Own Goal for the Tories

slowmart

So how do you define success?

You need financial success but would you implement any other metrics?

Employee engagement? Engaged and empowered employees are more effective and productive?

Ever heard of discretionary energy?

Of course shareholders want a return but thats a narrow view and links to the local community where the majority of employees live can only add value. Not every useful metric is of included on the balance sheet....

pblakeney

Slowmart wrote:

So how do you define success?

You need financial success but would you implement any other metrics?

Employee engagement? Engaged and empowered employees are more effective and productive?

Ever heard of discretionary energy?

Of course shareholders want a return but thats a narrow view and links to the local community where the majority of employees live can only add value. Not every useful metric is of included on the balance sheet....

Return on investment.
Start. Middle. End.
That is how it works.
I am not saying that it is right, but I have other dreams that are much more achievable than trying to exert a social conscience onto a for-profit company.

finchy

Stevo 666 wrote:

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.

Yeah, and they're f^^ked as well. Seriously, try setting up business in some bureaucracy-loving country. It's a nightmare and just takes your attention away from what you should be doing. That's why I got out of Hungary, despite the fact that I had people queuing up for English lessons with me and could have had a very successful business there.

Stevo 666 wrote:

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.

The problem is that you could make some of those claims for many other countries. Sorry for the Wikipedia source, but this is a list of countries by tax revenue as a % of GDP. If you order it by % and look down the list, you'll see very wealthy countries with high tax rates (Scandinavian countries, Austria, etc.) and very countries with medium tax rates (Canada, Japan, USA, South Korea...). You'll also see struggling countries with high, medium and low tax rates. So basically I don't think that lowering taxes will necessarily bring about some sort of improvement.

I agree about labour relations in France, but then my argument before has been that cooperative labour relations between management and workers are far better than confrontational relations, and from what I've seen in France, management can be very unpleasant too. Lots of little Hitlers running about in that country.

Stevo 666 wrote:

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.

France actually has a lower % of its citizens living abroad than the UK according to this article. Sorry, can't look for the original study, so can't check to see profile of emigrants (age, employment status etc.), I'm too busy studying Milankovich cycles and glaciation tonight.

I'm not saying that France doesn't need change. It does. I just don't think that they have that much to learn from us.

Also, that Forbes article you linked to is massively flawed. Take the 2 main claims, that a French worker can do in 4 days what takes a British worker 5. The Forbes article seems to put that down to 2 primary factors - higher public sector employment and wages and a higher unemployment rate taking less productive people out of the workforce (a massive assumption in itself - some industries can be vulnerable to foreign competition than others, it doesn't necessarily mean that the workers are less productive).

Claim 1 doesn't stand up to any scrutiny because there are jobs in France which are carried out in the public sector which are privatised in Britain. The journalist also uses a blog post from 2005 as evidence about the situation in 2015.

Claim 2 is undone by very simple mathematics. If you reduced the unemployment rate in France (about 10%) to that in Britain (about 5%), then even if those workers did no productive work at all (which is a completely unrealistic scenario), that would still leave French workers far more productive than British workers.

Stevo_666

Finchy, see my comments above in response to Rick regarding the issues that France has. Although at least you concede that France is not an economic model to which the UK should aspire. Quite rightly as well. I predict big financial and economic problems for that country in the future.

In the meantime, the search continues for a few plausible business leaders who happen to be dumb enough to support Labour or Lib-Dem economic policies....any news?

Stevo_666

johnfinch wrote:

France actually has a lower % of its citizens living abroad than the UK according to this article. Sorry, can't look for the original study, so can't check to see profile of emigrants (age, employment status etc.), I'm too busy studying Milankovich cycles and glaciation tonight.

I'm not saying that France doesn't need change. It does. I just don't think that they have that much to learn from us.

Slowmart's point is that the French equivalent of the FTSE 100 have a large majority of their employees outside of France - most of these people will be foreign (non-French) employees. You state that France does not have a large % of French citizens living outside of France. Two different things. The former is likely driven by the high cost and red tape associated with employing people in France.

johnfinch wrote:

Also, that Forbes article you linked to is massively flawed. Take the 2 main claims, that a French worker can do in 4 days what takes a British worker 5. The Forbes article seems to put that down to 2 primary factors - higher public sector employment and wages and a higher unemployment rate taking less productive people out of the workforce (a massive assumption in itself - some industries can be vulnerable to foreign competition than others, it doesn't necessarily mean that the workers are less productive).

Claim 1 doesn't stand up to any scrutiny because there are jobs in France which are carried out in the public sector which are privatised in Britain. The journalist also uses a blog post from 2005 as evidence about the situation in 2015.

Claim 2 is undone by very simple mathematics. If you reduced the unemployment rate in France (about 10%) to that in Britain (about 5%), then even if those workers did no productive work at all (which is a completely unrealistic scenario), that would still leave French workers far more productive than British workers.

