politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Kamala Harris edging down in the Dem VP betting with Susan Ric
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Kamala Harris edging down in the Dem VP betting with Susan Rice continuing to advance
With Joe Biden expected to announce his VP choice within the next fortnight there’s been a lot of movement on the Betfair market where Kamala Harris has edged downwards from a 60%+ chance to a 37% one. A big driver is the money now going on Susan rice who is now rated on the markets as having a 25% chance.
0
Comments
-
Re Susan Harris, consider me skeptical, for number of reasons:
> Biden has demonstrated ability to pull Black voters, at levels that rival Bill Clinton and exceed Hillary; little to no evidence a Black VP would boost Joe much more
> Biden has northeast pretty much sewn up, Harris is from DC which will vote for Joe whomever he picks for VP.
> Biden has decades of federal experience, including service on Senate Foreign Relations committee and hanging with Barrack in situation rooms & secret bunkers
> Country is NOT interested in foreign affairs right now, and no reason to bring it up (folks scared of Trumpsky's finger on the trigger already in Joe's camp); on other hand, PLENTY of reasons NOT to bring up Benghazi and Syria, which nomination of Susan Rice would revive as major GOP talking points
> Most Democrats - also Independents & Republicans - about as eager for a Black Dick Cheney as they are for a return of the White one.1 -
Re: Kamala Harris, she's never been on yours truly's list (does anyone have Joe's cell # handy?).
However, note that fact she landed a pretty good punch against Biden in the debates, is a sign that she might just land some blow against both Trumpsky and Bobblehead in the general.0 -
According to a report from Reuters a couple of days ago:
Biden ... said this week he expected the background vetting process to conclude around July 24. He would then interview each finalist before making a decision, expected by early August.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-election-biden-running-mate/biden-facing-pressure-within-party-as-running-mate-search-enters-final-phase-idUKKCN24I17Y
0 -
The risk with Kamala Harris, or Elizabeth Warren for the same reason, is the Trump team playing the tapes of Democrat debates where the VP nominee lays into Biden. The issue won't matter.SeaShantyIrish2 said:Re: Kamala Harris, she's never been on yours truly's list (does anyone have Joe's cell # handy?).
However, note that fact she landed a pretty good punch against Biden in the debates, is a sign that she might just land some blow against both Trumpsky and Bobblehead in the general.0 -
We should perhaps remember the incoming President will have a whole Cabinet to fill, and it is easy to see, for instance, Rice as Secretary of State or even Chief of Staff if Biden really does want her counsel every day, or Harris as Attorney General.SeaShantyIrish2 said:Re Susan Harris, consider me skeptical, for number of reasons:
> Biden has demonstrated ability to pull Black voters, at levels that rival Bill Clinton and exceed Hillary; little to no evidence a Black VP would boost Joe much more
> Biden has northeast pretty much sewn up, Harris is from DC which will vote for Joe whomever he picks for VP.
> Biden has decades of federal experience, including service on Senate Foreign Relations committee and hanging with Barrack in situation rooms & secret bunkers
> Country is NOT interested in foreign affairs right now, and no reason to bring it up (folks scared of Trumpsky's finger on the trigger already in Joe's camp); on other hand, PLENTY of reasons NOT to bring up Benghazi and Syria, which nomination of Susan Rice would revive as major GOP talking points
> Most Democrats - also Independents & Republicans - about as eager for a Black Dick Cheney as they are for a return of the White one.
In addition, I remain sceptical it will come down to whichever VP can deliver a state or demographic. It is hard to think of any recent choices where that seemed to be a consideration, including Biden himself. The nearest might be the closest: Mike Pence delivering the Christian right to Donald Trump but at the time it was more that no-one else wanted the job, and Trump had those groups sewn up anyway.
But if that is to be the overwhelming factor then Grisham might be the closest, as the Latina Governor of New Mexico. Her presence on the ticket might be calculated to boost turnout amongst the Hispanic communities in neighbouring states that Biden needs to win. 38 on Betfair.0 -
Just don't think that one Democratic presidential candidate attacking another on or off debate stage is that big a deal.DecrepiterJohnL said:
The risk with Kamala Harris, or Elizabeth Warren for the same reason, is the Trump team playing the tapes of Democrat debates where the VP nominee lays into Biden. The issue won't matter.SeaShantyIrish2 said:Re: Kamala Harris, she's never been on yours truly's list (does anyone have Joe's cell # handy?).
However, note that fact she landed a pretty good punch against Biden in the debates, is a sign that she might just land some blow against both Trumpsky and Bobblehead in the general.
