The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[chrisp65]

My own office is moving to a smaller place as we are so rarely all in at the same time, it simply hasn’t happened in years. A quick headcount today as a random example, we’ve got 60% occupancy and that’s because we need key staff in on Monday mornings for some 5 day planning. In an hour’s time, that’ll drop to less than 50% and that’s where it will sit for the rest of the week. Resource planning has proven to be the one thing you need to do across the table eye to eye.

That new rental agreement is less money per foot and less feet, so simply too good to refuse. New landlord can’t believe his luck! He’s gained a tenant in 2022. The move is happening on Friday.

Our other office has taken a lease on newly available space in a Council Office. So they clearly aren’t planning to have all staff back to work at that Midlands council.

Westminster wants a return to those halcyon days of January 2020 when everyone was so happy with life. But we can’t have an economic model based on propping up the landlords. That would be against the free market.

 

 

 

[mjmooney]

26 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

When we took the mortgage the Warsaw rate (WIBOR) was 0.24% meaning our mortgage was fairly cheap from an interest perspective. It's now gone up to 2.8% and our interest rate has doubled. 

At one point in the 1980s we were paying 15% interest on our mortgage. 

Strap yourselves in. 

[StefanAVFC]

14 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

At one point in the 1980s we were paying 15% interest on our mortgage. 

Strap yourselves in. 

This is the base rate + what we have from the bank. I have no idea what it is, but it's higher than it was.

We're also in a privileged position because our deposit was our land, and we used a lot of savings meaning our mortgage is lower.

[chrisp65]

46 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

At one point in the 1980s we were paying 15% interest on our mortgage. 

Strap yourselves in. 

One of a number of financial landmarks I experienced.

I remember feeling smug that we had a few years locked in at 5.5% and one of my mates being ‘happy’  that he had managed to get a mortgage at 11% just before it went to 13%. 

That 5.5% would be beyond many people’s imagination now, never mind, 11, 13, or 15%

Another fine memory: I was sat in the bank i guess it must have been 2008?, RBS, negotiating the next few years of my mortgage as the fixed term deal had run its course. There was clearly something not right, it was taking hours and involved the bank person spending more time out of the room than in with me. As the clock went well beyond bank closing time and she came back in I asked if there was a problem, ‘Yes, we can’t arrange the credit, the credit rating isn’t good enough’.

I started a panic rant, explained they knew my credit history, never missed a payment, but she cut me off mid rant. ‘Not your credit rating, ours. We can’t get any credit to offer you a mortgage with us’.

 

 

[Wainy316]

The most annoying thing about the NI raise is that over the proposed 3 years it will recoup roughly equal to the amount wasted on test & trace.  The normal folk again paying for government **** ups/lining of their mates pockets.

[bickster]

6 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

The most annoying thing about the NI raise is that over the proposed 3 years it will recoup roughly equal to the amount wasted on test & trace.  The normal folk again paying for government **** ups/lining of their mates pockets.

The really most annoying thing about it is that no-one has actually done the maths and some are saying its actually a zero sum gain or even a negative sum gain

[desensitized43]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

There's a load of stuff around this.

I mean firstly the Government can say whatever they like about going back to offices and stuff, but it's not up to them. It's up to the businesses to determine how and where their employees work (with Employees and Unions having a clear influence in that outcome).

Secondly, you're spot on about Economic growth being the wrong measure to measure the "success" of our economy or nation. It should be a small factor, but having it as the sole measure has just led to trashing everything.

The thing about it working for people with savings and even shares is not really generally valid, I think. I mean savings get less interest than inflation, so become worth less over time. And shares - well with the Pandemic haven't they pretty much all taken a massive hit? (obviously PPE and pharma has done better). I think the real beneficiaries of Reaganite/Thatcherite capitalism have been a relatively small group of already super rich people. The rest of us - shafted really, with the degrees of shafting varying, admittedly, depending on where we sit in the order of things.

Capitalism isn't the problem - someone owning a shop or whatever and making a profit isn't inherently "bad". The problem is unrestrained, unregulated capitalism. The problem is where capitalism is taken as an ideology that must prevail above all other factors and influences. A degree of capitalism is basically necessary, as is a degree of socialism. When you have solely one or the other that's when it doesn't work.