If you look at the source from the ONS, the main reason for the gap is due to longer hours worked - which kind of fits in with with personal experience as I am most productive in the morning when I am 'fresh' and my productivity goes down later in the day.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/icp/international-comparisons-of-productivity/2012---final-estimates/stb-icp0214.html#tab-Current-price-productivity
Productivity is measure per hour. That said, overall productivity is different given the longer hours worked. The source also seems to say that UK productivity was hit harder than many by the GFC which again makes some sense but the gap will be closing on that given the recent strong growth in the UK compared to (say) France.

However if you look at other measures, Ireland and the US appear to be some of the most productive countries. So the implication that France's productivity is somehow down to socialist policies being more efficient than the 'Anglo saxon' approach doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. See link below from the same source.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/icp/international-comparisons-of-productivity/2012---final-estimates/stb-icp0214.html#tab-Constant-price-productivity

It's amazing what you can do by selectively quoting comparisons isn't it

rick_chasey

Who wants to work longer hours for the same pay Steve?

As I always get told, work smarter, not harder :P.

Anyway, rumour is Tories are planning a top rate cut back down to 40% if they get in power.

Better off doing what the Lib Dems persuaded them to do this time around, which is to give a smaller tax break to the bottom end of earners - get more multiplier effect for your cut.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Who wants to work longer hours for the same pay Steve?

As I always get told, work smarter, not harder :P.

Anyway, rumour is Tories are planning a top rate cut back down to 40% if they get in power.

Better off doing what the Lib Dems persuaded them to do this time around, which is to give a smaller tax break to the bottom end of earners - get more multiplier effect for your cut.

Some people are suitably rewarded for working hard Rick

I thought that the Conservatives had said in the last day or so that they had no plans to cut the top rate?

Any sign of those business leaders coming out in support yet?

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Who wants to work longer hours for the same pay Steve?

As I always get told, work smarter, not harder :P.

Anyway, rumour is Tories are planning a top rate cut back down to 40% if they get in power.

Better off doing what the Lib Dems persuaded them to do this time around, which is to give a smaller tax break to the bottom end of earners - get more multiplier effect for your cut.

Some people are suitably rewarded for working hard Rick

I thought that the Conservatives had said in the last day or so that they had no plans to cut the top rate?

Any sign of those business leaders coming out in support yet?

I'll save you the bother for asking again and again.

I'm not planning to spend any energy looking, and I know why you're asking - because broadly speaking business leaders prefer Tory governments.

In other news, bears sh!t in the woods and the pope has declared he's catholic.

I'm not sure why you put so much weight on business leaders' opinion over, say, economists, or sociologists or indeed academics in general, or anyone of any other professions.

Everyone's got their view, their interest and their axe to grind.

Stevo_666

I've already answered that:

Stevo 666 wrote:

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'.

So if you want more taxes, vote for the party that will help business succeed. You know it makes sense

Other than that, it is the subject matter of this thread...

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'm not sure why you put so much weight on business leaders' opinion over, say, economists, or sociologists or indeed academics in general, or anyone of any other professions.

Everyone's got their view, their interest and their axe to grind.

Which leads to the question; which economists, sociologists or academics are openly supporting Labour?

Other professions could include footbalists. :?

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

I've already answered that:

Stevo 666 wrote:

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'.

So if you want more taxes, vote for the party that will help business succeed. You know it makes sense

Other than that, it is the subject matter of this thread...

So do business leaders want to pay more or less tax?

http://www.factandmyth.com/taxes/tax-de ... se-revenue

morstar

Forget which side of the fence you're on. It would be tactically stupid for either side to just try to play top trumps with statistics / supporters.
You play to your own strengths and respond as best you can to the body blows that do hit home. You don't let your opponent keep identifying an area they perceive as a weakness of yours and try to match them. That would be tactically insane.
Even if Labour had 1,000 business leaders lined up, it would be foolish to allow the agenda to be dictated in such a way. Tories would simply keep identifying areas of perceived weakness until Labour couldn't match the required number. That would then be more damaging than the current 'no sh!t Sherlock' list of Conservative supporters liking the Conservatives.
Would be very naive to get drawn into that and I suspect you know that Stevo.
This is what puts people off politics. It's all games with little integrity.

pblakeney

morstar wrote:

This is what puts people off politics. It's all games with little integrity.

No sh!t Sherlock.

morstar

PBlakeney wrote:

morstar wrote:

This is what puts people off politics. It's all games with little integrity.

No sh!t Sherlock.

I see what you did there.

finchy

Stevo 666 wrote:

Finchy, see my comments above in response to Rick regarding the issues that France has. Although at least you concede that France is not an economic model to which the UK should aspire. Quite rightly as well. I predict big financial and economic problems for that country in the future.

