Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

On a day when a poll had 59% saying Johnson’s “untrustworthy” the betting money edges to an earlier

135678

Comments

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154
    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    The consequences of this will be interesting.
    As well as financially devastating for a very large number of people.

    Vote to protect leaseholders from cladding costs fails despite Tory rebellion
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/apr/27/vote-to-protect-leaseholders-from-cladding-costs-fails-despite-tory-rebellion

    It’s a difficult one this

    On the assumption (not given) that everyone has acted within the law and in good faith it seems very harsh - and financially devastating - to make leaseholders pay.

    And yet, if freeholders have followed the regulations it is tough to make them pay as well. And providing the manufacturers were making to the required standards then they haven’t broken any rules either.

    It seems to me that this is somewhere the government should step in as the insurer of last resort.
    I think it’s actually easier than that. The government’s own health and safety laws were being deliberately flouted by their own compliance teams, who were giving the incorrect advice as a result.

    So bluntly, it is the government’s fault.

    That’s not a partisan thing. It’s been happening for years under various governments. But it is a case where HMG needs to hold their hands up and accept liability.
    I haven’t dug into the detail. But if there is a guilty party they should pay
    I don't think the Grenfell tower inquiry has reported yet, but the testimony from how the manufacturers conducted their fire tests was quite shocking. I can see some law suits or even prosecutions there.

    If not negligent though the leaseholders should pay. Property ownership has liabilities as well as asset price rises.
    Hold on - even if the government and builders were not negligent, it depends on the lease. Aren’t external repairs usually the responsibility of the freeholder, not the leaseholder?
    Freeholders are arguing that it is general maintenance covered by the service charge rather than their responsibility

    Basically the government just needs to split the pie in a totally arbitrary way so that everyone bears some of the cost, including themselves, and then impose it. Putting all of the cost on any one group without evidence of negligence is unfair.
    If the freeholder paid for the original renovations, that’s a pretty specious argument. But there I really don’t know who paid for what.

    Your solution sounds reasonable. But I have a feeling the only people who will be happy with whatever solution is imposed will be lawyers as the legal challenges start.

    Have a good morning.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,344
    edited April 2021
    Charles said:

    Taz said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Green MP Caroline Lucas says Boris Johnson is a “serial liar” who shows a “Trumpian disdain for the rules”. #today
    https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1387283224645210114

    Well I, for one, am stunned that a political opponent would make such a statement,

    I’m sure people up and down the country are hanging on her every word and are waiting for her next proclamation on the matter which I’m sure will be equally thoughtful and considered.
    To be fair I’ve been fairly surprised over the last few years how reliant on cliche many of our politicians are.

    “He’s like that bad man over there” seems to be the best that many of them can do
    'It's twitter what does it" , surely. Gives the possibility for quick soundbite, without having to reveal the thought processes.
    Also provides a 'job' for a SPAD or similar, who can sit in a corner with a latte, a phone and the 'duty' of circulating a 'message' every hour on the hour.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    The consequences of this will be interesting.
    As well as financially devastating for a very large number of people.

    Vote to protect leaseholders from cladding costs fails despite Tory rebellion
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/apr/27/vote-to-protect-leaseholders-from-cladding-costs-fails-despite-tory-rebellion

    It’s a difficult one this

    On the assumption (not given) that everyone has acted within the law and in good faith it seems very harsh - and financially devastating - to make leaseholders pay.

    And yet, if freeholders have followed the regulations it is tough to make them pay as well. And providing the manufacturers were making to the required standards then they haven’t broken any rules either.

    It seems to me that this is somewhere the government should step in as the insurer of last resort.
    I think it’s actually easier than that. The government’s own health and safety laws were being deliberately flouted by their own compliance teams, who were giving the incorrect advice as a result.

    So bluntly, it is the government’s fault.

    That’s not a partisan thing. It’s been happening for years under various governments. But it is a case where HMG needs to hold their hands up and accept liability.
    I haven’t dug into the detail. But if there is a guilty party they should pay
    I don't think the Grenfell tower inquiry has reported yet, but the testimony from how the manufacturers conducted their fire tests was quite shocking. I can see some law suits or even prosecutions there.

    If not negligent though the leaseholders should pay. Property ownership has liabilities as well as asset price rises.
    Hold on - even if the government and builders were not negligent, it depends on the lease. Aren’t external repairs usually the responsibility of the freeholder, not the leaseholder?
    Freeholders are arguing that it is general maintenance covered by the service charge rather than their responsibility

    Basically the government just needs to split the pie in a totally arbitrary way so that everyone bears some of the cost, including themselves, and then impose it. Putting all of the cost on any one group without evidence of negligence is unfair.
    If the freeholder paid for the original renovations, that’s a pretty specious argument. But there I really don’t know who paid for what.

    Your solution sounds reasonable. But I have a feeling the only people who will be happy with whatever solution is imposed will be lawyers as the legal challenges start.

    Have a good morning.
    Their argument is they built to spec and if the leaseholder wants to refurbish the common parts that’s up to them. Specious but leaseholders are stuck and can’t spend years in court
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,480
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    The consequences of this will be interesting.
    As well as financially devastating for a very large number of people.

    Vote to protect leaseholders from cladding costs fails despite Tory rebellion
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/apr/27/vote-to-protect-leaseholders-from-cladding-costs-fails-despite-tory-rebellion

    It’s a difficult one this

    On the assumption (not given) that everyone has acted within the law and in good faith it seems very harsh - and financially devastating - to make leaseholders pay.

    And yet, if freeholders have followed the regulations it is tough to make them pay as well. And providing the manufacturers were making to the required standards then they haven’t broken any rules either.

    It seems to me that this is somewhere the government should step in as the insurer of last resort.
    I think it’s actually easier than that. The government’s own health and safety laws were being deliberately flouted by their own compliance teams, who were giving the incorrect advice as a result.

    So bluntly, it is the government’s fault.

    That’s not a partisan thing. It’s been happening for years under various governments. But it is a case where HMG needs to hold their hands up and accept liability.
    I haven’t dug into the detail. But if there is a guilty party they should pay
    I don't think the Grenfell tower inquiry has reported yet, but the testimony from how the manufacturers conducted their fire tests was quite shocking. I can see some law suits or even prosecutions there.

    If not negligent though the leaseholders should pay. Property ownership has liabilities as well as asset price rises.
    Hold on - even if the government and builders were not negligent, it depends on the lease. Aren’t external repairs usually the responsibility of the freeholder, not the leaseholder?
    I suppose that depends on the terms of the lease. If the freeholder, is liable I would expect a rise in the service charge. I don't see why the taxpayer should pay. Property ownership has liabilities, including unexpected expensive ones.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,575
    Taz said:

    Scott_xP said:


    ...

    That’s up,to the standards of Brant, the physical cartoonist from The Day Today.
    There is still the glasses divide between cartoonists who show Cummings wearing specs and others who do not.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,753
    The more India occupies the headlines the better for Boris imo. Such a catastrophe (even population adjusted?) simply goes to highlight the success of the UK's (and hence Boris's) vaccine effort.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,257
    Scott_xP said:

    Why Boris Johnson’s Sleazy-Does-It Water Torture Shows No Sign Of Ending Soon

    The latest WaughZone


    https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnson-let-rip-sleaze_uk_60889589e4b046202700c54c?6t

    Interesting piece there:

    Yet we are still waiting for the latest register of ministerial interests, and Labour suspects the delay is to avoid the May 6 local elections.

    Today, No.10 came up with the latest lame excuse: it hasn’t yet appointed an independent adviser on ministerial interests and that adviser’s remit includes publishing the list.

    Of course, the reason no adviser is in post is because Sir Alex Allan quit in exasperation at the PM’s failure to uphold his finding that Priti Patel’s bullying of staff breached the ministerial code.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,257
    I see Boris apologists have moved on from yesterday’s insistence that there is no issue because Boris got the money from Tory HQ.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,162

    Taz said:

    Scott_xP said:


    ...

    That’s up,to the standards of Brant, the physical cartoonist from The Day Today.
    There is still the glasses divide between cartoonists who show Cummings wearing specs and others who do not.
    It’s a shame he doesn’t wear a monocle, that would be ace.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    The consequences of this will be interesting.
    As well as financially devastating for a very large number of people.

    Vote to protect leaseholders from cladding costs fails despite Tory rebellion
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/apr/27/vote-to-protect-leaseholders-from-cladding-costs-fails-despite-tory-rebellion

    It’s a difficult one this

    On the assumption (not given) that everyone has acted within the law and in good faith it seems very harsh - and financially devastating - to make leaseholders pay.

    And yet, if freeholders have followed the regulations it is tough to make them pay as well. And providing the manufacturers were making to the required standards then they haven’t broken any rules either.

    It seems to me that this is somewhere the government should step in as the insurer of last resort.
    I think it’s actually easier than that. The government’s own health and safety laws were being deliberately flouted by their own compliance teams, who were giving the incorrect advice as a result.

    So bluntly, it is the government’s fault.

    That’s not a partisan thing. It’s been happening for years under various governments. But it is a case where HMG needs to hold their hands up and accept liability.
    I haven’t dug into the detail. But if there is a guilty party they should pay
    I don't think the Grenfell tower inquiry has reported yet, but the testimony from how the manufacturers conducted their fire tests was quite shocking. I can see some law suits or even prosecutions there.

    If not negligent though the leaseholders should pay. Property ownership has liabilities as well as asset price rises.
    Hold on - even if the government and builders were not negligent, it depends on the lease. Aren’t external repairs usually the responsibility of the freeholder, not the leaseholder?
    I suppose that depends on the terms of the lease. If the freeholder, is liable I would expect a rise in the service charge. I don't see why the taxpayer should pay. Property ownership has liabilities, including unexpected expensive ones.
    Because it is life changing for people as a direct result of government action.

    For many people this is their first property bought after scrimping and saving. And you are saying they are stuck with it for ever.

    Plus it is in the government’s interest that the work is done fast. Otherwise the rational thing for a leaseholder is to find a no-win no-fee lawyer and sue the freeholder.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,480
    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    The consequences of this will be interesting.
    As well as financially devastating for a very large number of people.

    Vote to protect leaseholders from cladding costs fails despite Tory rebellion
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/apr/27/vote-to-protect-leaseholders-from-cladding-costs-fails-despite-tory-rebellion

    It’s a difficult one this

    On the assumption (not given) that everyone has acted within the law and in good faith it seems very harsh - and financially devastating - to make leaseholders pay.

    And yet, if freeholders have followed the regulations it is tough to make them pay as well. And providing the manufacturers were making to the required standards then they haven’t broken any rules either.

    It seems to me that this is somewhere the government should step in as the insurer of last resort.
    I think it’s actually easier than that. The government’s own health and safety laws were being deliberately flouted by their own compliance teams, who were giving the incorrect advice as a result.

    So bluntly, it is the government’s fault.

    That’s not a partisan thing. It’s been happening for years under various governments. But it is a case where HMG needs to hold their hands up and accept liability.
    I haven’t dug into the detail. But if there is a guilty party they should pay
    I don't think the Grenfell tower inquiry has reported yet, but the testimony from how the manufacturers conducted their fire tests was quite shocking. I can see some law suits or even prosecutions there.

    If not negligent though the leaseholders should pay. Property ownership has liabilities as well as asset price rises.
    Except that arguably it should be the freeholder not the leaseholder.

    But it’s a change in government policy that is burdening these individuals with a life changing liability. That’s unjust.
    If the government is to pay for the liabilities of property owners, it should receive some of the capital gains too.

    Perhaps the government should pay, but have a percentage share in the asset value of the property when sold, being repaid that way.