It's what people EXPECT of politicos. It's NOT been a silver bullet or even a half-way decent hit in previous presidential general election campaigns, and methinks it will NOT be once again in fall 2020.0 -
Well, perhaps, but I'm struggling to think of a recent precdent. Biden himself only ran for about ten minutes against Obama when he was picked.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
Just don't think that one Democratic presidential candidate attacking another on or off debate stage is that big a deal.DecrepiterJohnL said:
The risk with Kamala Harris, or Elizabeth Warren for the same reason, is the Trump team playing the tapes of Democrat debates where the VP nominee lays into Biden. The issue won't matter.SeaShantyIrish2 said:Re: Kamala Harris, she's never been on yours truly's list (does anyone have Joe's cell # handy?).
However, note that fact she landed a pretty good punch against Biden in the debates, is a sign that she might just land some blow against both Trumpsky and Bobblehead in the general.
It's what people EXPECT of politicos. It's NOT been a silver bullet or even a half-way decent hit in previous presidential general election campaigns, and methinks it will NOT be once again in fall 2020.0 -
OGH in header:
I’ve got this fear that when Biden does reveal the name we will declare with hindsight that it was clear all along.
More likely to be that we've long known the half dozen or so in the frame so why haven't we backed all of them?0 -
It's a pity Susan Rice isn't the Democrat presidential candidate this year IMO.1
-
I'm not completely ruling out a Biden withdrawal, and nor are the markets. Same with Trump on the other side.Andy_JS said:It's a pity Susan Rice isn't the Democrat presidential candidate this year IMO.
2 -
-
Really? There was a bit of last gasp media hype and then she sank without trace 48 hours laterSeaShantyIrish2 said:Re: Kamala Harris, she's never been on yours truly's list (does anyone have Joe's cell # handy?).
However, note that fact she landed a pretty good punch against Biden in the debates, is a sign that she might just land some blow against both Trumpsky and Bobblehead in the general.0 -
Manufacturers warn of UK ‘jobs bloodbath’
The warning comes amid gloomy predictions of the worst employment market since the 1980s, with millions of jobs at risk as companies aggressively cut back their operations...
... many bosses privately doubt Mr Johnson’s hopes for a return to normality in time for Christmas.
In a survey of its 174 of its* members conducted up to July 14, the number of companies planning to make redundancies in the next six months rose to 53 per cent, up from 25 per cent just two months ago.
Almost a third of companies plan to cut between 11 per cent and 25 per cent of employees, with almost one in 10 making between a quarter and half the workforce redundant.
(£) https://www.ft.com/content/afa20d03-480a-4e56-a23e-4c522d96089c
(*Make UK, which represents 20,000 companies of all sizes)0 -
Government announcements so far today.
- 60m doses of vaccine from Valneva (Option for additional 40m)
- 30m doses from Pfizer/BioNTech
- 1m doses of antibody treatment for those who can’t have vaccines (AstraZeneca)
More to come, watch this space5 -
Eh. Susan Rice has never been elected to anything (unless it was student body president or something like that.) She's never campaigned for office. No one outside the Beltway has ever heard of her. So... as much of a intellectual powerhouse as I;m sure she is, bland and wonky isn't going to help Biden.0
-
Can lay Biden at 1.05, and Trump at 1.07, for their respective nominations at party conventions next month.DecrepiterJohnL said:
I'm not completely ruling out a Biden withdrawal, and nor are the markets. Same with Trump on the other side.Andy_JS said:It's a pity Susan Rice isn't the Democrat presidential candidate this year IMO.
Both prices now shorter than they have been, but longer than one would have expected at this stage, suggesting some doubts about the candidates.0 -
I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-534659712 -
Stacey Abrams is off the table in the last couple of hours -- on Betfair there is nothing to be laid under 1000.0
-
George H. Bush spent a huge amount of time launching vicious personal attacks on Reagan in the 1980 republican primaries. Indeed, at one time Bush threatened to literally walk out of a debate Reagan had arranged. He was on record saying he would never work with Reagan.DecrepiterJohnL said:
The risk with Kamala Harris, or Elizabeth Warren for the same reason, is the Trump team playing the tapes of Democrat debates where the VP nominee lays into Biden. The issue won't matter.SeaShantyIrish2 said:Re: Kamala Harris, she's never been on yours truly's list (does anyone have Joe's cell # handy?).
However, note that fact she landed a pretty good punch against Biden in the debates, is a sign that she might just land some blow against both Trumpsky and Bobblehead in the general.
Didn’t stop Reagan picking him as running mate, or them winning comfortably.0 -
I’m not convinced any of those quoted in the Vanity Fair article have any more clue that we have.
They seem to be Obama White House insiders, not Biden campaign insiders.