Well I have never said that we should try and copy the French. I think that we should look around our own country and around other countries and see what works here and abroad. I agree with some of your points about France, such as the stupidity of high taxes on employing somebody

Stevo 666 wrote:

In the meantime, the search continues for a few plausible business leaders who happen to be dumb enough to support Labour or Lib-Dem economic policies....any news?

Dunno, I haven't been searching. The fact that wealthy people support the Conservatives though is not exactly a massive shock. It still doesn't make me think that the Conservatives are any better than Labour or the Lib Dems when it comes to economics. As I have already said, when the economy came crashing down in 2008, they were suddenly wise after the event. I'd have given them more credit if they'd warned about the dangers before the crash.

Stevo 666 wrote:

If you look at the source from the ONS, the main reason for the gap is due to longer hours worked - which kind of fits in with with personal experience as I am most productive in the morning when I am 'fresh' and my productivity goes down later in the day.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/icp/inter ... oductivity
Productivity is measure per hour. That said, overall productivity is different given the longer hours worked. The source also seems to say that UK productivity was hit harder than many by the GFC which again makes some sense but the gap will be closing on that given the recent strong growth in the UK compared to (say) France.

Yes, I put down the increased productivity to shorter working hours too, but I think there might be other factors at play as well, such as higher investment in training and R&D in France.

Sort of fits in with my past whinges about short-termist thinking in the UK.

Stevo 666 wrote:

However if you look at other measures, Ireland and the US appear to be some of the most productive countries. So the implication that France's productivity is somehow down to socialist policies being more efficient than the 'Anglo saxon' approach doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. See link below from the same source.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/icp/inter ... oductivity

Ireland? Are you sure you don't mean Canada? They're at no.2 in the chart you linked. To be honest, I prefer comparing European countries to each other, rather than comparing them with countries like the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, because those countries have completely different geographies and demographics to western Europe, which has scarce natural resources, an ageing population, high population density and less stringent immigration controls. Both the USA and Canada have been experiencing a boom in oil and gas drilling these past few years, which has led to far lower energy prices and investment in engineering, something which hasn't happened in Europe.

I didn't really suggest that France's productivity is down to socialist policies (anyway, we're just comparing different forms of capitalism here). For me it's more about attitudes and culture, once again I come back to the point of long-term vision, which I find lacking in many aspects of British life. I don't see any real reason for it to be like this. Seeing as we're on a sports website, let's look at the difference between our national football team and cycling team. British Cycling had a clear long-term set of goals, the finance and the strategy. Football... well, they have the FA. And look at the difference in success. I know that as a nation we can succeed. We have an invaluable asset in our higher education system and very high tech sector, but it just feels like we don't extend those practices elsewhere and whichever party we have in charge won't make much of a difference. Anyway, I'm rambling aimlessly now. New baby. I'm tired.

milton50

I genuinely think that many decades from now economic historians will look upon this period as one of the greatest errors in economic management of the last 100 years. I still cannot fathom how, at a time of historically low long-term interest rates, global recession, rising unemployment and excess supply that the government was able to convince people that the priority was to reduce the deficit as fast as possible.

ballysmate

Yeah Milt, lets let our debt continue rising exponentially so that we can live high on the hog. I'm sure our grand kids won't mind paying it back when interest rates have risen.

Stevo_666

Milton50 wrote:

I genuinely think that many decades from now economic historians will look upon this period as one of the greatest errors in economic management of the last 100 years. I still cannot fathom how, at a time of historically low long-term interest rates, global recession, rising unemployment and excess supply that the government was able to convince people that the priority was to reduce the deficit as fast as possible.

It's called mending the roof while the sun is shining. Something that Gordon Brown conspicuously failed to do when he was Chancellor/PM, which is how we got into this mess in the first place. And which even Cameron has not properly addressed yet.

tangled_metal

johnfinch wrote:

As I have already said, when the economy came crashing down in 2008, they were suddenly wise after the event. I'd have given them more credit if they'd warned about the dangers before the crash.

Forgive me about this but isn't the bigger issue with Labour about not "putting money away for a rainy day" when the times were good? The way they went ahead with the short termist approach of spending the money to perhaps buy voters' support. Would have been good to have them spot it and take steps but that would have been swimming against the tide with some impact to London as a major financial market.

Some people spotted the 2008 crash but most of them were not listened to until afterwards when they had made shed loads and were proven right (assuming they could invest in their beliefs rather than just spouting it to whoever listens). Those that did that probably became more high profile a bit like Soros did when he spanked Lawson's behind in the ERM debacle (with hindsight that was said), If Labour had gone against the tide of opinion at the time I am sure there would have also been implications. We might have come out better.