    If not, then owners will be trousering capital gains on properties financed by the tax payer.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Scott_xP said:

    Why Boris Johnson’s Sleazy-Does-It Water Torture Shows No Sign Of Ending Soon

    The latest WaughZone


    https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnson-let-rip-sleaze_uk_60889589e4b046202700c54c?6t

    Interesting piece there:

    Yet we are still waiting for the latest register of ministerial interests, and Labour suspects the delay is to avoid the May 6 local elections.

    Today, No.10 came up with the latest lame excuse: it hasn’t yet appointed an independent adviser on ministerial interests and that adviser’s remit includes publishing the list.

    Of course, the reason no adviser is in post is because Sir Alex Allan quit in exasperation at the PM’s failure to uphold his finding that Priti Patel’s bullying of staff breached the ministerial code.
    TBF it sounds like a lame excuse... but that also sounds like exactly the way the civil service works... it’s someone else’s job, mate
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,575
    Charles said:

    Taz said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Green MP Caroline Lucas says Boris Johnson is a “serial liar” who shows a “Trumpian disdain for the rules”. #today
    https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1387283224645210114

    Well I, for one, am stunned that a political opponent would make such a statement,

    I’m sure people up and down the country are hanging on her every word and are waiting for her next proclamation on the matter which I’m sure will be equally thoughtful and considered.
    To be fair I’ve been fairly surprised over the last few years how reliant on cliche many of our politicians are.

    “He’s like that bad man over there” seems to be the best that many of them can do
    It is not a new observation. People have made it on PB. Peter Oborne has written a book,
    The Assault on Truth
    Boris Johnson, Donald Trump and the Emergence of a New Moral Barbarism
    https://www.simonandschuster.co.uk/books/The-Assault-on-Truth/Peter-Oborne/9781398501003

    Oborne had previously written The Rise of Political Lying, covering the Major and Blair governments. Boris and Trump go far beyond that low standard.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,753
    edited April 2021
    There may well be a big difference between sleaze doesn't matter because the govt is in the middle of a global pandemic and things are on the up economy looking good wait what Boris did what?!?
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,662

    I see Boris apologists have moved on from yesterday’s insistence that there is no issue because Boris got the money from Tory HQ.

    Fish and chip paper.. its boring. Nothing will come of it.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,316

    Charles said:

    Taz said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Green MP Caroline Lucas says Boris Johnson is a “serial liar” who shows a “Trumpian disdain for the rules”. #today
    https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1387283224645210114

    Well I, for one, am stunned that a political opponent would make such a statement,

    I’m sure people up and down the country are hanging on her every word and are waiting for her next proclamation on the matter which I’m sure will be equally thoughtful and considered.
    To be fair I’ve been fairly surprised over the last few years how reliant on cliche many of our politicians are.

    “He’s like that bad man over there” seems to be the best that many of them can do
    It is not a new observation. People have made it on PB. Peter Oborne has written a book,
    The Assault on Truth
    Boris Johnson, Donald Trump and the Emergence of a New Moral Barbarism
    https://www.simonandschuster.co.uk/books/The-Assault-on-Truth/Peter-Oborne/9781398501003

    Oborne had previously written The Rise of Political Lying, covering the Major and Blair governments. Boris and Trump go far beyond that low standard.
    Absolutely nobody can go lower than Blair
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Going back a few threads: Biden is popular because he has popular policies

    Scoop: Anita Dunn is set to send a memo to Dem allies tonight.
    The message: eating the rich is popular. Act like it.
    Comes as Biden will propose cap gains tax hikes for filers > $1 million
    Full memo here, obtained by Transition Playbook w/ @theodoricmeyer
    https://t.co/t4BEDYyb3e https://t.co/8VcGQV2lEk
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,162

    I see Boris apologists have moved on from yesterday’s insistence that there is no issue because Boris got the money from Tory HQ.

    Well I’m not an apologist and have not voted Tory in my life but I am failing to see anything of any substance here merely opponents throwing as much mud as possible in the hope some sticks. There may be something to it but at the moment there isn’t. Like the Dyson story and other stories they are pretty much non events. Labour equating the Dyson call with 90s Tory sleaze is absurd.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,480
    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    The consequences of this will be interesting.
    As well as financially devastating for a very large number of people.

    Vote to protect leaseholders from cladding costs fails despite Tory rebellion
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/apr/27/vote-to-protect-leaseholders-from-cladding-costs-fails-despite-tory-rebellion

    It’s a difficult one this

    On the assumption (not given) that everyone has acted within the law and in good faith it seems very harsh - and financially devastating - to make leaseholders pay.

    And yet, if freeholders have followed the regulations it is tough to make them pay as well. And providing the manufacturers were making to the required standards then they haven’t broken any rules either.

    It seems to me that this is somewhere the government should step in as the insurer of last resort.
    I think it’s actually easier than that. The government’s own health and safety laws were being deliberately flouted by their own compliance teams, who were giving the incorrect advice as a result.

    So bluntly, it is the government’s fault.

    That’s not a partisan thing. It’s been happening for years under various governments. But it is a case where HMG needs to hold their hands up and accept liability.
    I haven’t dug into the detail. But if there is a guilty party they should pay
    I don't think the Grenfell tower inquiry has reported yet, but the testimony from how the manufacturers conducted their fire tests was quite shocking. I can see some law suits or even prosecutions there.

    If not negligent though the leaseholders should pay. Property ownership has liabilities as well as asset price rises.
    Hold on - even if the government and builders were not negligent, it depends on the lease. Aren’t external repairs usually the responsibility of the freeholder, not the leaseholder?
    I suppose that depends on the terms of the lease. If the freeholder, is liable I would expect a rise in the service charge. I don't see why the taxpayer should pay. Property ownership has liabilities, including unexpected expensive ones.
    Because it is life changing for people as a direct result of government action.

    For many people this is their first property bought after scrimping and saving. And you are saying they are stuck with it for ever.

    Plus it is in the government’s interest that the work is done fast. Otherwise the rational thing for a leaseholder is to find a no-win no-fee lawyer and sue the freeholder.
    And other leaseholders are BTL speculators. The morality of the owners is not something that matters in law. Why should the government bail out speculators without a share of the capital gains as a result?
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,162
    Poor old Justin. This really is what passes for news these days.

    https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2021/apr/27/justin-bieber-hairstyle-cultural-appropriation
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    The consequences of this will be interesting.
    As well as financially devastating for a very large number of people.

    Vote to protect leaseholders from cladding costs fails despite Tory rebellion
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/apr/27/vote-to-protect-leaseholders-from-cladding-costs-fails-despite-tory-rebellion

    It’s a difficult one this

    On the assumption (not given) that everyone has acted within the law and in good faith it seems very harsh - and financially devastating - to make leaseholders pay.

    And yet, if freeholders have followed the regulations it is tough to make them pay as well. And providing the manufacturers were making to the required standards then they haven’t broken any rules either.

    It seems to me that this is somewhere the government should step in as the insurer of last resort.
    I think it’s actually easier than that. The government’s own health and safety laws were being deliberately flouted by their own compliance teams, who were giving the incorrect advice as a result.

    So bluntly, it is the government’s fault.

    That’s not a partisan thing. It’s been happening for years under various governments. But it is a case where HMG needs to hold their hands up and accept liability.
    I haven’t dug into the detail. But if there is a guilty party they should pay
    I don't think the Grenfell tower inquiry has reported yet, but the testimony from how the manufacturers conducted their fire tests was quite shocking. I can see some law suits or even prosecutions there.

    If not negligent though the leaseholders should pay. Property ownership has liabilities as well as asset price rises.
    Except that arguably it should be the freeholder not the leaseholder.

    But it’s a change in government policy that is burdening these individuals with a life changing liability. That’s unjust.
    If the government is to pay for the liabilities of property owners, it should receive some of the capital gains too.

    Perhaps the government should pay, but have a percentage share in the asset value of the property when sold, being repaid that way.

    If not, then owners will be trousering capital gains on properties financed by the tax payer.
    It’s not a simple as that.

    - The government set regulations.
    - Those regulations were interpreted by government building inspectors
    - The inspectors told the developers that the buildings were in compliance even though they didn’t protect properly against the risks
    - developers used cheaper cladding relying on the building inspector guidance and certification
    - Freeholders relied on the developers a d the certification process
    - Leaseholders lawyers relied on the certification
    - Leaseholders relied on their lawyers

    Given that the fundamental issue is that the regulations didn’t provide sufficient protection despite being certified as compliant I don’t see why the leaseholder - who has acted in good faith - should bear all that risk
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Taz said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Green MP Caroline Lucas says Boris Johnson is a “serial liar” who shows a “Trumpian disdain for the rules”. #today
    https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1387283224645210114

    Well I, for one, am stunned that a political opponent would make such a statement,

    I’m sure people up and down the country are hanging on her every word and are waiting for her next proclamation on the matter which I’m sure will be equally thoughtful and considered.
    To be fair I’ve been fairly surprised over the last few years how reliant on cliche many of our politicians are.

    “He’s like that bad man over there” seems to be the best that many of them can do
    It is not a new observation. People have made it on PB. Peter Oborne has written a book,
    The Assault on Truth
    Boris Johnson, Donald Trump and the Emergence of a New Moral Barbarism
    https://www.simonandschuster.co.uk/books/The-Assault-on-Truth/Peter-Oborne/9781398501003

    Oborne had previously written The Rise of Political Lying, covering the Major and Blair governments. Boris and Trump go far beyond that low standard.
    I know it’s not new. That doesn’t make it better
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    The consequences of this will be interesting.
    As well as financially devastating for a very large number of people.

    Vote to protect leaseholders from cladding costs fails despite Tory rebellion
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/apr/27/vote-to-protect-leaseholders-from-cladding-costs-fails-despite-tory-rebellion

    It’s a difficult one this

    On the assumption (not given) that everyone has acted within the law and in good faith it seems very harsh - and financially devastating - to make leaseholders pay.

    And yet, if freeholders have followed the regulations it is tough to make them pay as well. And providing the manufacturers were making to the required standards then they haven’t broken any rules either.

    It seems to me that this is somewhere the government should step in as the insurer of last resort.
    I think it’s actually easier than that. The government’s own health and safety laws were being deliberately flouted by their own compliance teams, who were giving the incorrect advice as a result.

    So bluntly, it is the government’s fault.

    That’s not a partisan thing. It’s been happening for years under various governments. But it is a case where HMG needs to hold their hands up and accept liability.
    I haven’t dug into the detail. But if there is a guilty party they should pay
    I don't think the Grenfell tower inquiry has reported yet, but the testimony from how the manufacturers conducted their fire tests was quite shocking. I can see some law suits or even prosecutions there.

    If not negligent though the leaseholders should pay. Property ownership has liabilities as well as asset price rises.
    Hold on - even if the government and builders were not negligent, it depends on the lease. Aren’t external repairs usually the responsibility of the freeholder, not the leaseholder?
    I suppose that depends on the terms of the lease. If the freeholder, is liable I would expect a rise in the service charge. I don't see why the taxpayer should pay. Property ownership has liabilities, including unexpected expensive ones.
    Because it is life changing for people as a direct result of government action.

    For many people this is their first property bought after scrimping and saving. And you are saying they are stuck with it for ever.

    Plus it is in the government’s interest that the work is done fast. Otherwise the rational thing for a leaseholder is to find a no-win no-fee lawyer and sue the freeholder.
    And other leaseholders are BTL speculators. The morality of the owners is not something that matters in law. Why should the government bail out speculators without a share of the capital gains as a result?
    Answered in a later post. There have been failing throughout the chain.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,480

    I see Boris apologists have moved on from yesterday’s insistence that there is no issue because Boris got the money from Tory HQ.