It might be more instructive to have a look at Biden’s current advisers and campaign team, though a brief search doesn’t throw up any coherent narrative.0 -
Big companies turning it down. Smaller companies planning to lay off up to a quarter of staff. Employees being told go back to the office desipte the obvious rona perils and lack of childcare...rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-534659710 -
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-534659711 -
John Lewis are frightened that:-noneoftheabove said:
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it.
2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..0 -
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all!eek said:
John Lewis are frightened that:-noneoftheabove said:
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it.
2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited1 -
Surely the big 'hidden' is that by taking the money firms take back the employees, and one of the big assumptions that appears to be being made is that everything will go back to where it was before. I'm quite certain that that won't be the case. For consumer-facing industries and for those which don't require group working, anyway.eek said:
John Lewis are frightened that:-noneoftheabove said:
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it.
2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..0 -
Michelle Obama is still being traded as a live contender. Someone has just taken all the 32 available on Betfair. I've no idea why.0
-
Absolutely not embarrassingrkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
There’s been a quiet campaign behind the scenes to encourage larger firms who don’t need the money to turn it down (as there was with the furlough scheme).
By not putting strict criteria on the scheme you reduce the chance of missing those who don’t need it; combining this with moral suasion reduces the deadweight cost2 -
You dont take the money and commit to having x employees in FebOldKingCole said:
Surely the big 'hidden' is that by taking the money firms take back the employees, and one of the big assumptions that appears to be being made is that everything will go back to where it was before. I'm quite certain that that won't be the case. For consumer-facing industries and for those which don't require group working, anyway.eek said:
John Lewis are frightened that:-noneoftheabove said:
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it.
2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
You count number of employees who were on furlough and are still there in Feb and claim for them. You can have some redundant in between.
There is no risk to employers from over committing.0 -
Because if they can sell her later at a 20% loss they will have successfully laundered the money?DecrepiterJohnL said:Michelle Obama is still being traded as a live contender. Someone has just taken all the 32 available on Betfair. I've no idea why.
0 -
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imononeoftheabove said:
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all!eek said:
John Lewis are frightened that:-noneoftheabove said:
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it.
2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited1 -
Just seen this elsewhere. Is this correct?
Trouble ahead for the UK Road Haulage industry.
The European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) scheme, distributes a fixed number of permits per country. There were 8,348 UK-registered international road hauliers last year, according to Department for Transport data.
However, under the ECMT scheme, the UK would be allocated permits for only 2,088 companies.0 -
The PR would be terriblestate_go_away said:
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imononeoftheabove said:
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all!eek said:
John Lewis are frightened that:-noneoftheabove said:
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it.
2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited0 -
It is a very intriguing business and has been quite successful over the years so perhaps surprising others havent copied the employment model.state_go_away said:
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imononeoftheabove said:
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all!eek said:
John Lewis are frightened that:-noneoftheabove said:
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it.
2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited3 -
You’ll probably have an 80/20 split assuming the permits are for companies but it’s going to be harder for “have truck will drive” playersOldKingCole said:Just seen this elsewhere. Is this correct?
Trouble ahead for the UK Road Haulage industry.
The European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) scheme, distributes a fixed number of permits per country. There were 8,348 UK-registered international road hauliers last year, according to Department for Transport data.
However, under the ECMT scheme, the UK would be allocated permits for only 2,088 companies.0 -
Duplicate0
-
Richer Sounds has the same model but that was to allow the owner to sell up (for far less than he probably could have got) and retirenoneoftheabove said:
It is a very intriguing business and has been quite successful over the years so perhaps surprising others havent copied the employment model.state_go_away said:
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imononeoftheabove said:
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all!eek said:
John Lewis are frightened that:-noneoftheabove said:
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it.
2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited1 -
Interesting, I was thinking perhaps an owner gifting the business to the workers as part of their will might be the most likely for it to develop.eek said:
Richer Sounds has the same model but that was to allow the owner to sell up (for far less than he probably could have got) and retirenoneoftheabove said:
It is a very intriguing business and has been quite successful over the years so perhaps surprising others havent copied the employment model.state_go_away said:
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imononeoftheabove said:
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all!eek said:
John Lewis are frightened that:-noneoftheabove said:
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it.
2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited0 -
Often think this model is good for left libertarians to support. As the main problem with socialism is that is gives the state (and more precisely the leaders of the state) too much power .This model still allows competition in the market and no state control but enhances workers or consumer power.noneoftheabove said:
Interesting, I was thinking perhaps an owner gifting the business to the workers as part of their will might be the most likely for it to develop.eek said:
Richer Sounds has the same model but that was to allow the owner to sell up (for far less than he probably could have got) and retirenoneoftheabove said:
It is a very intriguing business and has been quite successful over the years so perhaps surprising others havent copied the employment model.state_go_away said:
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imononeoftheabove said:
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all!eek said:
John Lewis are frightened that:-noneoftheabove said:
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it.