My point being you can no slam Tories for not shouting about the situation before the crash when no political party did that. It is like saying that the other major party is more of a grey Westiminster party than you when you are as grey as each other and also in Westminster (bad explanation). What people can legitimately point to New Labour is that they did not heed the German way of putting a safety net away in the good times. It is not hard, every household probably saves money for a rainy day so why not governments? That is rainy day emergency not buying a general election. Of course tories are not better, they have bought votes with sweeteners for the masses. Well the more centre right ones. Go too far right and they will lose the centre ground. IIRC Thatcher was in many ways centre right (well I was very young under her reign and never voted for her party when she was PM or MP so if I am wrong then it is on what I have read since).

slowmart

The legacy of every Labour government since Wilson's first term.




Just as importantly it shines a light on the mentality of Labour


And if anyone thinks labour have evolved here's Mr Balls, great story and a pity the video has been taken down but given the content Its not surprising Labour would want it killed off.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budg ... ck-ad.html

As for business leaders, who happen to run successful businesses everyday why wouldn't you want to hear their views. Self interest? Since their success is tied to the business it doesn't diminish their input and since healthy businesses actually create the jobs....

I'd rather listen to a doctor when I'm ill than go and see an economist.......

milton50

Ballysmate wrote:

Yeah Milt, lets let our debt continue rising exponentially so that we can live high on the hog. I'm sure our grand kids won't mind paying it back when interest rates have risen.

Right, we're doing the next generations a favour by pushing youth unemployment to historic highs and watching the already wealthy get richer and richer.

By the way I was actually very critical of the previous Labour government for slowly building up a structural deficit during one of the longest expansions in history. The Cameron government has done some good things in terms of reducing welfare dependency and trying to increase the productive potential of the economy. The problem is they also embarked on an austerity program at the height of a global recession with the banking system malfunctioning. Completely illiterate. Put out the fire before you start mending the roof.

It's no coincidence that the past few years of reasonable growth occurred at the same time that the government started slowing down the austerity. Now after the election they want to accelerate the austerity measures. Oh dear.

Stevo_666

Slowmart wrote:

The legacy of every Labour government since Wilson's first term.




Just as importantly it shines a light on the mentality of Labour


And if anyone thinks labour have evolved here's Mr Balls, great story and a pity the video has been taken down but given the content Its not surprising Labour would want it killed off.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budg ... ck-ad.html

Yep, the old adage that socialists eventually run out of other people's money - as illustrated by the last two labour administrations ending in 1979 and 2010 - and about to be repeated if people have short enough memories to give them another chance to do it.

mr_goo

I am still of the opinion that the Tories and Lib Dems should have fought NOT to win the last general election. Yes the UK would have gone bankrupt. Yes millions would have been out of work. Yes, the country would have needed to get the begging bowl out to bail itself out. But think of the reward for the Torries and Lib Dems. Another term after 2010 would have totally destroyed the Labour party.

slowmart

Mr Goo wrote:

I am still of the opinion that the Tories and Lib Dems should have fought NOT to win the last general election. Yes the UK would have gone bankrupt. Yes millions would have been out of work. Yes, the country would have needed to get the begging bowl out to bail itself out. But think of the reward for the Torries and Lib Dems. Another term after 2010 would have totally destroyed the Labour party.

With the two Ed's the party is on life support but the brain is dead........

ballysmate

Mr Goo wrote:

I am still of the opinion that the Tories and Lib Dems should have fought NOT to win the last general election. Yes the UK would have gone bankrupt. Yes millions would have been out of work. Yes, the country would have needed to get the begging bowl out to bail itself out. But think of the reward for the Torries and Lib Dems. Another term after 2010 would have totally destroyed the Labour party.

Mervyn King would appear to have agreed.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... ion-victor

Yes Milton unemployment is a problem, including youth unemployment. But with a seemingly non stop stream of migrant workforce, there is inevitably going to be a race to the bottom in the job market. The minimum wage, instead of being the starting point is in most cases the norm.

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

Yeah Milt, lets let our debt continue rising exponentially so that we can live high on the hog. I'm sure our grand kids won't mind paying it back when interest rates have risen.

Not sure you're familiar with 'fixed income' are you?

RideOnTime

And another;

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/uk-election-tories-fire-torpedo-at-backstabber-miliband/story-e6frg6so-1227297620389

And another;

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-2015-george-osborne-pledges-8bn-a-year-for-nhs-from-conservative-party-10169314.html

Frank the tank

As ever, at general election time all politicians are drowning us plebs with all kinds of false promises which we all in our heart of hearts know are a load of bol1ocks.

rick_chasey

So what was Stevo saying about businesses loving the tories?

Not so bowled over having heard the manifesto. 'Lukewarm' is the standard response.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/468eba56-e2b5 ... z3XBKucKZT

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ ... ction.html

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... g-business

RideOnTime

The manifesto has that many holes in it makes swiss cheese look suitable for building.

Why when we still have a huge public defecit (and debt) would we flog off the public housing stock, again, on the cheap.