    I think the story has legs because while people don't relate to how Greensill became influential, they do understand that six figures is a lot of money to redecorate a flat. That Johnson expected someone else to pay does have a whiff of "let them eat cake" about it.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Also absolute lols. Biden is pushing a radical left wing agenda steamrolling the GOP and people think he is more moderate than Obama.

    New: Americans see Biden as more moderate than they saw Obama at the 100-day mark of his presidency, per NBC/WSJ polling.

    This perception is helping Biden hold centrist Dem votes for his ambitious agenda, including a stimulus ~2.5X bigger than Obama's.

    https://t.co/qJ5JyQrios
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,162

    Charles said:

    Taz said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Green MP Caroline Lucas says Boris Johnson is a “serial liar” who shows a “Trumpian disdain for the rules”. #today
    https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1387283224645210114

    Well I, for one, am stunned that a political opponent would make such a statement,

    I’m sure people up and down the country are hanging on her every word and are waiting for her next proclamation on the matter which I’m sure will be equally thoughtful and considered.
    To be fair I’ve been fairly surprised over the last few years how reliant on cliche many of our politicians are.

    “He’s like that bad man over there” seems to be the best that many of them can do
    It is not a new observation. People have made it on PB. Peter Oborne has written a book,
    The Assault on Truth
    Boris Johnson, Donald Trump and the Emergence of a New Moral Barbarism
    https://www.simonandschuster.co.uk/books/The-Assault-on-Truth/Peter-Oborne/9781398501003

    Oborne had previously written The Rise of Political Lying, covering the Major and Blair governments. Boris and Trump go far beyond that low standard.
    Absolutely nobody can go lower than Blair
    Nor Campbell yet we regularly get them trotted out by the media to present their thoughts on the matters of the day and treated with a degree of reverence. Its staggering. Mind you the guardian fawned over Dubya simply as he criticised Trump so there clearly is no standards of any worth in our media.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,480
    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    The consequences of this will be interesting.
    As well as financially devastating for a very large number of people.

    Vote to protect leaseholders from cladding costs fails despite Tory rebellion
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/apr/27/vote-to-protect-leaseholders-from-cladding-costs-fails-despite-tory-rebellion

    It’s a difficult one this

    On the assumption (not given) that everyone has acted within the law and in good faith it seems very harsh - and financially devastating - to make leaseholders pay.

    And yet, if freeholders have followed the regulations it is tough to make them pay as well. And providing the manufacturers were making to the required standards then they haven’t broken any rules either.

    It seems to me that this is somewhere the government should step in as the insurer of last resort.
    I think it’s actually easier than that. The government’s own health and safety laws were being deliberately flouted by their own compliance teams, who were giving the incorrect advice as a result.

    So bluntly, it is the government’s fault.

    That’s not a partisan thing. It’s been happening for years under various governments. But it is a case where HMG needs to hold their hands up and accept liability.
    I haven’t dug into the detail. But if there is a guilty party they should pay
    I don't think the Grenfell tower inquiry has reported yet, but the testimony from how the manufacturers conducted their fire tests was quite shocking. I can see some law suits or even prosecutions there.

    If not negligent though the leaseholders should pay. Property ownership has liabilities as well as asset price rises.
    Except that arguably it should be the freeholder not the leaseholder.

    But it’s a change in government policy that is burdening these individuals with a life changing liability. That’s unjust.
    If the government is to pay for the liabilities of property owners, it should receive some of the capital gains too.

    Perhaps the government should pay, but have a percentage share in the asset value of the property when sold, being repaid that way.

    If not, then owners will be trousering capital gains on properties financed by the tax payer.
    It’s not a simple as that.

    - The government set regulations.
    - Those regulations were interpreted by government building inspectors
    - The inspectors told the developers that the buildings were in compliance even though they didn’t protect properly against the risks
    - developers used cheaper cladding relying on the building inspector guidance and certification
    - Freeholders relied on the developers a d the certification process
    - Leaseholders lawyers relied on the certification
    - Leaseholders relied on their lawyers

    Given that the fundamental issue is that the regulations didn’t provide sufficient protection despite being certified as compliant I don’t see why the leaseholder - who has acted in good faith - should bear all that risk
    That is a risk of property ownership. It goes alongside the capital gains.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,575

    Scott_xP said:

    Why Boris Johnson’s Sleazy-Does-It Water Torture Shows No Sign Of Ending Soon

    The latest WaughZone


    https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnson-let-rip-sleaze_uk_60889589e4b046202700c54c?6t

    Interesting piece there:

    Yet we are still waiting for the latest register of ministerial interests, and Labour suspects the delay is to avoid the May 6 local elections.

    Today, No.10 came up with the latest lame excuse: it hasn’t yet appointed an independent adviser on ministerial interests and that adviser’s remit includes publishing the list.

    Of course, the reason no adviser is in post is because Sir Alex Allan quit in exasperation at the PM’s failure to uphold his finding that Priti Patel’s bullying of staff breached the ministerial code.
    I think Labour might be wrong and Boris is trying to distract from his concession to Ian Blackford that all details of contracts would be published.

    But there is also Prof Ansell's view that Boris's various scandals cancel each other out. The comparison was made with The Simpsons, where Mr Burns has every infection imaginable but the germs are all stuck in the doorway.
    https://twitter.com/benwansell/status/1386941242802593793
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,575

    Charles said:

    Taz said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Green MP Caroline Lucas says Boris Johnson is a “serial liar” who shows a “Trumpian disdain for the rules”. #today
    https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1387283224645210114

    Well I, for one, am stunned that a political opponent would make such a statement,

    I’m sure people up and down the country are hanging on her every word and are waiting for her next proclamation on the matter which I’m sure will be equally thoughtful and considered.
    To be fair I’ve been fairly surprised over the last few years how reliant on cliche many of our politicians are.

    “He’s like that bad man over there” seems to be the best that many of them can do
    It is not a new observation. People have made it on PB. Peter Oborne has written a book,
    The Assault on Truth
    Boris Johnson, Donald Trump and the Emergence of a New Moral Barbarism
    https://www.simonandschuster.co.uk/books/The-Assault-on-Truth/Peter-Oborne/9781398501003

    Oborne had previously written The Rise of Political Lying, covering the Major and Blair governments. Boris and Trump go far beyond that low standard.
    Absolutely nobody can go lower than Blair
    Read the book.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    The consequences of this will be interesting.
    As well as financially devastating for a very large number of people.

    Vote to protect leaseholders from cladding costs fails despite Tory rebellion
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/apr/27/vote-to-protect-leaseholders-from-cladding-costs-fails-despite-tory-rebellion

    It’s a difficult one this

    On the assumption (not given) that everyone has acted within the law and in good faith it seems very harsh - and financially devastating - to make leaseholders pay.

    And yet, if freeholders have followed the regulations it is tough to make them pay as well. And providing the manufacturers were making to the required standards then they haven’t broken any rules either.

    It seems to me that this is somewhere the government should step in as the insurer of last resort.
    I think it’s actually easier than that. The government’s own health and safety laws were being deliberately flouted by their own compliance teams, who were giving the incorrect advice as a result.

    So bluntly, it is the government’s fault.

    That’s not a partisan thing. It’s been happening for years under various governments. But it is a case where HMG needs to hold their hands up and accept liability.
    I haven’t dug into the detail. But if there is a guilty party they should pay
    I don't think the Grenfell tower inquiry has reported yet, but the testimony from how the manufacturers conducted their fire tests was quite shocking. I can see some law suits or even prosecutions there.

    If not negligent though the leaseholders should pay. Property ownership has liabilities as well as asset price rises.
    Except that arguably it should be the freeholder not the leaseholder.

    But it’s a change in government policy that is burdening these individuals with a life changing liability. That’s unjust.
    If the government is to pay for the liabilities of property owners, it should receive some of the capital gains too.

    Perhaps the government should pay, but have a percentage share in the asset value of the property when sold, being repaid that way.

    If not, then owners will be trousering capital gains on properties financed by the tax payer.
    It’s not a simple as that.

    - The government set regulations.
    - Those regulations were interpreted by government building inspectors
    - The inspectors told the developers that the buildings were in compliance even though they didn’t protect properly against the risks
    - developers used cheaper cladding relying on the building inspector guidance and certification
    - Freeholders relied on the developers a d the certification process
    - Leaseholders lawyers relied on the certification
    - Leaseholders relied on their lawyers

    Given that the fundamental issue is that the regulations didn’t provide sufficient protection despite being certified as compliant I don’t see why the leaseholder - who has acted in good faith - should bear all that risk
    That is a risk of property ownership. It goes alongside the capital gains.
    No, it’s not.

    An individual is entitled to rely on the certification process. If that is flawed then they are not responsible.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,575
    Alistair said:

    Also absolute lols. Biden is pushing a radical left wing agenda steamrolling the GOP and people think he is more moderate than Obama.

    New: Americans see Biden as more moderate than they saw Obama at the 100-day mark of his presidency, per NBC/WSJ polling.

    This perception is helping Biden hold centrist Dem votes for his ambitious agenda, including a stimulus ~2.5X bigger than Obama's.

    https://t.co/qJ5JyQrios

    Similarly PB Tories here who have not noticed Boris is not like other Conservative Premiers and was proposing massive public sector investment even before Covid. Or Labour supporters likewise. Such is the tribal nature of politics.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,753
    @Taz

    Lisa Nandy in all kinds of trouble on LBC over the should we send vaccines to India question.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    Foxy said:

    I see Boris apologists have moved on from yesterday’s insistence that there is no issue because Boris got the money from Tory HQ.

    I think the story has legs because while people don't relate to how Greensill became influential, they do understand that six figures is a lot of money to redecorate a flat. That Johnson expected someone else to pay does have a whiff of "let them eat cake" about it.
    I disagree. I think the only way it cuts through to voters is the “them and us” of any party in government “giving all the money to their friends”

    Labour should tie the governments cosy relationship with the money sloshing around in the lobby to BREXIT.

    Them and us.
    Giving all the money to their friends.
    Is this the Brexit Britain we were promised?
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    TOPPING said:

    @Taz

    Lisa Nandy in all kinds of trouble on LBC over the should we send vaccines to India question.

    How much of them came from there to start with?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,753
    gealbhan said:

    TOPPING said:

    @Taz

    Lisa Nandy in all kinds of trouble on LBC over the should we send vaccines to India question.

    How much of them came from there to start with?
    Was my thinking isn't that the big vaccine producer?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,069
    Foxy said:

    I see Boris apologists have moved on from yesterday’s insistence that there is no issue because Boris got the money from Tory HQ.

    I think the story has legs because while people don't relate to how Greensill became influential, they do understand that six figures is a lot of money to redecorate a flat. That Johnson expected someone else to pay does have a whiff of "let them eat cake" about it.
    There's also some low but real politics linking the cladding issue to the No 10 redecoration. Why spend a lot on Boris and Carrie's interior design tastes when normal people in normal flats are being hung out to dry?

    It's not a fair comparison, but politics isn't fair.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,428
    Hi PB. I have a dilemma.

    In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.

    What do I do? Nothing?

    I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?

    I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.

    Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.

    Thoughts?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,480

    Alistair said:

    Also absolute lols. Biden is pushing a radical left wing agenda steamrolling the GOP and people think he is more moderate than Obama.

    New: Americans see Biden as more moderate than they saw Obama at the 100-day mark of his presidency, per NBC/WSJ polling.