2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited1 -
Most owners wish to retire and will have their wealth tied up in their business - which means to fully enjoy retirement they probably need to sell the business.noneoftheabove said:
Interesting, I was thinking perhaps an owner gifting the business to the workers as part of their will might be the most likely for it to develop.eek said:
Richer Sounds has the same model but that was to allow the owner to sell up (for far less than he probably could have got) and retirenoneoftheabove said:
It is a very intriguing business and has been quite successful over the years so perhaps surprising others havent copied the employment model.state_go_away said:
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imononeoftheabove said:
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all!eek said:
John Lewis are frightened that:-noneoftheabove said:
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it.
2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited0 -
No, this market is too thin for money laundering.Charles said:
Because if they can sell her later at a 20% loss they will have successfully laundered the money?DecrepiterJohnL said:Michelle Obama is still being traded as a live contender. Someone has just taken all the 32 available on Betfair. I've no idea why.
0 -
Owners can still sell to the workers though although in most cases it will involve bank loans secured on the assets and future revenues of the business. Not ideal but better than capitalism when can be done imoeek said:
Most owners wish to retire and will have their wealth tied up in their business - which means to fully enjoy retirement they probably need to sell the business.noneoftheabove said:
Interesting, I was thinking perhaps an owner gifting the business to the workers as part of their will might be the most likely for it to develop.eek said:
Richer Sounds has the same model but that was to allow the owner to sell up (for far less than he probably could have got) and retirenoneoftheabove said:
It is a very intriguing business and has been quite successful over the years so perhaps surprising others havent copied the employment model.state_go_away said:
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imononeoftheabove said:
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all!eek said:
John Lewis are frightened that:-noneoftheabove said:
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it.
2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited0 -
Ye, you'd launder on Biden in this marketDecrepiterJohnL said:
No, this market is too thin for money laundering.Charles said:
Because if they can sell her later at a 20% loss they will have successfully laundered the money?DecrepiterJohnL said:Michelle Obama is still being traded as a live contender. Someone has just taken all the 32 available on Betfair. I've no idea why.
0 -
It seems a little friendly, but would give Joe a decent chunk of the Obama gloss. I thought she said she wasn't interested though.DecrepiterJohnL said:Michelle Obama is still being traded as a live contender. Someone has just taken all the 32 available on Betfair. I've no idea why.
0 -
-
Virus.Sandpit said:
Can lay Biden at 1.05, and Trump at 1.07, for their respective nominations at party conventions next month.DecrepiterJohnL said:
I'm not completely ruling out a Biden withdrawal, and nor are the markets. Same with Trump on the other side.Andy_JS said:It's a pity Susan Rice isn't the Democrat presidential candidate this year IMO.
Both prices now shorter than they have been, but longer than one would have expected at this stage, suggesting some doubts about the candidates.0 -
Morning all,
Good to see a header about veep betting.
Go Susan!0 -
noneoftheabove said:state_go_away said:noneoftheabove said:eek said:noneoftheabove said:
Neither Primark nor JLP need relatively small amounts of money in return for such a whoppingly huge commitment. Getting £1,000 per employee for keeping them on the payroll three months longer than you need is a commercially rotten idea if your staff earn more than £350 a month and the firm's reasonably cash-flush.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
The offer MIGHT be enough to persuade a few seriously cash-strapped businesses to delay long-term restructuring - and right now, Sunak needs as many businesses as possible to delay their layoffs till after next spring, so the scheme is probably a useful part of his armoury for getting through the next year.
It offers little appeal to most businesses: but that's not a lethal flaw in the scheme: no two businesses are identical
The only people "embarrassed" by Sunak's offer are commercially illiterate commentators who simply don't understand how expensive unnecessary staff are, and how much damage over-employment does to a business.0 -
Why?Charles said:
The PR would be terriblestate_go_away said:
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imononeoftheabove said:
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all!eek said:
John Lewis are frightened that:-noneoftheabove said:
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it.
2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.3 -
Ideal sectors for cooperatives
Customer facing businesses that rely on good staff /customer interaction - Workers cooperatives
Natural monopolies like utilities /transport etc - Consumer cooperatives.
Pure capitalism works best in innovative sectors where there is a problem and a need to solve it fast by the need to offer large financial rewards to the sucessful0 -
-
That's far from embarrassing for Rishi. If large businesses turn down the money because they don't need it, while small businesses take it and survive and keep on their staff because of it . . . then that is a double victory for Rishi. First win - its done what it intended to; second win - it cost even less than he'd planned.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-534659711 -
Reply to flanner
"Neither Primark nor JLP need relatively small amounts of money in return for such a whoppingly huge commitment. Getting £1,000 per employee for keeping them on the payroll three months longer than you need is a commercially rotten idea if your staff earn more than £350 a month and the firm's reasonably cash-flush.
