• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Grays_1890 said:
Then there would be a trend in previous jobs often, if there is a trend that bucks with you then maybe its you and not them? Maybe they might have something going on at home and need empathy and motivation, who know.

I have made one major mistake on employment and thats because I didn't follow a process and went with gut instinct, the point is, there is plenty out there to get it right if you really want to put the effort in and get the best people for the job,
Click to expand...
What sort of people are you employing? What level of pay are they typically getting?
 
scaramanga said:
To be fair to Labour (and there's not much left one can complete that sentence with) the OBR leaked it, nothing to do with them.

But what a fudging shambles of a budget. Watching them promise not to tax us and spend more is like watching a smackhead promise that tif you give him some money, he'll spend it on a cup of tea.
Click to expand...

Would love to engage with you on the spirit of debate around this. Full disclosure I learn centre left but actually take more of a view of ‘what does the country need at the time’ and so can be pragmatic about when it’s time to be more pro business, or tighter on immigration etc.

When I look at this budget (and the government’s first) I think about some starting assumptions. First, public finances are screwed. Secondly, public services are on their knees. The country has been through this he shocks of Brexit which impacted output and Covid were simply put that money has to be paid back. We’ve also been through the Truss budget, and so bond markets are watching us closely for any hint of profligacy. With all of that in mind, what would you do differently? Or asked another way, why is the budget actually so bad?

Take the headroom. I saw Sunak on The Times website talking about how Reeves needed to leave herself at least 20bn of headroom. She exceeded that. This ensures that regardless of the swings in projections over the coming years, she now should actually have the room to manoeuvre. It took two budgets, but I believe they won’t have to do something like this again. Headroom and confidence of the markets leads to lower interest rates, stability for people’s mortgages but also for businesses borrowing to invest. I think this is a foundarional plank of boosting growth later in the parliament. I think they are looking at this as a 10 year project where they had to fix the foundations first. I don’t know if they will get the second term but I see the logic.

Secondly, public services on their knees which ever way you look. NHS waiting lists sky rocketed. Schools were crumbling. Not withstanding Trump’s influence requiring an increase in defence spending. Sure, a government can give themselves this headroom with cuts. But I’m not sure how many more cuts our public services can bear. People who relied on them were struggling. They’ve taken action to get public services on a firmer footing, and I think there’s a fair argument for doing that.

Then, welfare. The two child limit lift will see those arguments play out in the coming weeks and months. But this will be the government to have the biggest impact on child poverty ever. That’s not nothing.

I believe there are things they absolutely need to be done. The welfare debacle was a ridiculous error from them, and that needs reform for sure. They also need more overtly pro growth politicies. My suspicion is that they will come in the next two budgets. But first they needed to fix the foundations, get to an acceptable level of headroom and get public services back into a passable state.

To do that, they chose tax rises rather than cuts. It’s a political choice, but this is where the consideration of what the country needs at the time. I think in the last 15 years the poorest have suffered most from austerity, and from the cost of living. The Tories had nothing meaningful to show for their 14 years, other than the argument that the finances would have been worse after Covid if not for their cuts.

Is it harder for business right now? Yes. Should the poorest continue to be shafted most? I don’t believe so. They need some relief. It’s about fairness. Labour are creating the conditions for more investment into the county and I believe the next two budgets will be more pro growth and pro business. But right now the poorest are getting some relief and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. We can all run our businesses and make sacrifices just like the poorest have had to.
 
Grays_1890 said:
Thicker than a boxing day turd that one

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Click to expand...
Charlie instead of kids gather up all your racist mates & all move to Dubai. When you get there please explain to the locals what you think of Islam & the Koran/ Quran. when you have done that make sure you insult Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum or his family.

Hopefully they will put you in prison & we won't have to hear from you again.

The world would be a better place without racist clams like him
 
Finney Is Back said:
What sort of people are you employing? What level of pay are they typically getting?
Click to expand...

I will break it down into the two companies when I was incharge of Ops

So for 5 years when I was incharge of a team of 95 in the UKs largest Travel Marketing Firm we had 3 depts, Sales, Marketing and PR, those had 3 VPs in the top roles on 80-90k, under them there were teams incharge or certain client accounts, depending on size of account you would have an Account Director, Account Managers and Exec, the salaries ranged from 26k - 60k dependant.

When I was in Healthcare VP of Ops for 3 years, I had a team of 250, the structure scaled in Covid and I was part of the team to sell it on. There we had 8 Depts incharge of various industry, all managed by a team 5 who were from VP to Execs ranging from 120k-34k dept on scale. Each Dept then had a team of site managers who were on a ranging scale of a daily rate of £160-£240 a day dept on experience and certain KPIs based on SOPs I put in place.