    This perception is helping Biden hold centrist Dem votes for his ambitious agenda, including a stimulus ~2.5X bigger than Obama's.

    https://t.co/qJ5JyQrios

    Similarly PB Tories here who have not noticed Boris is not like other Conservative Premiers and was proposing massive public sector investment even before Covid. Or Labour supporters likewise. Such is the tribal nature of politics.
    Yes, Johnson is used to buying favours off his mistresses, financed by others. As well as the Downing St flat, Ms Arcuri is a good example of the approach. Is it any wonder that he wants to run the national coffers the same way,?
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    TOPPING said:

    gealbhan said:

    TOPPING said:

    @Taz

    Lisa Nandy in all kinds of trouble on LBC over the should we send vaccines to India question.

    How much of them came from there to start with?
    Was my thinking isn't that the big vaccine producer?
    Isn’t part of our lumpy supply in UK because India held back on some promises, in a way that if EU done the same we would have nuked them?

    A bigger picture might be, you can vaccinate yourself before most other places, then have to put a lot of places on a no travel list to protect yourself from variants potentially undermining vaccine success. But then there is morality of vaccinated islands ring fencing themselves from the disease pits, which WHO is half outspoken about but the UK churches very quiet about so far.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,210
    Foxy said:

    Alistair said:

    Also absolute lols. Biden is pushing a radical left wing agenda steamrolling the GOP and people think he is more moderate than Obama.

    New: Americans see Biden as more moderate than they saw Obama at the 100-day mark of his presidency, per NBC/WSJ polling.

    This perception is helping Biden hold centrist Dem votes for his ambitious agenda, including a stimulus ~2.5X bigger than Obama's.

    https://t.co/qJ5JyQrios

    Similarly PB Tories here who have not noticed Boris is not like other Conservative Premiers and was proposing massive public sector investment even before Covid. Or Labour supporters likewise. Such is the tribal nature of politics.
    Yes, Johnson is used to buying favours off his mistresses, financed by others. As well as the Downing St flat, Ms Arcuri is a good example of the approach. Is it any wonder that he wants to run the national coffers the same way,?
    I'm not sure what you're calling Ms Arcuri here, Foxy
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,575
    TOPPING said:

    gealbhan said:

    TOPPING said:

    @Taz

    Lisa Nandy in all kinds of trouble on LBC over the should we send vaccines to India question.

    How much of them came from there to start with?
    Was my thinking isn't that the big vaccine producer?
    Aiui there have been production issues in India but also the US under that nice President Biden has been blocking exports of ingredients.
    https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/india-hopeful-us-will-soon-end-curbs-vaccine-raw-materials-export-govt-sources-2021-04-19/
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,895

    Hi PB. I have a dilemma.

    In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.

    What do I do? Nothing?

    I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?

    I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.

    Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.

    Thoughts?

    You should be paid overtime pro rata unless it's a management position (In which case the salary would be higher)
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    Taz said:

    "Corruption"

    He was given an award by Theresa May's government in 2017 and 2018
    He made a donation to Theresa May's constituency office.
    He gave £100,000 to the anti-Brexit Stronger In campaign.

    Nothing awarded to him by the pro-Brexit Johnson government on that list.

    Is that what you've got?
    Corruption is a very strong thing to allege with such little evidence that it is. It may or may not be, it doesn’t look like it to me. Labour and the Mail, for different reasons are trying to keep the story alive but in the absence of anything concrete I can’t see it going anywhere. It felt like Tuesdays Mail front page was simply trying to keep the story going and today’s is even more threadbare.
    Threadbare? 😂

    What a beautiful narrative for Labour to work everywhere and particularly the red wall

    Them and us.
    Giving all the money to their friends.
    Is this the Brexit Britain we were promised?

    😁
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,463

    Hi PB. I have a dilemma.

    In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.

    What do I do? Nothing?

    I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?

    I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.

    Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.

    Thoughts?

    Citizens Advice, also some of the Trade Unions have helplines...... if it is as blatant as you state the company may not even be aware. Keep a log of all hours worked (and any comms regarding working hours). Not an easy situation..
  • Hi PB. I have a dilemma.

    In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.

    What do I do? Nothing?

    I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?

    I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.

    Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.

    Thoughts?

    Work the hours you’re paid for? You aren’t a charity, they should pay you overtime or hours for extra holiday etc
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    gealbhan said:

    TOPPING said:

    gealbhan said:

    TOPPING said:

    @Taz

    Lisa Nandy in all kinds of trouble on LBC over the should we send vaccines to India question.

    How much of them came from there to start with?
    Was my thinking isn't that the big vaccine producer?
    Isn’t part of our lumpy supply in UK because India held back on some promises, in a way that if EU done the same we would have nuked them?

    A bigger picture might be, you can vaccinate yourself before most other places, then have to put a lot of places on a no travel list to protect yourself from variants potentially undermining vaccine success. But then there is morality of vaccinated islands ring fencing themselves from the disease pits, which WHO is half outspoken about but the UK churches very quiet about so far.
    We should be doing all we can to help India and help vaccinate the world but that doesn't mean halting our vaccination program.

    We need to eliminate the virus here, get back to work fully, and pay for and send as much vaccine supplies as we can around the world.

    The problem is that some people want to get their vaccine then pay attention to wallpaper instead of the rest of the world.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,375

    Foxy said:

    I see Boris apologists have moved on from yesterday’s insistence that there is no issue because Boris got the money from Tory HQ.

    I think the story has legs because while people don't relate to how Greensill became influential, they do understand that six figures is a lot of money to redecorate a flat. That Johnson expected someone else to pay does have a whiff of "let them eat cake" about it.
    There's also some low but real politics linking the cladding issue to the No 10 redecoration. Why spend a lot on Boris and Carrie's interior design tastes when normal people in normal flats are being hung out to dry?

    It's not a fair comparison, but politics isn't fair.
    Nobody seems to have a problem with the taxpayer paying fortunes to retile the floor at Westminster, why would they have a problem with the taxpayer paying nothing to redecorate a flat for our PM.

    Whatever the cost of the redecoration, it has cost the taxpayer nothing, zero, zilch. Wheres the problem??
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677

    Hi PB. I have a dilemma.

    In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.

    What do I do? Nothing?

    I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?

    I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.

    Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.

    Thoughts?

    Work 40 hours every week then just fuck around in the office for the rest of the time pretending to work. Think of it from a Marxist perspective; you're just taking back the excess value that was stolen from you by capital.

    Disclaimer: I've never had a real job and have no idea how all this shit works.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,428

    Hi PB. I have a dilemma.

    In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.

    What do I do? Nothing?

    I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?

    I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.

    Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.

    Thoughts?

    Work the hours you’re paid for? You aren’t a charity, they should pay you overtime or hours for extra holiday etc
    Yes but I’m realistic. Long hours for little pay are expected of someone early in their legal career, but I cant imagine a law firm would intentionally open themselves up to an unlawful deduction from wages claim unless the calculation is that it’s worth the liability.

    My initial thoughts are to just keep good records going forwards with the understanding I’ve agreed to make this sacrifice and be thankful i’m in the financial position to make such a sacrifice...
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Hi PB. I have a dilemma.

    In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.

    What do I do? Nothing?

    I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?

    I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.

    Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.

    Thoughts?

    You don’t raise it

    Presumably you are contracted for 35 hours pw plus occasionally more? In which case they are fine.

    Thinking of it like a foot in the door. And if they don’t resolve if once you have proved yourself then you move elsewhere

  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,210

    Foxy said:

    I see Boris apologists have moved on from yesterday’s insistence that there is no issue because Boris got the money from Tory HQ.

    I think the story has legs because while people don't relate to how Greensill became influential, they do understand that six figures is a lot of money to redecorate a flat. That Johnson expected someone else to pay does have a whiff of "let them eat cake" about it.
    There's also some low but real politics linking the cladding issue to the No 10 redecoration. Why spend a lot on Boris and Carrie's interior design tastes when normal people in normal flats are being hung out to dry?

    It's not a fair comparison, but politics isn't fair.
    There is an interesting item on Sky about how much the taxpayer is normally expected to pay for the PM of the day's questionable tastes http://news.sky.com/story/what-is-boris-johnsons-flat-refurb-like-and-how-much-did-previous-prime-ministers-spend-12288693
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,480

    Foxy said:

    I see Boris apologists have moved on from yesterday’s insistence that there is no issue because Boris got the money from Tory HQ.

    I think the story has legs because while people don't relate to how Greensill became influential, they do understand that six figures is a lot of money to redecorate a flat. That Johnson expected someone else to pay does have a whiff of "let them eat cake" about it.
    There's also some low but real politics linking the cladding issue to the No 10 redecoration. Why spend a lot on Boris and Carrie's interior design tastes when normal people in normal flats are being hung out to dry?

    It's not a fair comparison, but politics isn't fair.
    Nobody seems to have a problem with the taxpayer paying fortunes to retile the floor at Westminster, why would they have a problem with the taxpayer paying nothing to redecorate a flat for our PM.

    Whatever the cost of the redecoration, it has cost the taxpayer nothing, zero, zilch. Wheres the problem??
    Well, what we don't know is how the chumocracy repaid the donor from taxpayer funds.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,428
    edited April 2021
    Charles said:

    Hi PB. I have a dilemma.

    In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.

    What do I do? Nothing?

    I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?

    I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.

    Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.

    Thoughts?

    You don’t raise it

    Presumably you are contracted for 35 hours pw plus occasionally more? In which case they are fine.

    Thinking of it like a foot in the door. And if they don’t resolve if once you have proved yourself then you move elsewhere

    Presumably they are ‘fine’ only if my real hours don’t end up being 50-60 hours every week, which is what I am expecting.

    But you’re right that I think that is the best strategy.

    Thank you.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,210

    Foxy said:

    I see Boris apologists have moved on from yesterday’s insistence that there is no issue because Boris got the money from Tory HQ.

    I think the story has legs because while people don't relate to how Greensill became influential, they do understand that six figures is a lot of money to redecorate a flat. That Johnson expected someone else to pay does have a whiff of "let them eat cake" about it.
    There's also some low but real politics linking the cladding issue to the No 10 redecoration. Why spend a lot on Boris and Carrie's interior design tastes when normal people in normal flats are being hung out to dry?

    It's not a fair comparison, but politics isn't fair.
    Nobody seems to have a problem with the taxpayer paying fortunes to retile the floor at Westminster, why would they have a problem with the taxpayer paying nothing to redecorate a flat for our PM.

    Whatever the cost of the redecoration, it has cost the taxpayer nothing, zero, zilch. Wheres the problem??
    Actually do we know that? Maybe this is on top of the normal budget, which has already been covered by the taxpayer.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,080
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    The consequences of this will be interesting.
    As well as financially devastating for a very large number of people.

    Vote to protect leaseholders from cladding costs fails despite Tory rebellion
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/apr/27/vote-to-protect-leaseholders-from-cladding-costs-fails-despite-tory-rebellion

    It’s a difficult one this

    On the assumption (not given) that everyone has acted within the law and in good faith it seems very harsh - and financially devastating - to make leaseholders pay.

    And yet, if freeholders have followed the regulations it is tough to make them pay as well. And providing the manufacturers were making to the required standards then they haven’t broken any rules either.

    It seems to me that this is somewhere the government should step in as the insurer of last resort.
    I think it’s actually easier than that. The government’s own health and safety laws were being deliberately flouted by their own compliance teams, who were giving the incorrect advice as a result.

    So bluntly, it is the government’s fault.

    That’s not a partisan thing. It’s been happening for years under various governments. But it is a case where HMG needs to hold their hands up and accept liability.
    I haven’t dug into the detail. But if there is a guilty party they should pay
    I don't think the Grenfell tower inquiry has reported yet, but the testimony from how the manufacturers conducted their fire tests was quite shocking. I can see some law suits or even prosecutions there.