The offer MIGHT be enough to persuade a few seriously cash-strapped businesses to delay long-term restructuring - and right now, Sunak needs as many businesses as possible to delay their layoffs till after next spring, so the scheme is probably a useful part of his armoury for getting through the next year.
It offers little appeal to most businesses: but that's not a lethal flaw in the scheme: no two businesses are identical
The only people "embarrassed" by Sunak's offer are commercially illiterate commentators who simply don't understand how expensive unnecessary staff are, and how much damage over-employment does to a business."
---------------
With all due respect it is you who is demonstrating commercial illiteracy.
The bonus is available to companies on a per employee basis whether they reduce their head count or not. Companies make absolutely no commitment re this bonus. They simply do a count of employees on Feb 1st who were ever on furlough and submit a claim.0 -
https://twitter.com/g_gosden/status/1284894319975989248OldKingCole said:Just seen this elsewhere. Is this correct?
Trouble ahead for the UK Road Haulage industry.
The European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) scheme, distributes a fixed number of permits per country. There were 8,348 UK-registered international road hauliers last year, according to Department for Transport data.
However, under the ECMT scheme, the UK would be allocated permits for only 2,088 companies.0 -
From my perspective it is fantastic. Free money to keep on staff we were intending to keep on A+! As a taxpayer, not so good, maybe a C- or a D+.Philip_Thompson said:
That's far from embarrassing for Rishi. If large businesses turn down the money because they don't need it, while small businesses take it and survive and keep on their staff because of it . . . then that is a double victory for Rishi. First win - its done what it intended to; second win - it cost even less than he'd planned.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
Now back to Susan Rice. Rice or Harris, either enhance the ticket.1 -
You're lucky to be in a position that you're intending to keep on your staff anyway . . . not every business is. If your position was universal there'd be no recession and no unemployment coming.Mexicanpete said:
From my perspective it is fantastic. Free money to keep on staff we were intending to keep on A+! As a taxpayer, not so good, maybe a C- or a D+.Philip_Thompson said:
That's far from embarrassing for Rishi. If large businesses turn down the money because they don't need it, while small businesses take it and survive and keep on their staff because of it . . . then that is a double victory for Rishi. First win - its done what it intended to; second win - it cost even less than he'd planned.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
Now back to Susan Rice. Rice or Harris, either enhance the ticket.
To me it seems entirely logical to do this from the taxpayers perspective. The taxpayer has funded furlough through this crisis with no guarantee that people actually go back to work afterwards . . . by tying these final payments with ensuring people are back working for a few months through the Festive Period into the New Year then it is helping to ensure we got more value for money with the original furlough.1 -
Chlorinated chicken creeps ever closer. Or we starve!Scott_xP said:
https://twitter.com/g_gosden/status/1284894319975989248OldKingCole said:Just seen this elsewhere. Is this correct?
Trouble ahead for the UK Road Haulage industry.
The European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) scheme, distributes a fixed number of permits per country. There were 8,348 UK-registered international road hauliers last year, according to Department for Transport data.
However, under the ECMT scheme, the UK would be allocated permits for only 2,088 companies.0 -
Well yes there are definitely hidden conditions, in fact everything is hidden since the details of the scheme are as yet unknown to all. At the moment we know no more than what Sunak announced in parliament. It's strange though that businesses aren't waiting until the end of the month, when we've been promised that all will be revealed.eek said:
John Lewis are frightened that:-noneoftheabove said:
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it.
2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
All I can think of in the case of John Lewis is that they are going to make the great majority of their furloughed staff redundant, and they don't want the hassle of reputational damage from if there's a furore when at the same time of announcing mass redundancies they claim for the few staff that they keep on. If so, those are not good omens.
1 -
On West.Scott_xP said:
Worries for his mental health.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-534676580 -
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.Scott_xP said:0 -
Thinking about it, I have one counterintuitive guess why some large businesses could be embarrassed about claiming the furlough retention bonus. If the business is in a high churn industry they might not want to reveal how many staff they have kept on throughout.
Eg if a lot of people were to be replaced between now and the New Year due to churn then I am assuming their replacements (even though its the same job) will be ineligible for the bonus . . . so a large employer may not wish to avoid negative headlines "revealing" that they've retained much fewer staff than they have.0 -
Not news - the industry has been pointing at this problem for ages, but hey we've had enough of experts so lets just ignore them. Fewer permits for UK hauliers going into the EU so fewer vehicle movements so fewer goods. At the same time the EU hauliers who at various times have taken an almost piratical approach to UK's open door no tax disc laws aren't going to come because they can't afford their vehicles to get stuck in border crossing chaos.OldKingCole said:Just seen this elsewhere. Is this correct?