I was right man right place right time in both, the first was sold to a HUGE asset management company in the US so I was given a nice reward for keeping the team together and retaining their client base, just before Covid no less. Then the second I helped facilitate the move to a sell to an Asian investor and was given a substantial pay off for facilitating handover, which meant I could start my own company in travel marketing, which is what I do now with 15 of my own clients. When I need someone I get a freelancer, which comes from my black book
 
Last edited:
SissokoWasGood (BoL) said:
Would love to engage with you on the spirit of debate around this. Full disclosure I learn centre left but actually take more of a view of ‘what does the country need at the time’ and so can be pragmatic about when it’s time to be more pro business, or tighter on immigration etc.

When I look at this budget (and the government’s first) I think about some starting assumptions. First, public finances are screwed. Secondly, public services are on their knees. The country has been through this he shocks of Brexit which impacted output and Covid were simply put that money has to be paid back. We’ve also been through the Truss budget, and so bond markets are watching us closely for any hint of profligacy. With all of that in mind, what would you do differently? Or asked another way, why is the budget actually so bad?
Click to expand...
Not sure if you saw the news this morning, but public finances aren't nearly as bad as Reeves told us they were.

The current tax burden is the highest since WWII, due to exceed that and become the highest ever by the end of this parliament.

The government absolutely does not have an income problem, it has a spending problem.

SissokoWasGood (BoL) said:
Take the headroom. I saw Sunak on The Times website talking about how Reeves needed to leave herself at least 20bn of headroom. She exceeded that. This ensures that regardless of the swings in projections over the coming years, she now should actually have the room to manoeuvre. It took two budgets, but I believe they won’t have to do something like this again. Headroom and confidence of the markets leads to lower interest rates, stability for people’s mortgages but also for businesses borrowing to invest. I think this is a foundarional plank of boosting growth later in the parliament. I think they are looking at this as a 10 year project where they had to fix the foundations first. I don’t know if they will get the second term but I see the logic.
Click to expand...
They are still spending more than they did before and planning to spend more in the future. Until they control spending, these budgets will only be a sticking plaster.

Cut the spending and the problem is solved for a dozen budgets into the future.

SissokoWasGood (BoL) said:
Secondly, public services on their knees which ever way you look. NHS waiting lists sky rocketed. Schools were crumbling. Not withstanding Trump’s influence requiring an increase in defence spending. Sure, a government can give themselves this headroom with cuts. But I’m not sure how many more cuts our public services can bear. People who relied on them were struggling. They’ve taken action to get public services on a firmer footing, and I think there’s a fair argument for doing that.
Click to expand...
The NHS is long overdue a trip to a farm where it can happily run around and play. The govt can both reduce its liability to healthcare and improve healthcare beyond recognition with that simple step.

There are far more efficient and effective ways to improve education without taxing and wasting more. For starters, the VAT increase is only helping to overload the state system. Offering a tax break to those paying for independent schooling would both simultaneously reduce the load on the state sector and vastly improve the education for those kids joining the independent schools.

SissokoWasGood (BoL) said:
Then, welfare. The two child limit lift will see those arguments play out in the coming weeks and months. But this will be the government to have the biggest impact on child poverty ever. That’s not nothing.
Click to expand...
What kind of poverty are you talking about here? The made up, loaded, politicised relative "poverty" or actual, real poverty?

What do you think the end result will be of incentivising having more children for families that don't work? The data are pretty clear about the fact that kids born to families that don't work are unlikely to ever look for work themselves or complete a solid education. What might seem, to some, on a very superficial level, to be a good idea will likely entrench generations of more and more welfare liabilities. But Labour don't care about that, those people are overwhelmingly likely to vote Labour.

SissokoWasGood (BoL) said:
I believe there are things they absolutely need to be done. The welfare debacle was a ridiculous error from them, and that needs reform for sure. They also need more overtly pro growth politicies. My suspicion is that they will come in the next two budgets. But first they needed to fix the foundations, get to an acceptable level of headroom and get public services back into a passable state.

To do that, they chose tax rises rather than cuts. It’s a political choice, but this is where the consideration of what the country needs at the time. I think in the last 15 years the poorest have suffered most from austerity, and from the cost of living. The Tories had nothing meaningful to show for their 14 years, other than the argument that the finances would have been worse after Covid if not for their cuts.
Click to expand...
Don't believe the headlines. Not the ones written by Labour nor the ones written by the Conservatives.

When Labour got in, were you paying more or less tax than in 2010 (in real terms)?

When Labour got in, was the govt spending more or less than in 2010?

Once you've answered those questions, ask yourself how it is that the govt are taking more of our money, spending more of our money, yet we are getting less for it.

SissokoWasGood (BoL) said:
Is it harder for business right now? Yes. Should the poorest continue to be shafted most? I don’t believe so. They need some relief. It’s about fairness. Labour are creating the conditions for more investment into the county and I believe the next two budgets will be more pro growth and pro business. But right now the poorest are getting some relief and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. We can all run our businesses and make sacrifices just like the poorest have had to.
Click to expand...
You know the best way to ensure poor people stay poor? Stop them working.

Every measure that costs business, costs jobs. Every ridiculous piece of legislation that makes it harder to employ people, costs jobs. Every pointless increase in minimum wage, costs jobs.