    If not negligent though the leaseholders should pay. Property ownership has liabilities as well as asset price rises.
    Hold on - even if the government and builders were not negligent, it depends on the lease. Aren’t external repairs usually the responsibility of the freeholder, not the leaseholder?
    I suppose that depends on the terms of the lease. If the freeholder, is liable I would expect a rise in the service charge. I don't see why the taxpayer should pay. Property ownership has liabilities, including unexpected expensive ones.
    Where do surveyors come into this?

    If I paid for a survey before buying a flat, and the survey didn't tell me the building was clad with a dangerous material that made it a death trap that would cost me a huge sum of money to put right, then I would be claiming on the surveyors insurance to remediate the situation following their failure to warn me of it.

    Why else pay a qualified professional for their expertise, if not to tell you about something as important as that?
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,690
    Nbvfh
    Charles said:

    Hi PB. I have a dilemma.

    In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.

    What do I do? Nothing?

    I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?

    I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.

    Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.

    Thoughts?

    You don’t raise it

    Presumably you are contracted for 35 hours pw plus occasionally more? In which case they are fine.

    Thinking of it like a foot in the door. And if they don’t resolve if once you have proved yourself then you move elsewhere

    Yes. Just get your first leg up the corporate greasy pole. Nothing fair about it but the higher you climb the less work you’ll do and the more you’ll earn. Think of the on the job training and cv experience as a non monetary benefit. And don’t stay too long if something better comes up.
  • Hi PB. I have a dilemma.

    In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.

    What do I do? Nothing?

    I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?

    I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.

    Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.

    Thoughts?

    Work the hours you’re paid for? You aren’t a charity, they should pay you overtime or hours for extra holiday etc
    Yes but I’m realistic. Long hours for little pay are expected of someone early in their legal career, but I cant imagine a law firm would intentionally open themselves up to an unlawful deduction from wages claim unless the calculation is that it’s worth the liability.

    My initial thoughts are to just keep good records going forwards with the understanding I’ve agreed to make this sacrifice and be thankful i’m in the financial position to make such a sacrifice...
    Sorry mate, didn't mean to sound preachy, that sounds sensible to me.

    Just don't get screwed over, I'm not a lawyer but early in my career and I was constantly working extra time and it wasn't worth it for the life I was missing out on. That's why I take quite a firm view on these things.

    But like I said, not a lawyer so don't know a lot about your position tbh, sorry for being unhelpful!
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,690

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    The consequences of this will be interesting.
    As well as financially devastating for a very large number of people.

    Vote to protect leaseholders from cladding costs fails despite Tory rebellion
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/apr/27/vote-to-protect-leaseholders-from-cladding-costs-fails-despite-tory-rebellion

    It’s a difficult one this

    On the assumption (not given) that everyone has acted within the law and in good faith it seems very harsh - and financially devastating - to make leaseholders pay.

    And yet, if freeholders have followed the regulations it is tough to make them pay as well. And providing the manufacturers were making to the required standards then they haven’t broken any rules either.

    It seems to me that this is somewhere the government should step in as the insurer of last resort.
    I think it’s actually easier than that. The government’s own health and safety laws were being deliberately flouted by their own compliance teams, who were giving the incorrect advice as a result.

    So bluntly, it is the government’s fault.

    That’s not a partisan thing. It’s been happening for years under various governments. But it is a case where HMG needs to hold their hands up and accept liability.
    I haven’t dug into the detail. But if there is a guilty party they should pay
    I don't think the Grenfell tower inquiry has reported yet, but the testimony from how the manufacturers conducted their fire tests was quite shocking. I can see some law suits or even prosecutions there.

    If not negligent though the leaseholders should pay. Property ownership has liabilities as well as asset price rises.
    Hold on - even if the government and builders were not negligent, it depends on the lease. Aren’t external repairs usually the responsibility of the freeholder, not the leaseholder?
    I suppose that depends on the terms of the lease. If the freeholder, is liable I would expect a rise in the service charge. I don't see why the taxpayer should pay. Property ownership has liabilities, including unexpected expensive ones.
    Where do surveyors come into this?

    If I paid for a survey before buying a flat, and the survey didn't tell me the building was clad with a dangerous material that made it a death trap that would cost me a huge sum of money to put right, then I would be claiming on the surveyors insurance to remediate the situation following their failure to warn me of it.

    Why else pay a qualified professional for their expertise, if not to tell you about something as important as that?
    I once had a surveyor that missed subsidence. Was told it would cost £30-50m to litigate with an evens chance of success.

    Personally I think the government should be underwriting the full cost and taking the entire equity value of any house builder concerned. It’s a scandal on the same scale as the banking crisis and deserves equivalent radicalism. But the story has been lost in the haze of the pandemic.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,575

    Hi PB. I have a dilemma.

    In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.

    What do I do? Nothing?

    I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?

    I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.

    Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.

    Thoughts?

    First, buy yourself a roll of Magic Whiteboards and some dry-wipe markers. Use them to map out this and any cases you later encounter.

    Now, if the firm is lowballing you, they will already know that, it is deliberate. Either they do not expect you to work excessive hours, or they do not expect you to stick around very long, or they will offer a large pay rise if they later decide they do want to keep you.

    So put all that and any points others raise onto your whiteboard, stand back and look at it.

    What do you want? When will you have enough experience to move to a better job? These are not the 1960s. You won't have a job for life, although as we remember from the debate on gender pay gaps, the way to end up in a good job earning good money is to move about.

    Oh, and whatever you decide, start another whiteboard, updating your case for a raise so you are ready in six months' time. And keep your cv up to date on your (and their) internal system: record every achievement.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Hi PB. I have a dilemma.

    In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.

    What do I do? Nothing?

    I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?

    I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.

    Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.

    Thoughts?

    You don’t raise it

    Presumably you are contracted for 35 hours pw plus occasionally more? In which case they are fine.

    Thinking of it like a foot in the door. And if they don’t resolve if once you have proved yourself then you move elsewhere

    Presumably they are ‘fine’ only if my real hours don’t end up being 50-60 hours every week, which is what I am expecting.

    But you’re right that I think that is the best strategy.

    Thank you.
    I’ve spent my entire career working 35+ occasionally extra

    My peak was 100+ hours a week. My average about 70 hours. Even now as a partner I work 50-60 hours a week. Of course I’m compensated for it, but taking a legal approach will be messy, hard to prove and would destroy your career regardless of whether you win or lose
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,895
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Hi PB. I have a dilemma.

    In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.

    What do I do? Nothing?

    I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?

    I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.

    Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.

    Thoughts?

    You don’t raise it

    Presumably you are contracted for 35 hours pw plus occasionally more? In which case they are fine.

    Thinking of it like a foot in the door. And if they don’t resolve if once you have proved yourself then you move elsewhere

    Presumably they are ‘fine’ only if my real hours don’t end up being 50-60 hours every week, which is what I am expecting.

    But you’re right that I think that is the best strategy.

    Thank you.
    I’ve spent my entire career working 35+ occasionally extra

    My peak was 100+ hours a week. My average about 70 hours. Even now as a partner I work 50-60 hours a week. Of course I’m compensated for it, but taking a legal approach will be messy, hard to prove and would destroy your career regardless of whether you win or lose
    Yes, but for less than NMW ?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,555

    Hi PB. I have a dilemma.

    In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.

    What do I do? Nothing?

    I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?

    I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.

    Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.

    Thoughts?

    Sound like a poor opportunity and a potentially exploitative employer. There is no excuse for not paying the NMW. It’s breaking the law. What else are they scrimping on? Safety?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    The consequences of this will be interesting.
    As well as financially devastating for a very large number of people.

    Vote to protect leaseholders from cladding costs fails despite Tory rebellion
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/apr/27/vote-to-protect-leaseholders-from-cladding-costs-fails-despite-tory-rebellion

    It’s a difficult one this

    On the assumption (not given) that everyone has acted within the law and in good faith it seems very harsh - and financially devastating - to make leaseholders pay.

    And yet, if freeholders have followed the regulations it is tough to make them pay as well. And providing the manufacturers were making to the required standards then they haven’t broken any rules either.

    It seems to me that this is somewhere the government should step in as the insurer of last resort.
    I think it’s actually easier than that. The government’s own health and safety laws were being deliberately flouted by their own compliance teams, who were giving the incorrect advice as a result.

    So bluntly, it is the government’s fault.

    That’s not a partisan thing. It’s been happening for years under various governments. But it is a case where HMG needs to hold their hands up and accept liability.
    I haven’t dug into the detail. But if there is a guilty party they should pay
    I don't think the Grenfell tower inquiry has reported yet, but the testimony from how the manufacturers conducted their fire tests was quite shocking. I can see some law suits or even prosecutions there.

    If not negligent though the leaseholders should pay. Property ownership has liabilities as well as asset price rises.
    Hold on - even if the government and builders were not negligent, it depends on the lease. Aren’t external repairs usually the responsibility of the freeholder, not the leaseholder?
    I suppose that depends on the terms of the lease. If the freeholder, is liable I would expect a rise in the service charge. I don't see why the taxpayer should pay. Property ownership has liabilities, including unexpected expensive ones.
    Where do surveyors come into this?

    If I paid for a survey before buying a flat, and the survey didn't tell me the building was clad with a dangerous material that made it a death trap that would cost me a huge sum of money to put right, then I would be claiming on the surveyors insurance to remediate the situation following their failure to warn me of it.

    Why else pay a qualified professional for their expertise, if not to tell you about something as important as that?
    Absolutely

    And their defence is that the building was signed off by the inspector as being compliant with the rules. So the insurance company rejects the claim.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,428
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Hi PB. I have a dilemma.

    In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.

    What do I do? Nothing?

    I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?

    I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.

    Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.

    Thoughts?

    You don’t raise it

    Presumably you are contracted for 35 hours pw plus occasionally more? In which case they are fine.

    Thinking of it like a foot in the door. And if they don’t resolve if once you have proved yourself then you move elsewhere

    Presumably they are ‘fine’ only if my real hours don’t end up being 50-60 hours every week, which is what I am expecting.

    But you’re right that I think that is the best strategy.

    Thank you.
    I’ve spent my entire career working 35+ occasionally extra

    My peak was 100+ hours a week. My average about 70 hours. Even now as a partner I work 50-60 hours a week. Of course I’m compensated for it, but taking a legal approach will be messy, hard to prove and would destroy your career regardless of whether you win or lose
    I have no delusions about attempting to sue a law firm as the first act of my already dead legal career Charles! I am not naive.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,231
    I suppose I don't really understand why a solution couldn't be found whereby the interior design bill could be spread over two more years. It was £58,000, so would have been paid off in two years of legitimate Cabinet office payments.
  • Taz said:

    I see Boris apologists have moved on from yesterday’s insistence that there is no issue because Boris got the money from Tory HQ.

    Well I’m not an apologist and have not voted Tory in my life but I am failing to see anything of any substance here merely opponents throwing as much mud as possible in the hope some sticks. There may be something to it but at the moment there isn’t. Like the Dyson story and other stories they are pretty much non events. Labour equating the Dyson call with 90s Tory sleaze is absurd.
    Tory sleaze of the 90s was pretty mild compared to this.

    None of these events in isolation - with the possible exception of "bodies piled high" are enough to sink Liar. But pile them all up and the smell eventually permeates even the most corked-up nostrils.

    The decorations thing is straightforward - in not declaring a loan the PM broke the ministerial code and in any other time would have to resign. So the issue is less about what brand of wallpaper NutNut used and more about the collapse in standards and propriety at the heart of government.

    From what I see on social media people get proper het up about their money being "wasted" and under the table agreements when its a Labour council, yet apply the exact opposite standards when its a Tory mayor or Tory government. Double standards may be easy to live with for partisan hypocrites but normal punters eventually take notice and say "hang on".
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Pulpstar said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Hi PB. I have a dilemma.

