

Personally - my other half lived/worked out there for a couple of years before we were married so we have some experience of the beaurocracy. That's part of it for sure but seems to be no worse than other beaurocracy loving Euro nations such as Italy or Spain.

The other things that hobble France that I have seen professionally over quite a period include the following - which appear to be getting worse:
- Stupidly restrictive labour laws and overbearing workers/unions rights which make it extremely difficult to get rid of an employee, restructure a business in any way without major time effort and cost.
- Workers/unions attitudes, which combined with the above make it a constant battle to manage a business in a sensible, cost effective fashion.
- Crippling tax burden on large and small businesses - not just corporate tax - combined with a very aggressive approach by the tax authorities, even towards businesses who are not engaging in anything remotely resembling aggressive tax avoidance. My groups French operation has a tax bill so high it is almost at the point where we would be better off shutting the operation. They are pretty much under siege from the tax authorities who have deliberately launched simultaneous multiple tax audits. These companies employs nearly 3,000 people in France.
- The feedback from smaller businesses is that it is extremely difficult to turn a profit if you play by the rules and just doing business is a struggle. The authorities seem to treat French businesses as at best a cash cow and at worst the enemy.
- Exit taxes that make it difficult to leave France or to repatriate capital without major cost - the EU is currently challenging France on at least one of these rules.

It is no coincidence that London has several hundred thousand French expats - many of whom are trying to escape the above.

And why any business would want to invest in France at present unless they really have to be there, I cannot imagine. Explains the massive decline in investment in France I referred to above.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Was more making the point a French worker produces 20% more per hour than a UK worker.

I.e. UK productivity is very low.

As for business leaders - fairly sure they were all unanimously against abolishing child labour at the time since it was bloody expensive to replace them all with adults. Doesn't mean it's correct or good does it? They're fairly self interested. Would imagine the business leader of the structured credit business at HSBC would be quite keen for the regulation to be slackened. Not sure that'd be a good thing generally.

Did you read the link explaining why the French productivity stat was higher than the UK? Doesn't sound like it from your post above. Still if that's the main claim to France being more successful than the UK then it's a very weak claim given all the other points I made above.

And just for info, child labour was abolished in the mid 1800's - how is that relevant to business leaders in 2015 pointing out that in their judgement Labour is likely to damage the UK economy? Making out that all business leaders are self interested bastards is a huge generalisation that you cannot substantiate, much as you'd like to believe it.

slowmart

Stevo 666 wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Stevo - if you'd ever spent any time in France, you'd know that it is the bureaucracy over there that strangles things. I needed six different stamped forms (from different local government offices) just to get a room in a student hall! It's absolutely f^^king ridiculous and according to all of my French friends, it's even worse when doing anything in business.

Personally - my other half lived/worked out there for a couple of years before we were married so we have some experience of the beaurocracy. That's part of it for sure but seems to be no worse than other beaurocracy loving Euro nations such as Italy or Spain.

The other things that hobble France that I have seen professionally over quite a period include the following - which appear to be getting worse:
- Stupidly restrictive labour laws and overbearing workers/unions rights which make it extremely difficult to get rid of an employee, restructure a business in any way without major time effort and cost.
- Workers/unions attitudes, which combined with the above make it a constant battle to manage a business in a sensible, cost effective fashion.
- Crippling tax burden on large and small businesses - not just corporate tax - combined with a very aggressive approach by the tax authorities, even towards businesses who are not engaging in anything remotely resembling aggressive tax avoidance. My groups French operation has a tax bill so high it is almost at the point where we would be better off shutting the operation. They are pretty much under siege from the tax authorities who have deliberately launched simultaneous multiple tax audits. These companies employs nearly 3,000 people in France.
- The feedback from smaller businesses is that it is extremely difficult to turn a profit if you play by the rules and just doing business is a struggle. The authorities seem to treat French businesses as at best a cash cow and at worst the enemy.
- Exit taxes that make it difficult to leave France or to repatriate capital without major cost - the EU is currently challenging France on at least one of these rules.

It is no coincidence that London has several hundred thousand French expats - many of whom are trying to escape the above.

And why any business would want to invest in France at present unless they really have to be there, I cannot imagine. Explains the massive decline in investment in France I referred to above.

Further French engineering and technology companies have huge work forces--in Germany, America, Britain, Asia, wherever. One astonishing statistic is that the constituent companies of the CAC-40, France's equivalent of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, house nearly 70% of their workforce outside their home nation! This is a higher proportion than pretty much any other rich country on the planet..........

Stevo_666

Slowmart wrote:

Further French engineering and technology companies have huge work forces--in Germany, America, Britain, Asia, wherever. One astonishing statistic is that the constituent companies of the CAC-40, France's equivalent of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, house nearly 70% of their workforce outside their home nation! This is a higher proportion than pretty much any other rich country on the planet..........