What I'm tried to say about shareholders and investors (clumsily, I apologise) is that like with the macro economy being al about growth a CEO of a company is generally judged by one measure - Have they delivered value for shareholders? That's what's led to these vulture capitalists, hedge funds and private equity etc. It's all about moving in, getting a quick win for the small number of investors/shareholders and getting out. The people working for the company don't matter at all in our economy right now.

I agree it's deregulation that's caused the problem, and you're right when you say it's completely ideological. It seems that to some it's an entirely free market with no regulation or it's communism.

[blandy]

9 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

a CEO of a company is generally judged by one measure - Have they delivered value for shareholders? That's what's led to these vulture capitalists, hedge funds and private equity etc. It's all about moving in, getting a quick win for the small number of investors/shareholders and getting out.

Yeah, that's probably right. And it means short-termism often prevails, for the reasons you mention, in areas where it absolutely shouldn't and to the detriment of both the company and its future and of the wider nation.

The flip side, I suppose, is that pension funds are some of the largest shareholders and so, indirectly, we are too.

[bickster]

Lord Agnew, treasury Minister resigns over the way the Government has handled fraudulent COVID Loans

EDIT: Actually did it at the Dispatch Box too, now that's a must see when I get in

[ender4]

5 hours ago, mjmooney said:

At one point in the 1980s we were paying 15% interest on our mortgage. 

Strap yourselves in. 

I've been paying less than 1% since 2009!     

Standard variable rate of Base Rate + 0.49% for those 12 years. 

Now my rate has gone up to 0.74%!

I should have stretched myself with a bigger mortgage and a bigger house had i known it was going to stay so cheap for so many years.

Edited January 24, 2022 by ender4

[ender4]

3 hours ago, bickster said:

The really most annoying thing about it is that no-one has actually done the maths and some are saying its actually a zero sum gain or even a negative sum gain

Could you explain this please?  I'm interested but don't understand what this means in this context.

[Xela]

Some interesting posts from @desensitized43 and @blandy

My workplace is quite relaxed about our return to the office at the moment - it'll be one day a week from February sometime. Suits me. My direct bosses know that we are happier and more productive at home rather than having to traipse into a city centre every day, just to prop up the bottom line of Pret-a-Manger or Starbucks. I do worry that the Government will consider applying pressure further up my company hierarchy to get back in the office more for that very reason. 

 

[Xela]

6 hours ago, Genie said:

I’m grateful to have 4 years to run on my 5 year fixed rate. At least that isn’t going to nobble me in the short term.

I'm comfortable on variable at the minute. 1.44% over base. I've got plenty of leeway in my payment. Base Rate would need to get back to about 0.75% for it to match my previous fixed payment. 

[bickster]

42 minutes ago, ender4 said:

Could you explain this please?  I'm interested but don't understand what this means in this context.

Well there's a theory that as disposable income will reduce, that could result in job losses which in turn will reduce the overall NI payments into the exchequer. I heard someone say the NI increase even though its only 1% will reduce the average persons disposable income by 10%

[blandy]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

there's a theory that as disposable income will reduce, that could result in job losses which in turn will reduce the overall NI payments into the exchequer.

I guess the counter to that is that with the (hopefully lasting) opening up from Covidfungus more people will be spending disposable income, instead of saving it, Add in that rising costs will put pressure on wages to rise (and thus more tax and NI for the guvmint) that these factors will more than compensate for any job loss related fall in NI and Tax.

But then you have to wonder whether a whole bunch of people will think "right, that's me done working in this job" and leave or retire, creating a drop in tax take and an increase in job vacancies and another pressure to raise wages to attract people to fill those vacancies...and so on.

I don't think that there's a clear conclusion that even the boffins in the treasury or ONS etc. can really draw on whether or not it will raise or decline the tax and NI take figure. I suspect it will raise it, but also I suspect that the Tories will bin it as a policy, before it comes into play.

[bickster]

11 minutes ago, blandy said:

more people will be spending disposable income, instead of saving it

On holidays in abroadia most likely

[bickster]

12 minutes ago, blandy said:

I don't think that there's a clear conclusion that even the boffins in the treasury or ONS etc. can really draw on

That was sort of my point

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, bickster said:

On holidays in abroadia most likely

Yeah, quite a bit of that. But even that means money for travel agents, airports, airlines, and so on...

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

That was sort of my point

I know. The only quibble with your original point is that someone has calculated it and done the sums (the Treasury and Guvmint office for counting to big numbers), but as we've both said, whatever number they counted to is more of a guess than a precise amount.

[Mark Albrighton]

More work stuff