    In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.

    What do I do? Nothing?

    I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?

    I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.

    Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.

    Thoughts?

    You don’t raise it

    Presumably you are contracted for 35 hours pw plus occasionally more? In which case they are fine.

    Thinking of it like a foot in the door. And if they don’t resolve if once you have proved yourself then you move elsewhere

    Presumably they are ‘fine’ only if my real hours don’t end up being 50-60 hours every week, which is what I am expecting.

    But you’re right that I think that is the best strategy.

    Thank you.
    I’ve spent my entire career working 35+ occasionally extra

    My peak was 100+ hours a week. My average about 70 hours. Even now as a partner I work 50-60 hours a week. Of course I’m compensated for it, but taking a legal approach will be messy, hard to prove and would destroy your career regardless of whether you win or lose
    Yes, but for less than NMW ?
    My first job in the 1990s I was paid £27,000 per year + bonus. Assuming an 80 hour work week that’s 4,000 hours a year so about £6.75 per hour in salary (I think my bonus was about £11,000 from memory).

    A long time ago - and pre NMW - but probably not too far off what it would have been.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    On the cladding, the leaseholders will gain from the equity rise from fixing this, won't they? But that might not be realised for years until it gets sold?

    A reasonable compromise seems to me to have the government pay for it initially but putting a claim on the lease for when it gets sold next.
  • Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    The consequences of this will be interesting.
    As well as financially devastating for a very large number of people.

    Vote to protect leaseholders from cladding costs fails despite Tory rebellion
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/apr/27/vote-to-protect-leaseholders-from-cladding-costs-fails-despite-tory-rebellion

    It’s a difficult one this

    On the assumption (not given) that everyone has acted within the law and in good faith it seems very harsh - and financially devastating - to make leaseholders pay.

    And yet, if freeholders have followed the regulations it is tough to make them pay as well. And providing the manufacturers were making to the required standards then they haven’t broken any rules either.

    It seems to me that this is somewhere the government should step in as the insurer of last resort.
    I think it’s actually easier than that. The government’s own health and safety laws were being deliberately flouted by their own compliance teams, who were giving the incorrect advice as a result.

    So bluntly, it is the government’s fault.

    That’s not a partisan thing. It’s been happening for years under various governments. But it is a case where HMG needs to hold their hands up and accept liability.
    I haven’t dug into the detail. But if there is a guilty party they should pay
    I don't think the Grenfell tower inquiry has reported yet, but the testimony from how the manufacturers conducted their fire tests was quite shocking. I can see some law suits or even prosecutions there.

    If not negligent though the leaseholders should pay. Property ownership has liabilities as well as asset price rises.
    Except that arguably it should be the freeholder not the leaseholder.

    But it’s a change in government policy that is burdening these individuals with a life changing liability. That’s unjust.
    If the government is to pay for the liabilities of property owners, it should receive some of the capital gains too.

    Perhaps the government should pay, but have a percentage share in the asset value of the property when sold, being repaid that way.

    If not, then owners will be trousering capital gains on properties financed by the tax payer.
    It’s not a simple as that.

    - The government set regulations.
    - Those regulations were interpreted by government building inspectors
    - The inspectors told the developers that the buildings were in compliance even though they didn’t protect properly against the risks
    - developers used cheaper cladding relying on the building inspector guidance and certification
    - Freeholders relied on the developers a d the certification process
    - Leaseholders lawyers relied on the certification
    - Leaseholders relied on their lawyers

    Given that the fundamental issue is that the regulations didn’t provide sufficient protection despite being certified as compliant I don’t see why the leaseholder - who has acted in good faith - should bear all that risk
    Pragmatism is required. For the owners of these flats they find themselves inhabiting a worthless property that is a fire hazard. They don't care how this happened, they just need an out that doesn't involve personal bankruptsy. I take Foxy's points but frankly my perspective is that the government is endlessly and unjustifiably dragging its feet finding a solution in no part due to the sizeable donations it receives from the building industry.
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,463
    I see Arlene Foster and the DUP is currently suffering a little lovers remorse from their brush with the Conservative's oven ready BREXIT - another spurned ex of Boris Johnson?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,555

    Taz said:

    I see Boris apologists have moved on from yesterday’s insistence that there is no issue because Boris got the money from Tory HQ.

    Well I’m not an apologist and have not voted Tory in my life but I am failing to see anything of any substance here merely opponents throwing as much mud as possible in the hope some sticks. There may be something to it but at the moment there isn’t. Like the Dyson story and other stories they are pretty much non events. Labour equating the Dyson call with 90s Tory sleaze is absurd.
    Tory sleaze of the 90s was pretty mild compared to this.

    None of these events in isolation - with the possible exception of "bodies piled high" are enough to sink Liar. But pile them all up and the smell eventually permeates even the most corked-up nostrils.

    The decorations thing is straightforward - in not declaring a loan the PM broke the ministerial code and in any other time would have to resign. So the issue is less about what brand of wallpaper NutNut used and more about the collapse in standards and propriety at the heart of government.

    From what I see on social media people get proper het up about their money being "wasted" and under the table agreements when its a Labour council, yet apply the exact opposite standards when its a Tory mayor or Tory government. Double standards may be easy to live with for partisan hypocrites but normal punters eventually take notice and say "hang on".
    The rot has set in. It gets you in the end. What has been most striking about this episode is how Tory supporters are totally fine with it and have repeatedly gone on the record saying so.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,428
    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Hi PB. I have a dilemma.

    In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.

    What do I do? Nothing?

    I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?

    I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.

    Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.

    Thoughts?

    You don’t raise it

    Presumably you are contracted for 35 hours pw plus occasionally more? In which case they are fine.

    Thinking of it like a foot in the door. And if they don’t resolve if once you have proved yourself then you move elsewhere

    Presumably they are ‘fine’ only if my real hours don’t end up being 50-60 hours every week, which is what I am expecting.

    But you’re right that I think that is the best strategy.

    Thank you.
    I’ve spent my entire career working 35+ occasionally extra

    My peak was 100+ hours a week. My average about 70 hours. Even now as a partner I work 50-60 hours a week. Of course I’m compensated for it, but taking a legal approach will be messy, hard to prove and would destroy your career regardless of whether you win or lose
    Yes, but for less than NMW ?
    My first job in the 1990s I was paid £27,000 per year + bonus. Assuming an 80 hour work week that’s 4,000 hours a year so about £6.75 per hour in salary (I think my bonus was about £11,000 from memory).

    A long time ago - and pre NMW - but probably not too far off what it would have been.
    In today’s money that is well above NMW.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Taz said:

    I see Boris apologists have moved on from yesterday’s insistence that there is no issue because Boris got the money from Tory HQ.

    Well I’m not an apologist and have not voted Tory in my life but I am failing to see anything of any substance here merely opponents throwing as much mud as possible in the hope some sticks. There may be something to it but at the moment there isn’t. Like the Dyson story and other stories they are pretty much non events. Labour equating the Dyson call with 90s Tory sleaze is absurd.
    Tory sleaze of the 90s was pretty mild compared to this.

    None of these events in isolation - with the possible exception of "bodies piled high" are enough to sink Liar. But pile them all up and the smell eventually permeates even the most corked-up nostrils.

    The decorations thing is straightforward - in not declaring a loan the PM broke the ministerial code and in any other time would have to resign. So the issue is less about what brand of wallpaper NutNut used and more about the collapse in standards and propriety at the heart of government.

    From what I see on social media people get proper het up about their money being "wasted" and under the table agreements when its a Labour council, yet apply the exact opposite standards when its a Tory mayor or Tory government. Double standards may be easy to live with for partisan hypocrites but normal punters eventually take notice and say "hang on".
    What is the timing on declaration? Another complaint is the updated register hasn’t been published - in which case he may have declared but it’s not been published yet (the last one was July 2020 and I think the loan was sometime between July and October?)
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,162
    gealbhan said:

    TOPPING said:

    gealbhan said:

    TOPPING said:

    @Taz

    Lisa Nandy in all kinds of trouble on LBC over the should we send vaccines to India question.

    How much of them came from there to start with?
    Was my thinking isn't that the big vaccine producer?
    Isn’t part of our lumpy supply in UK because India held back on some promises, in a way that if EU done the same we would have nuked them?

    A bigger picture might be, you can vaccinate yourself before most other places, then have to put a lot of places on a no travel list to protect yourself from variants potentially undermining vaccine success. But then there is morality of vaccinated islands ring fencing themselves from the disease pits, which WHO is half outspoken about but the UK churches very quiet about so far.

    The serum institute had a fire which put back production.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,162
    TOPPING said:

    @Taz

    Lisa Nandy in all kinds of trouble on LBC over the should we send vaccines to India question.

    Clearly I spoke too soon !!
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,555
    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Hi PB. I have a dilemma.

    In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.

    What do I do? Nothing?

    I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?

    I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.

    Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.

    Thoughts?

    You don’t raise it

    Presumably you are contracted for 35 hours pw plus occasionally more? In which case they are fine.

    Thinking of it like a foot in the door. And if they don’t resolve if once you have proved yourself then you move elsewhere

    Presumably they are ‘fine’ only if my real hours don’t end up being 50-60 hours every week, which is what I am expecting.

    But you’re right that I think that is the best strategy.

    Thank you.
    I’ve spent my entire career working 35+ occasionally extra

    My peak was 100+ hours a week. My average about 70 hours. Even now as a partner I work 50-60 hours a week. Of course I’m compensated for it, but taking a legal approach will be messy, hard to prove and would destroy your career regardless of whether you win or lose
    Yes, but for less than NMW ?
    My first job in the 1990s I was paid £27,000 per year + bonus. Assuming an 80 hour work week that’s 4,000 hours a year so about £6.75 per hour in salary (I think my bonus was about £11,000 from memory).

    A long time ago - and pre NMW - but probably not too far off what it would have been.
    That was a lot of money. Starting out not around today’s median income, albeit 20-30 years ago.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,895
    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Hi PB. I have a dilemma.

    In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.

    What do I do? Nothing?

    I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?

    I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.

    Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.

    Thoughts?

    You don’t raise it

    Presumably you are contracted for 35 hours pw plus occasionally more? In which case they are fine.

    Thinking of it like a foot in the door. And if they don’t resolve if once you have proved yourself then you move elsewhere

    Presumably they are ‘fine’ only if my real hours don’t end up being 50-60 hours every week, which is what I am expecting.

    But you’re right that I think that is the best strategy.

    Thank you.
    I’ve spent my entire career working 35+ occasionally extra

    My peak was 100+ hours a week. My average about 70 hours. Even now as a partner I work 50-60 hours a week. Of course I’m compensated for it, but taking a legal approach will be messy, hard to prove and would destroy your career regardless of whether you win or lose
    Yes, but for less than NMW ?
    My first job in the 1990s I was paid £27,000 per year + bonus. Assuming an 80 hour work week that’s 4,000 hours a year so about £6.75 per hour in salary (I think my bonus was about £11,000 from memory).

    A long time ago - and pre NMW - but probably not too far off what it would have been.
    LOL - That's ~ £50k in today's money depending on how late in the 90s this was.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Charles said:

    Taz said:

    I see Boris apologists have moved on from yesterday’s insistence that there is no issue because Boris got the money from Tory HQ.

    Well I’m not an apologist and have not voted Tory in my life but I am failing to see anything of any substance here merely opponents throwing as much mud as possible in the hope some sticks. There may be something to it but at the moment there isn’t. Like the Dyson story and other stories they are pretty much non events. Labour equating the Dyson call with 90s Tory sleaze is absurd.
    Tory sleaze of the 90s was pretty mild compared to this.