Trouble ahead for the UK Road Haulage industry.
The European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) scheme, distributes a fixed number of permits per country. There were 8,348 UK-registered international road hauliers last year, according to Department for Transport data.
However, under the ECMT scheme, the UK would be allocated permits for only 2,088 companies.
Fun times if you like to eat or buy things! I'm sure @HYUFD thinks its marvellous0 -
I think cutting employers NI would have been better as to get out of this we need new businesses, and those who didnt furlough to be hiring and maintaining staff as well. But its not a terrible scheme, it gets money into the economy and will protect a small number of jobs.Philip_Thompson said:
You're lucky to be in a position that you're intending to keep on your staff anyway . . . not every business is. If your position was universal there'd be no recession and no unemployment coming.Mexicanpete said:
From my perspective it is fantastic. Free money to keep on staff we were intending to keep on A+! As a taxpayer, not so good, maybe a C- or a D+.Philip_Thompson said:
That's far from embarrassing for Rishi. If large businesses turn down the money because they don't need it, while small businesses take it and survive and keep on their staff because of it . . . then that is a double victory for Rishi. First win - its done what it intended to; second win - it cost even less than he'd planned.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
Now back to Susan Rice. Rice or Harris, either enhance the ticket.
To me it seems entirely logical to do this from the taxpayers perspective. The taxpayer has funded furlough through this crisis with no guarantee that people actually go back to work afterwards . . . by tying these final payments with ensuring people are back working for a few months through the Festive Period into the New Year then it is helping to ensure we got more value for money with the original furlough.0 -
My point is the measure is not well targeted, although the intention is faultless.Philip_Thompson said:
You're lucky to be in a position that you're intending to keep on your staff anyway . . . not every business is. If your position was universal there'd be no recession and no unemployment coming.Mexicanpete said:
From my perspective it is fantastic. Free money to keep on staff we were intending to keep on A+! As a taxpayer, not so good, maybe a C- or a D+.Philip_Thompson said:
That's far from embarrassing for Rishi. If large businesses turn down the money because they don't need it, while small businesses take it and survive and keep on their staff because of it . . . then that is a double victory for Rishi. First win - its done what it intended to; second win - it cost even less than he'd planned.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
Now back to Susan Rice. Rice or Harris, either enhance the ticket.
To me it seems entirely logical to do this from the taxpayers perspective. The taxpayer has funded furlough through this crisis with no guarantee that people actually go back to work afterwards . . . by tying these final payments with ensuring people are back working for a few months through the Festive Period into the New Year then it is helping to ensure we got more value for money with the original furlough.
Why not analyse these measures in detail and weigh up the costs and benefits. Some will be good, others flawed? The fact that a policy is from the pen of Johnson or Sunak doesn't automatically mean it is perfect. Conversely, neither are they always bad.2 -
Then he'll fit right in for 2020....rottenborough said:
On West.Scott_xP said:
Worries for his mental health.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53467658
2 -
It is definitely per employee not per job, so you are correct a replacement for the same role does not qualify.Philip_Thompson said:Thinking about it, I have one counterintuitive guess why some large businesses could be embarrassed about claiming the furlough retention bonus. If the business is in a high churn industry they might not want to reveal how many staff they have kept on throughout.
Eg if a lot of people were to be replaced between now and the New Year due to churn then I am assuming their replacements (even though its the same job) will be ineligible for the bonus . . . so a large employer may not wish to avoid negative headlines "revealing" that they've retained much fewer staff than they have.0 -
Apprently there has been a COVID outbreak in a COVID contract tracing centre in Motherwell...0
-
As business has already pointed out, £1k will not retain a single job. It's a nice bonus at the supposed end* of furlough but if the company is on its last legs, or the position simply isn't tenable any more in the changed environment, a grand won't stop that redundancy from happening.Philip_Thompson said:
That's far from embarrassing for Rishi. If large businesses turn down the money because they don't need it, while small businesses take it and survive and keep on their staff because of it . . . then that is a double victory for Rishi. First win - its done what it intended to; second win - it cost even less than he'd planned.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
*Supposed end. They'll have to extend it if the kind of second wave that is starting to show its head elsewhere comes here. And with our crap record dealing with the rona we start from a much higher infection rate which means a much bigger spike...1 -
There should be something like a kite-mark for firms that turn down the cash. Stick it on their letters and promotional material for five years. The Covid crest, maybe...Philip_Thompson said:
That's far from embarrassing for Rishi. If large businesses turn down the money because they don't need it, while small businesses take it and survive and keep on their staff because of it . . . then that is a double victory for Rishi. First win - its done what it intended to; second win - it cost even less than he'd planned.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-534659711 -
If John Lewis took their £14m I am very sure they would have been employing at least one more person in 2021. Of course it will save some jobs, not very many directly in a £1k bonus vs redundancy way, but by improving the cash position of hundreds of thousands of businesses.RochdalePioneers said:
As business has already pointed out, £1k will not retain a single job. It's a nice bonus at the supposed end* of furlough but if the company is on its last legs, or the position simply isn't tenable any more in the changed environment, a grand won't stop that redundancy from happening.Philip_Thompson said:
That's far from embarrassing for Rishi. If large businesses turn down the money because they don't need it, while small businesses take it and survive and keep on their staff because of it . . . then that is a double victory for Rishi. First win - its done what it intended to; second win - it cost even less than he'd planned.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
*Supposed end. They'll have to extend it if the kind of second wave that is starting to show its head elsewhere comes here. And with our crap record dealing with the rona we start from a much higher infection rate which means a much bigger spike...0 -
If your point is ironic, it is comedy gold.MarqueeMark said:
There should be something like a kite-mark for firms that turn down the cash. Stick it on their letters and promotional material for five years. The Covid crest, maybe...Philip_Thompson said:
That's far from embarrassing for Rishi. If large businesses turn down the money because they don't need it, while small businesses take it and survive and keep on their staff because of it . . . then that is a double victory for Rishi. First win - its done what it intended to; second win - it cost even less than he'd planned.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
Knowing how you address, I am surprised. Still I am giving you the benefit of any doubt! Lol!0 -
Duplicate. Chinese phones!0
-
The business Darwin award?MarqueeMark said:
There should be something like a kite-mark for firms that turn down the cash. Stick it on their letters and promotional material for five years. The Covid crest, maybe...Philip_Thompson said:
That's far from embarrassing for Rishi. If large businesses turn down the money because they don't need it, while small businesses take it and survive and keep on their staff because of it . . . then that is a double victory for Rishi. First win - its done what it intended to; second win - it cost even less than he'd planned.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-534659711 -
It's been flagged as an issue for several years, and it more complex than it sounds.OldKingCole said:Just seen this elsewhere. Is this correct?
Trouble ahead for the UK Road Haulage industry.
The European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) scheme, distributes a fixed number of permits per country. There were 8,348 UK-registered international road hauliers last year, according to Department for Transport data.
However, under the ECMT scheme, the UK would be allocated permits for only 2,088 companies.
eg There are EU Community Licences in the mix.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/eu-community-licences-for-international-road-haulage0 -
Because we are operating in a pandemic trying to keep the economy alive while borrowing at 0% or even negative interest rates.Mexicanpete said:
My point is the measure is not well targeted, although the intention is faultless.Philip_Thompson said:
You're lucky to be in a position that you're intending to keep on your staff anyway . . . not every business is. If your position was universal there'd be no recession and no unemployment coming.Mexicanpete said:
From my perspective it is fantastic. Free money to keep on staff we were intending to keep on A+! As a taxpayer, not so good, maybe a C- or a D+.Philip_Thompson said:
That's far from embarrassing for Rishi. If large businesses turn down the money because they don't need it, while small businesses take it and survive and keep on their staff because of it . . . then that is a double victory for Rishi. First win - its done what it intended to; second win - it cost even less than he'd planned.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
Now back to Susan Rice. Rice or Harris, either enhance the ticket.
To me it seems entirely logical to do this from the taxpayers perspective. The taxpayer has funded furlough through this crisis with no guarantee that people actually go back to work afterwards . . . by tying these final payments with ensuring people are back working for a few months through the Festive Period into the New Year then it is helping to ensure we got more value for money with the original furlough.
Why not analyse these measures in detail and weigh up the costs and benefits. Some will be good, others flawed? The fact that a policy is from the pen of Johnson or Sunak doesn't automatically mean it is perfect. Conversely, neither are they always bad.
When we are facing a once in a century pandemic and the deepest depression in over 300 years of recorded history then value for money right now is not the top priority. Next year post-pandemic we will need to get value for money but moving fast and swiftly is more important than seeking good value right now.
Plus if we tried to do it in a much more complicated way then no doubt the added complication will make it cost much, much more per head.0 -
John Lewis have always been heavy on staff numbers compared to everyone else.noneoftheabove said:
If John Lewis took their £14m I am very sure they would have been employing at least one more person in 2021. Of course it will save some jobs, not very many directly in a £1k bonus vs redundancy way, but by improving the cash position of hundreds of thousands of businesses.RochdalePioneers said:
As business has already pointed out, £1k will not retain a single job. It's a nice bonus at the supposed end* of furlough but if the company is on its last legs, or the position simply isn't tenable any more in the changed environment, a grand won't stop that redundancy from happening.Philip_Thompson said:
That's far from embarrassing for Rishi. If large businesses turn down the money because they don't need it, while small businesses take it and survive and keep on their staff because of it . . . then that is a double victory for Rishi. First win - its done what it intended to; second win - it cost even less than he'd planned.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
*Supposed end. They'll have to extend it if the kind of second wave that is starting to show its head elsewhere comes here. And with our crap record dealing with the rona we start from a much higher infection rate which means a much bigger spike...