Interesting, though not surprising! Here are some numbers (from a couple of years ago) which help explain why France is shooting itself in the foot with its tax policies. As I've said before, it is often better to take a lower percentage of something than a higher percentage of nothing. France is yet to figure this one out it would appear - some political persuasions never seem to learn.

"Employers in the UK have the lowest cost per employee per annum anywhere in Western Europe, according to Towers Watson’s annual Global 50 Remuneration Planning Report.

The research, published this morning, found the mandatory costs and taxes associated with employing people in each country shows the UK to be particularly favourable to business while France was found to have the highest costs for employers operating in Western Europe.

The amount employers are required to contribute in taxes and mandatory pension contributions for employees, varies significantly across the economies of Western Europe.

For a middle-ranking professional or junior manager earning £33,000 or approx. €40,000 pa, the UK offers the lowest costs in the region at £3,940. The Netherlands and Germany are second and third with costs of £5,250 and £6,200 respectively while France levies the highest costs on employers at £14,200 per employee.

Darryl Davis, senior consultant in Towers Watson's Data Service division, said: "The Global 50 report shows that there is a big difference in costs for employers across Western Europe. It appears that the UK is amongst the most business-friendly countries in the region on the basis that the tax burden on companies is the most favourable."

The same trend is seen for lower earning employees in Western Europe, such as entry-level professionals earning £23,000 (approx. €28,000). The UK maintains the lowest financial costs for employers (£2,570) followed by the Netherlands, Germany and France respectively, with the latter levying the equivalent of £9,995 per employee at this level.

A different story emerges as employees rise up the salary scale according to the Global 50 report. For higher salaried employees, such as middle managers earning £65,000 (€80,000) the Netherlands and Spain offer the lowest costs in Western Europe - £6,180 and £7,830 respectively. The UK and Germany are close together with £8,500 and £8,670 respectively while France (£27,930) and Italy (£31,720) were the most costly."

MisterMuncher

bompington wrote:

MisterMuncher wrote:

De facto wife? No such thing.

And forgive me, but how is it an ad hominem to point out that Staines bemoaning a lack of civic responsibility is grotesque hypocrisy coming from a twice convicted drink driver? I can think of few things that mark someone out as less responsible or more selfish.

You need to brush up on your Latin. "De facto" means that, although something might not have formal, legal status, it effectively amounts to the same thing in practice: and I think we might be able to agree that, if you have lived with someone over a period of several years and have children with them, that amounts to approximately the same thing as being married to them. Enough that, if they were short of a hundred grand or so, you might reasonably consider subbing them a few quid out of your millions.
"Ad hominem" means attacking the man, not the argument ("tu quoque" - "you too" is similar). If Staines raises an issue about Freeman, that means you need to explain why he is wrong about Freeman, not what his own personal shortcomings are. Please feel free to do that.

I did explain why he was wrong: His timeframe was wrong, the debt has been paid, it wasn't Freeman's debt to settle, and as we're not part of the relationship we can't make assumptions about their finances. But that was brushed over as irrelevant, because I'd also pointed out that he was, and remains, an odious sack of vomit. I'm afraid the Latin term for "Cherry Picking" escapes me at the moment.

Perhaps your reading comprehension and memory could use a little polishing.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Was more making the point a French worker produces 20% more per hour than a UK worker.

I.e. UK productivity is very low.

As for business leaders - fairly sure they were all unanimously against abolishing child labour at the time since it was bloody expensive to replace them all with adults. Doesn't mean it's correct or good does it? They're fairly self interested. Would imagine the business leader of the structured credit business at HSBC would be quite keen for the regulation to be slackened. Not sure that'd be a good thing generally.

Did you read the link explaining why the French productivity stat was higher than the UK? Doesn't sound like it from your post above. Still if that's the main claim to France being more successful than the UK then it's a very weak claim given all the other points I made above.

And just for info, child labour was abolished in the mid 1800's - how is that relevant to business leaders in 2015 pointing out that in their judgement Labour is likely to damage the UK economy? Making out that all business leaders are self interested bastards is a huge generalisation that you cannot substantiate, much as you'd like to believe it.

The French stuff was just an illustration - I could have named any number of economies. Point is, UK productivity is very low - economy is basically doing better because we're collectively working longer hours and ultimately there are only so many hours in the day.

As for business leaders - I can't substantite any generalisation about them, but point is, neither can you about their ability to identify what's good for an economy. Let me put it another way. If I was a shareholder of a bank in 2006 and the CEO came out and said " I support the lib Dems who want to see more regulation over structured credit deals where we make 40% of our profits" I'd have demanded his head on a plate because he's not looking after my stakeholding. He's got his eyes focussed on the wider economy which isn't his job nor what he's paid to do.