    None of these events in isolation - with the possible exception of "bodies piled high" are enough to sink Liar. But pile them all up and the smell eventually permeates even the most corked-up nostrils.

    The decorations thing is straightforward - in not declaring a loan the PM broke the ministerial code and in any other time would have to resign. So the issue is less about what brand of wallpaper NutNut used and more about the collapse in standards and propriety at the heart of government.

    From what I see on social media people get proper het up about their money being "wasted" and under the table agreements when its a Labour council, yet apply the exact opposite standards when its a Tory mayor or Tory government. Double standards may be easy to live with for partisan hypocrites but normal punters eventually take notice and say "hang on".
    What is the timing on declaration? Another complaint is the updated register hasn’t been published - in which case he may have declared but it’s not been published yet (the last one was July 2020 and I think the loan was sometime between July and October?)
    Precisely. It's already been said that any declarations will be made in due course. In due course doesn't mean they have to be declared prematurely.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,190
    Charles said:

    Hi PB. I have a dilemma.

    In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.

    What do I do? Nothing?

    I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?

    I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.

    Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.

    Thoughts?

    You don’t raise it

    Presumably you are contracted for 35 hours pw plus occasionally more? In which case they are fine.

    Thinking of it like a foot in the door. And if they don’t resolve if once you have proved yourself then you move elsewhere

    Very sound advice.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,480

    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Hi PB. I have a dilemma.

    In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.

    What do I do? Nothing?

    I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?

    I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.

    Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.

    Thoughts?

    You don’t raise it

    Presumably you are contracted for 35 hours pw plus occasionally more? In which case they are fine.

    Thinking of it like a foot in the door. And if they don’t resolve if once you have proved yourself then you move elsewhere

    Presumably they are ‘fine’ only if my real hours don’t end up being 50-60 hours every week, which is what I am expecting.

    But you’re right that I think that is the best strategy.

    Thank you.
    I’ve spent my entire career working 35+ occasionally extra

    My peak was 100+ hours a week. My average about 70 hours. Even now as a partner I work 50-60 hours a week. Of course I’m compensated for it, but taking a legal approach will be messy, hard to prove and would destroy your career regardless of whether you win or lose
    Yes, but for less than NMW ?
    My first job in the 1990s I was paid £27,000 per year + bonus. Assuming an 80 hour work week that’s 4,000 hours a year so about £6.75 per hour in salary (I think my bonus was about £11,000 from memory).

    A long time ago - and pre NMW - but probably not too far off what it would have been.
    In today’s money that is well above NMW.
    Fox Jr works as an entry level paralegal at NMW, but bills his hours as worked. After all, isn't that how partners charge clients?

    It doesn't seem to be a point of conflict, and the company values the work he does.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,080
    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Hi PB. I have a dilemma.

    In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.

    What do I do? Nothing?

    I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?

    I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.

    Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.

    Thoughts?

    You don’t raise it

    Presumably you are contracted for 35 hours pw plus occasionally more? In which case they are fine.

    Thinking of it like a foot in the door. And if they don’t resolve if once you have proved yourself then you move elsewhere

    Presumably they are ‘fine’ only if my real hours don’t end up being 50-60 hours every week, which is what I am expecting.

    But you’re right that I think that is the best strategy.

    Thank you.
    I’ve spent my entire career working 35+ occasionally extra

    My peak was 100+ hours a week. My average about 70 hours. Even now as a partner I work 50-60 hours a week. Of course I’m compensated for it, but taking a legal approach will be messy, hard to prove and would destroy your career regardless of whether you win or lose
    Yes, but for less than NMW ?
    My first job in the 1990s I was paid £27,000 per year + bonus. Assuming an 80 hour work week that’s 4,000 hours a year so about £6.75 per hour in salary (I think my bonus was about £11,000 from memory).

    A long time ago - and pre NMW - but probably not too far off what it would have been.
    The first national minimum wage rate, in 1999, was £3.60 for those aged 22+, and £3.00 for those 18-21.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Hi PB. I have a dilemma.

    In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.

    What do I do? Nothing?

    I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?

    I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.

    Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.

    Thoughts?

    You don’t raise it

    Presumably you are contracted for 35 hours pw plus occasionally more? In which case they are fine.

    Thinking of it like a foot in the door. And if they don’t resolve if once you have proved yourself then you move elsewhere

    Presumably they are ‘fine’ only if my real hours don’t end up being 50-60 hours every week, which is what I am expecting.

    But you’re right that I think that is the best strategy.

    Thank you.
    I’ve spent my entire career working 35+ occasionally extra

    My peak was 100+ hours a week. My average about 70 hours. Even now as a partner I work 50-60 hours a week. Of course I’m compensated for it, but taking a legal approach will be messy, hard to prove and would destroy your career regardless of whether you win or lose
    Yes, but for less than NMW ?
    My first job in the 1990s I was paid £27,000 per year + bonus. Assuming an 80 hour work week that’s 4,000 hours a year so about £6.75 per hour in salary (I think my bonus was about £11,000 from memory).

    A long time ago - and pre NMW - but probably not too far off what it would have been.
    Astoundingly out of touch. The minimum wage in 1999 was £3.60
  • Jonathan said:

    Taz said:

    I see Boris apologists have moved on from yesterday’s insistence that there is no issue because Boris got the money from Tory HQ.

    Well I’m not an apologist and have not voted Tory in my life but I am failing to see anything of any substance here merely opponents throwing as much mud as possible in the hope some sticks. There may be something to it but at the moment there isn’t. Like the Dyson story and other stories they are pretty much non events. Labour equating the Dyson call with 90s Tory sleaze is absurd.
    Tory sleaze of the 90s was pretty mild compared to this.

    None of these events in isolation - with the possible exception of "bodies piled high" are enough to sink Liar. But pile them all up and the smell eventually permeates even the most corked-up nostrils.

    The decorations thing is straightforward - in not declaring a loan the PM broke the ministerial code and in any other time would have to resign. So the issue is less about what brand of wallpaper NutNut used and more about the collapse in standards and propriety at the heart of government.

    From what I see on social media people get proper het up about their money being "wasted" and under the table agreements when its a Labour council, yet apply the exact opposite standards when its a Tory mayor or Tory government. Double standards may be easy to live with for partisan hypocrites but normal punters eventually take notice and say "hang on".
    The rot has set in. It gets you in the end. What has been most striking about this episode is how Tory supporters are totally fine with it and have repeatedly gone on the record saying so.
    The judgment will be made on the 6th May across the UK

    And then conclusions may be drawn
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,480

    Charles said:

    Hi PB. I have a dilemma.

    In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.

    What do I do? Nothing?

    I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?

    I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.

    Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.

    Thoughts?

    You don’t raise it

    Presumably you are contracted for 35 hours pw plus occasionally more? In which case they are fine.

    Thinking of it like a foot in the door. And if they don’t resolve if once you have proved yourself then you move elsewhere

    Very sound advice.
    And extremely commonly done across a range of professions.

    It is one of the sifting methods used by the professions (including my own) as a way of restricting social mobility. Not everyone can afford to work for a pittance in order to curry favour with the big boss, in the expectation of rewards down the line. Middle class people can afford to do so, and it keeps the hoi polloi out.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,599

    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Hi PB. I have a dilemma.

    In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.

    What do I do? Nothing?

    I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?

    I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.

    Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.

    Thoughts?

    You don’t raise it

    Presumably you are contracted for 35 hours pw plus occasionally more? In which case they are fine.

    Thinking of it like a foot in the door. And if they don’t resolve if once you have proved yourself then you move elsewhere

    Presumably they are ‘fine’ only if my real hours don’t end up being 50-60 hours every week, which is what I am expecting.

    But you’re right that I think that is the best strategy.

    Thank you.
    I’ve spent my entire career working 35+ occasionally extra

    My peak was 100+ hours a week. My average about 70 hours. Even now as a partner I work 50-60 hours a week. Of course I’m compensated for it, but taking a legal approach will be messy, hard to prove and would destroy your career regardless of whether you win or lose
    Yes, but for less than NMW ?
    My first job in the 1990s I was paid £27,000 per year + bonus. Assuming an 80 hour work week that’s 4,000 hours a year so about £6.75 per hour in salary (I think my bonus was about £11,000 from memory).

    A long time ago - and pre NMW - but probably not too far off what it would have been.
    The first national minimum wage rate, in 1999, was £3.60 for those aged 22+, and £3.00 for those 18-21.
    Wow, and that was thought radical. Unskilled temp jobs in London at the time were paying £5-6 ph, but basic knowledge of Excel or Word would have taken a similar temp job to £6-8ph. Guess those equivalent temp jobs are now very close to NMW instead of 1.5-2.5x the rate.
  • Charles said:

    Taz said:

    I see Boris apologists have moved on from yesterday’s insistence that there is no issue because Boris got the money from Tory HQ.

    Well I’m not an apologist and have not voted Tory in my life but I am failing to see anything of any substance here merely opponents throwing as much mud as possible in the hope some sticks. There may be something to it but at the moment there isn’t. Like the Dyson story and other stories they are pretty much non events. Labour equating the Dyson call with 90s Tory sleaze is absurd.
    Tory sleaze of the 90s was pretty mild compared to this.

    None of these events in isolation - with the possible exception of "bodies piled high" are enough to sink Liar. But pile them all up and the smell eventually permeates even the most corked-up nostrils.

    The decorations thing is straightforward - in not declaring a loan the PM broke the ministerial code and in any other time would have to resign. So the issue is less about what brand of wallpaper NutNut used and more about the collapse in standards and propriety at the heart of government.

    From what I see on social media people get proper het up about their money being "wasted" and under the table agreements when its a Labour council, yet apply the exact opposite standards when its a Tory mayor or Tory government. Double standards may be easy to live with for partisan hypocrites but normal punters eventually take notice and say "hang on".
    What is the timing on declaration? Another complaint is the updated register hasn’t been published - in which case he may have declared but it’s not been published yet (the last one was July 2020 and I think the loan was sometime between July and October?)
    Its 28 days. It doesn't matter whether an update has been published, its whether the interest has been declared and registered in time. It wasn't.

    I quote from the forward to the Ministerial Code written by a certain Boris Johnson, with my emphasis in bold:

    There must be no bullying and no harassment; no leaking; no breach of collective responsibility. No misuse of taxpayer money and no actual or perceived conflicts of interest. The precious principles of public life enshrined in this document –integrity, objectivity, accountability, transparency, honesty and leadership in the public interest –must be honoured at all times.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Hi PB. I have a dilemma.

    In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.

    What do I do? Nothing?

    I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?

    I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.

    Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.

    Thoughts?

    You don’t raise it

    Presumably you are contracted for 35 hours pw plus occasionally more? In which case they are fine.

    Thinking of it like a foot in the door. And if they don’t resolve if once you have proved yourself then you move elsewhere

    Presumably they are ‘fine’ only if my real hours don’t end up being 50-60 hours every week, which is what I am expecting.

    But you’re right that I think that is the best strategy.

    Thank you.
    I’ve spent my entire career working 35+ occasionally extra

    My peak was 100+ hours a week. My average about 70 hours. Even now as a partner I work 50-60 hours a week. Of course I’m compensated for it, but taking a legal approach will be messy, hard to prove and would destroy your career regardless of whether you win or lose
    Yes, but for less than NMW ?
    My first job in the 1990s I was paid £27,000 per year + bonus. Assuming an 80 hour work week that’s 4,000 hours a year so about £6.75 per hour in salary (I think my bonus was about £11,000 from memory).

    A long time ago - and pre NMW - but probably not too far off what it would have been.
    In today’s money that is well above NMW.
    Not really - it’s probably about £10per hour
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,428
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Hi PB. I have a dilemma.