Two steps will make huge and lasting changes to the welfare problems our country has. Increase the gap between welfare and working and make it easier to employ people.
 
Grays_1890 said:
Because in some industries people have prospects outside their current firms, I have let people go because we couldn't match their ambitions and have given them reference to move on because it was the right thing to do, it also meant I could have a fluid route for the next person for their job. You can also go back further into their work history and it not be their current employer. All depends on your confidence and profile in that industry I suppose, thankfully I have a good profile in mine, even if I do say so and these are conversation I have had at events and around the industry for years when it was needed to recruit or find a pathway for a member of my team.

At the end of the day, regardless, there are plenty of tools and routes to making sure you employ the right person, for me its important to take the time and do that, even speaking to your existing team about the dynamics and what they want before hiring someone.

Thats why I won't be visited by Jacob Marley this Christmas
Click to expand...
What about young people without the job history?

Doesn't this policy just worsen what is already a problem with young unemployment?

If the risk of employing someone increases, businesses will be less likely to take a risk on someone who could be better for longer but comes with more risk up front.
 
scaramanga said:
What about young people without the job history?

Doesn't this policy just worsen what is already a problem with young unemployment?

If the risk of employing someone increases, businesses will be less likely to take a risk on someone who could be better for longer but comes with more risk up front.
Click to expand...

I think they are actually some of the easier to employ, to go back to your earlier point they are not generally good enough actors and you take them on their personality.

Also I know when employing someone with no job history that I do so needing to put in personal time for development and also ask the teams they join to do the same, so I always take it under advisement from more than just my own POV on that, for example, I have had teams put off employing someone (in joint decision) because the team was at capacity and would be harder to take someone new and spend time training, than stepping up to carry their work loads for 6 months and then employ in the low period.

What I am saying is that employing the wrong person is as much if not more on the employer than the employee and as I have said, I think there are plenty of tools and actions to work against it OR improve situations.
 
Grays_1890 said:
I think they are actually some of the easier to employ, to go back to your earlier point they are not generally good enough actors and you take them on their personality.

Also I know when employing someone with no job history that I do so needing to put in personal time for development and also ask the teams they join to do the same, so I always take it under advisement from more than just my own POV on that, for example, I have had teams put off employing someone (in joint decision) because the team was at capacity and would be harder to take someone new and spend time training, than stepping up to carry their work loads for 6 months and then employ in the low period.

What I am saying is that employing the wrong person is as much if not more on the employer than the employee and as I have said, I think there are plenty of tools and actions to work against it OR improve situations.
Click to expand...
All of that is added cost. All of which is a drag on employment (yet again).
 
scaramanga said:
All of that is added cost. All of which is a drag on employment (yet again).
Click to expand...

Which I guarantee is less cost long term getting it right

In fact I know it is in many industries because I had to do an entire report on it before one company was purchased by hundreds of million and was able to present a fairly comprehensive showing on how and why

Hire and fire culture not only takes longer and costs more when it goes wrong, but it is also more costly if (and I never have but many do) you use agencies and you end up forever paying commissions on all ends of the deals.
 
Last edited:
Grays_1890 said:
Which I guarantee is less cost long term getting it right

In fact I know it is in many industries because I had to do an entire report on it before one company was purchased by hundreds of million and was able to present a fairly comprehensive showing on how and why

Hire and fire culture not only takes longer and costs more when it goes wrong, but it is also more costly if (and I never have but many do) you use agencies and you end up forever paying commissions on all ends of the deals.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about hire and fire, I'm talking about being able to take a risk on someone who might be good, without that risk costing.
 
scaramanga said:
I'm not talking about hire and fire, I'm talking about being able to take a risk on someone who might be good, without that risk costing.
Click to expand...

Which you can do whilst doing your due diligence which save time and money in the short and long term. I reckon I could do a fair level of comfortable due diligence in 48 hours to have a fair understanding of the risk
 
Grays_1890 said:
Which you can do whilst doing your due diligence which save time and money in the short and long term. I reckon I could do a fair level of comfortable due diligence in 48 hours to have a fair understanding of the risk
Click to expand...
You got nothing else to do with your day?

Not sure about you,.but I can't follow employees about the place - I have to trust them to do their jobs properly and independently.
 
scaramanga said:
You got nothing else to do with your day?

Not sure about you,.but I can't follow employees about the place - I have to trust them to do their jobs properly and independently.
Click to expand...

Well no, because I am now manager of my own little empire, which gives me as much freedom as my own and client pressure allows.

But to answer that

I have never said follow them about, actually promoting the idea of the opposite. I am saying employ the right people so you don't have to, its literally the pillar of my post about getting the right person in first time

As well, as VP of Ops at the time, it was literally my job to track and given the low turnover It was a very well managed process which gave people time to concentrate on other parts. It is also what a well planned out management structure is there for.

As I say, I have lived it in two huge companies and implemented it and was well paid for it. So yeh I would stick to that plan given wider employee happiness was also taken into consideration and was extremely favourable.

And not once did I have to cancel Ramadan ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back