I encounter quite a few leaders of multi-billion companies through my work and they're very open about how they lobby parties and give huge donations to parties who suit their business interests. These are usually guys who are single mindedly focussed on making more money. Fine. But not an arbiter for what's good on a macro level.

slowmart

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Was more making the point a French worker produces 20% more per hour than a UK worker.

I.e. UK productivity is very low.

As for business leaders - fairly sure they were all unanimously against abolishing child labour at the time since it was bloody expensive to replace them all with adults. Doesn't mean it's correct or good does it? They're fairly self interested. Would imagine the business leader of the structured credit business at HSBC would be quite keen for the regulation to be slackened. Not sure that'd be a good thing generally.

Did you read the link explaining why the French productivity stat was higher than the UK? Doesn't sound like it from your post above. Still if that's the main claim to France being more successful than the UK then it's a very weak claim given all the other points I made above.

And just for info, child labour was abolished in the mid 1800's - how is that relevant to business leaders in 2015 pointing out that in their judgement Labour is likely to damage the UK economy? Making out that all business leaders are self interested bastards is a huge generalisation that you cannot substantiate, much as you'd like to believe it.

The French stuff was just an illustration - I could have named any number of economies. Point is, UK productivity is very low - economy is basically doing better because we're collectively working longer hours and ultimately there are only so many hours in the day.

As for business leaders - I can't substantite any generalisation about them, but point is, neither can you about their ability to identify what's good for an economy. Let me put it another way. If I was a shareholder of a bank in 2006 and the CEO came out and said " I support the lib Dems who want to see more regulation over structured credit deals where we make 40% of our profits" I'd have demanded his head on a plate because he's not looking after my stakeholding. He's got his eyes focussed on the wider economy which isn't his job nor what he's paid to do.

I encounter quite a few leaders of multi-billion companies through my work and they're very open about how they lobby parties and give huge donations to parties who suit their business interests. These are usually guys who are single mindedly focussed on making more money. Fine. But not an arbiter for what's good on a macro level.

Which really pinpoints what is wrong with larger businesses today and their target set and how they measure performance.

florerider

Surely the point about France is that it us highly productive, but they take high productivity as a mechanism for a short working week, early aged retirement and other lifestyle benefits, and the nett effect lies the wrong side of the line, just as the UK lies on the wrong side of the low productivity, long hours culture.

If I look at the size of accounting, audit, compliance etc in the UK, I wouldn't come to the conclusion it is a low beaurocracy country, and that observation is from someone outside of financial services not commenting about financial services.

pblakeney

Slowmart wrote:

Which really pinpoints what is wrong with larger businesses today and their target set and how they measure performance.

No.
Businesses are out to make profit. Full stop. They are not there for public good, unless that will increase profit.

Government is there to say no to their lobbying for the public good.

Government and business should always be separate, although I know that is idealist claptrap which will never happen.

Stevo_666

Anyway, going back to point of this thread, we're still looking for a few business leaders who are prepared to publically back Labour or the Lib Dems - you'd think of all the senior business figures out there, at least a few would brave the risk of ridicule to stand up for what they believe is right? Maybe not...

slowmart

PBlakeney wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Which really pinpoints what is wrong with larger businesses today and their target set and how they measure performance.

No.
Businesses are out to make profit. Full stop. They are not there for public good, unless that will increase profit.

Government is there to say no to their lobbying for the public good.

Government and business should always be separate, although I know that is idealist claptrap which will never happen.

Sustainable profit from activities supported by good governance and strong compliance. Profits are necessary but so are the right behaviours in and out of the business and how businesses impact on their community.

How about metrics for measuring a companies well being past the usual financial metrics?

florerider

CSR, Corporate Social Responsibility, is one such measure. However it could be equally argued it is yet another piece of work thatcompanies now have todo that adds nothing to output, ie it reduces productivity.

pblakeney

Slowmart wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Which really pinpoints what is wrong with larger businesses today and their target set and how they measure performance.

No.
Businesses are out to make profit. Full stop. They are not there for public good, unless that will increase profit.

Government is there to say no to their lobbying for the public good.

Government and business should always be separate, although I know that is idealist claptrap which will never happen.

Sustainable profit from activities supported by good governance and strong compliance. Profits are necessary but so are the right behaviours in and out of the business and how businesses impact on their community.

How about metrics for measuring a companies well being past the usual financial metrics?

A company director would ask, why? What is in it for the share holders?

"1. Directors' responsibilities
As a director of a limited company, the law says you must:

try to make the company a success, using your skills, experience and judgment
follow the company’s rules, shown in its articles of association
make decisions for the benefit of the company, not yourself
tell other shareholders if you might personally benefit from a transaction the company makes
keep company records and report changes to Companies House and HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC)
make sure the company’s accounts are a ‘true and fair view’ of the business’ finances
register for Self Assessment and send a personal Self Assessment tax return every year"

From here - https://www.gov.uk/running-a-limited-company

Anything else is a social wish list, including CSR which is only advisory.