    In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.

    What do I do? Nothing?

    I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?

    I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.

    Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.

    Thoughts?

    You don’t raise it

    Presumably you are contracted for 35 hours pw plus occasionally more? In which case they are fine.

    Thinking of it like a foot in the door. And if they don’t resolve if once you have proved yourself then you move elsewhere

    Presumably they are ‘fine’ only if my real hours don’t end up being 50-60 hours every week, which is what I am expecting.

    But you’re right that I think that is the best strategy.

    Thank you.
    I’ve spent my entire career working 35+ occasionally extra

    My peak was 100+ hours a week. My average about 70 hours. Even now as a partner I work 50-60 hours a week. Of course I’m compensated for it, but taking a legal approach will be messy, hard to prove and would destroy your career regardless of whether you win or lose
    Yes, but for less than NMW ?
    My first job in the 1990s I was paid £27,000 per year + bonus. Assuming an 80 hour work week that’s 4,000 hours a year so about £6.75 per hour in salary (I think my bonus was about £11,000 from memory).

    A long time ago - and pre NMW - but probably not too far off what it would have been.
    In today’s money that is well above NMW.
    Not really - it’s probably about £10per hour
    At least over 10% higher which, depending on your frame of reference, is quite significant.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,753
    edited April 2021

    Hi PB. I have a dilemma.

    In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.

    What do I do? Nothing?

    I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?

    I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.

    Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.

    Thoughts?

    Work the hours you’re paid for? You aren’t a charity, they should pay you overtime or hours for extra holiday etc
    Yes but I’m realistic. Long hours for little pay are expected of someone early in their legal career, but I cant imagine a law firm would intentionally open themselves up to an unlawful deduction from wages claim unless the calculation is that it’s worth the liability.

    My initial thoughts are to just keep good records going forwards with the understanding I’ve agreed to make this sacrifice and be thankful i’m in the financial position to make such a sacrifice...
    Good plan. Work your bollocks off, make an impression, record it all vs your contract.

    Then either you will progress making this an amusing anecdote told from your chateau in years to come or move somewhere else having made an impression as a hard worker who gets things done.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Pulpstar said:

    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Hi PB. I have a dilemma.

    In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.

    What do I do? Nothing?

    I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?

    I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.

    Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.

    Thoughts?

    You don’t raise it

    Presumably you are contracted for 35 hours pw plus occasionally more? In which case they are fine.

    Thinking of it like a foot in the door. And if they don’t resolve if once you have proved yourself then you move elsewhere

    Presumably they are ‘fine’ only if my real hours don’t end up being 50-60 hours every week, which is what I am expecting.

    But you’re right that I think that is the best strategy.

    Thank you.
    I’ve spent my entire career working 35+ occasionally extra

    My peak was 100+ hours a week. My average about 70 hours. Even now as a partner I work 50-60 hours a week. Of course I’m compensated for it, but taking a legal approach will be messy, hard to prove and would destroy your career regardless of whether you win or lose
    Yes, but for less than NMW ?
    My first job in the 1990s I was paid £27,000 per year + bonus. Assuming an 80 hour work week that’s 4,000 hours a year so about £6.75 per hour in salary (I think my bonus was about £11,000 from memory).

    A long time ago - and pre NMW - but probably not too far off what it would have been.
    LOL - That's ~ £50k in today's money depending on how late in the 90s this was.
    Probably closer to £40-45k

    And then halve it to adjust for the hours worked.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,320
    European Parliament vote:

    660 MEPs vote in favour of the UK trade deal, 5 against with 32 abstentions, officials say.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Alistair said:

    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Hi PB. I have a dilemma.

    In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.

    What do I do? Nothing?

    I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?

    I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.

    Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.

    Thoughts?

    You don’t raise it

    Presumably you are contracted for 35 hours pw plus occasionally more? In which case they are fine.

    Thinking of it like a foot in the door. And if they don’t resolve if once you have proved yourself then you move elsewhere

    Presumably they are ‘fine’ only if my real hours don’t end up being 50-60 hours every week, which is what I am expecting.

    But you’re right that I think that is the best strategy.

    Thank you.
    I’ve spent my entire career working 35+ occasionally extra

    My peak was 100+ hours a week. My average about 70 hours. Even now as a partner I work 50-60 hours a week. Of course I’m compensated for it, but taking a legal approach will be messy, hard to prove and would destroy your career regardless of whether you win or lose
    Yes, but for less than NMW ?
    My first job in the 1990s I was paid £27,000 per year + bonus. Assuming an 80 hour work week that’s 4,000 hours a year so about £6.75 per hour in salary (I think my bonus was about £11,000 from memory).

    A long time ago - and pre NMW - but probably not too far off what it would have been.
    Astoundingly out of touch. The minimum wage in 1999 was £3.60
    That’s offensive.

    How many people know what the national minimum wage was 20 years ago without checking?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Hi PB. I have a dilemma.

    In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.

    What do I do? Nothing?

    I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?

    I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.

    Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.

    Thoughts?

    You don’t raise it

    Presumably you are contracted for 35 hours pw plus occasionally more? In which case they are fine.

    Thinking of it like a foot in the door. And if they don’t resolve if once you have proved yourself then you move elsewhere

    Presumably they are ‘fine’ only if my real hours don’t end up being 50-60 hours every week, which is what I am expecting.

    But you’re right that I think that is the best strategy.

    Thank you.
    I’ve spent my entire career working 35+ occasionally extra

    My peak was 100+ hours a week. My average about 70 hours. Even now as a partner I work 50-60 hours a week. Of course I’m compensated for it, but taking a legal approach will be messy, hard to prove and would destroy your career regardless of whether you win or lose
    Yes, but for less than NMW ?
    My first job in the 1990s I was paid £27,000 per year + bonus. Assuming an 80 hour work week that’s 4,000 hours a year so about £6.75 per hour in salary (I think my bonus was about £11,000 from memory).

    A long time ago - and pre NMW - but probably not too far off what it would have been.
    The first national minimum wage rate, in 1999, was £3.60 for those aged 22+, and £3.00 for those 18-21.
    I got my first job as a 17 year old in 2000 (while those rates still applied) at the Co-op. They paid £2 per hour.

    Made me think the Co-op's claims of being ethical etc were quite laughable.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,706
    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Hi PB. I have a dilemma.

    In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.

    What do I do? Nothing?

    I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?

    I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.

    Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.

    Thoughts?

    You don’t raise it

    Presumably you are contracted for 35 hours pw plus occasionally more? In which case they are fine.

    Thinking of it like a foot in the door. And if they don’t resolve if once you have proved yourself then you move elsewhere

    Presumably they are ‘fine’ only if my real hours don’t end up being 50-60 hours every week, which is what I am expecting.

    But you’re right that I think that is the best strategy.

    Thank you.
    I’ve spent my entire career working 35+ occasionally extra

    My peak was 100+ hours a week. My average about 70 hours. Even now as a partner I work 50-60 hours a week. Of course I’m compensated for it, but taking a legal approach will be messy, hard to prove and would destroy your career regardless of whether you win or lose
    Yes, but for less than NMW ?
    My first job in the 1990s I was paid £27,000 per year + bonus. Assuming an 80 hour work week that’s 4,000 hours a year so about £6.75 per hour in salary (I think my bonus was about £11,000 from memory).

    A long time ago - and pre NMW - but probably not too far off what it would have been.
    LOL - That's ~ £50k in today's money depending on how late in the 90s this was.
    Probably closer to £40-45k

    And then halve it to adjust for the hours worked.
    My first job after school before I went to University in 1978 paid £23 a week. It was an excellent investment though because my wife gets a laugh about me working in a DIY shop to this day.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,555
    TOPPING said:

    Hi PB. I have a dilemma.

    In my new job, I’ve just worked out that if I work more than 40 hours per week, which I presume will be most weeks, I’m going to be getting paid less than the NMW.

    What do I do? Nothing?

    I’ve already accepted and are quite frankly willing to work for the low number as a chance to prove my worth and get a foot in the door. However do I inform them of this glaring potential liability?

    I dont want to risk having the offer withdrawn.

    Perhaps I can use this in 6 months to help justify a case for a raise, but I don’t want it to come across like a threat.

    Thoughts?

    Work the hours you’re paid for? You aren’t a charity, they should pay you overtime or hours for extra holiday etc
    Yes but I’m realistic. Long hours for little pay are expected of someone early in their legal career, but I cant imagine a law firm would intentionally open themselves up to an unlawful deduction from wages claim unless the calculation is that it’s worth the liability.

    My initial thoughts are to just keep good records going forwards with the understanding I’ve agreed to make this sacrifice and be thankful i’m in the financial position to make such a sacrifice...
    Good plan. Work your bollocks off, make an impression, record it all vs your contract.

    Then either you will progress making this an amusing anecdote told from your chateau in years to come or move somewhere else having made an impression as a hard worker who gets things done.
    If the employer can’t get the legal basics right, it’s not a well run business and you have to question what opportunities it truly offers the hard working employee.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,279
    edited April 2021
    Alistair said:

    Also absolute lols. Biden is pushing a radical left wing agenda steamrolling the GOP and people think he is more moderate than Obama.

    New: Americans see Biden as more moderate than they saw Obama at the 100-day mark of his presidency, per NBC/WSJ polling.

    This perception is helping Biden hold centrist Dem votes for his ambitious agenda, including a stimulus ~2.5X bigger than Obama's.

    https://t.co/qJ5JyQrios

    Economically Biden might be left of Obama (though Obama too still pushed through tax hikes on the rich, more spending and Obamacare in his first 2 years when his party held Congress).

    Socially Biden is more conservative than Obama, he has in the past supported the Hyde amendment which restricted taxpayer funding for abortions as a practising Catholic, though has moved away from that in order to appease the party base and he is also less woke than the likes of AOC are certainly.

    Biden has also just struck a deal with Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala to increase security and cut migration to the US at its southern border.
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/12/biden-migration-security-deal-mexico-guatemala-honduras

    Biden also voted for the Iraq War when Obama opposed it even before the invasion.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,190
    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    The consequences of this will be interesting.
    As well as financially devastating for a very large number of people.

    Vote to protect leaseholders from cladding costs fails despite Tory rebellion
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/apr/27/vote-to-protect-leaseholders-from-cladding-costs-fails-despite-tory-rebellion

    It’s a difficult one this

    On the assumption (not given) that everyone has acted within the law and in good faith it seems very harsh - and financially devastating - to make leaseholders pay.

    And yet, if freeholders have followed the regulations it is tough to make them pay as well. And providing the manufacturers were making to the required standards then they haven’t broken any rules either.

    It seems to me that this is somewhere the government should step in as the insurer of last resort.
    I think it’s actually easier than that. The government’s own health and safety laws were being deliberately flouted by their own compliance teams, who were giving the incorrect advice as a result.

    So bluntly, it is the government’s fault.

    That’s not a partisan thing. It’s been happening for years under various governments. But it is a case where HMG needs to hold their hands up and accept liability.
    I haven’t dug into the detail. But if there is a guilty party they should pay
    I don't think the Grenfell tower inquiry has reported yet, but the testimony from how the manufacturers conducted their fire tests was quite shocking. I can see some law suits or even prosecutions there.

    If not negligent though the leaseholders should pay. Property ownership has liabilities as well as asset price rises.
    Isn't it somewhat different, if as the homeowner, one was compelled to allow one's property to be covered in something with the same combustion features as paraffin wax, in order for the property to look easier on the council's eye?

    As a free holder if I choose to clad my property in fire lighters, it is my choice, and when the folly of my actions become clear, it is indeed my responsibility to rectify the error.
This discussion has been closed.