So it would not be a surprise to see serious changes.0 -
Cutting employers NI is a similar route, floated pre announcement, that has fewer costs to it than this scheme and probably more benefits. It would perhaps have attracted less press attention however.Philip_Thompson said:
Because we are operating in a pandemic trying to keep the economy alive while borrowing at 0% or even negative interest rates.Mexicanpete said:
My point is the measure is not well targeted, although the intention is faultless.Philip_Thompson said:
You're lucky to be in a position that you're intending to keep on your staff anyway . . . not every business is. If your position was universal there'd be no recession and no unemployment coming.Mexicanpete said:
From my perspective it is fantastic. Free money to keep on staff we were intending to keep on A+! As a taxpayer, not so good, maybe a C- or a D+.Philip_Thompson said:
That's far from embarrassing for Rishi. If large businesses turn down the money because they don't need it, while small businesses take it and survive and keep on their staff because of it . . . then that is a double victory for Rishi. First win - its done what it intended to; second win - it cost even less than he'd planned.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
Now back to Susan Rice. Rice or Harris, either enhance the ticket.
To me it seems entirely logical to do this from the taxpayers perspective. The taxpayer has funded furlough through this crisis with no guarantee that people actually go back to work afterwards . . . by tying these final payments with ensuring people are back working for a few months through the Festive Period into the New Year then it is helping to ensure we got more value for money with the original furlough.
Why not analyse these measures in detail and weigh up the costs and benefits. Some will be good, others flawed? The fact that a policy is from the pen of Johnson or Sunak doesn't automatically mean it is perfect. Conversely, neither are they always bad.
When we are facing a once in a century pandemic and the deepest depression in over 300 years of recorded history then value for money right now is not the top priority. Next year post-pandemic we will need to get value for money but moving fast and swiftly is more important than seeking good value right now.
Plus if we tried to do it in a much more complicated way then no doubt the added complication will make it cost much, much more per head.0 -
It will retain much more than just a single job across the whole economy.RochdalePioneers said:
As business has already pointed out, £1k will not retain a single job. It's a nice bonus at the supposed end* of furlough but if the company is on its last legs, or the position simply isn't tenable any more in the changed environment, a grand won't stop that redundancy from happening.Philip_Thompson said:
That's far from embarrassing for Rishi. If large businesses turn down the money because they don't need it, while small businesses take it and survive and keep on their staff because of it . . . then that is a double victory for Rishi. First win - its done what it intended to; second win - it cost even less than he'd planned.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
*Supposed end. They'll have to extend it if the kind of second wave that is starting to show its head elsewhere comes here. And with our crap record dealing with the rona we start from a much higher infection rate which means a much bigger spike...
Businesses aren't just in a position of either being on their last legs and unable to survive, or perfectly positioned to weather the storm. There will be a bell curve distribution and a great many (especially small) businesses will be in the middle: struggling but working hard to survive. Schemes like this will be useful for them.0 -
The subtext is that there was no need at all to say anything now. Instead they have announced to their already beleaguered staff that cuts are on the way. Probably not a news flash to them.MattW said:
John Lewis have always been heavy on staff numbers compared to everyone else.noneoftheabove said:
If John Lewis took their £14m I am very sure they would have been employing at least one more person in 2021. Of course it will save some jobs, not very many directly in a £1k bonus vs redundancy way, but by improving the cash position of hundreds of thousands of businesses.RochdalePioneers said:
As business has already pointed out, £1k will not retain a single job. It's a nice bonus at the supposed end* of furlough but if the company is on its last legs, or the position simply isn't tenable any more in the changed environment, a grand won't stop that redundancy from happening.Philip_Thompson said:
That's far from embarrassing for Rishi. If large businesses turn down the money because they don't need it, while small businesses take it and survive and keep on their staff because of it . . . then that is a double victory for Rishi. First win - its done what it intended to; second win - it cost even less than he'd planned.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
*Supposed end. They'll have to extend it if the kind of second wave that is starting to show its head elsewhere comes here. And with our crap record dealing with the rona we start from a much higher infection rate which means a much bigger spike...
So it would not be a surprise to see serious changes.
Perhaps instead of the stupidity of trying to force people back into offices so that they can go back to buying Pret, the government could simply issue nice clear instructions like "you Must go and buy overpriced takeaway coffee and take it home. Don't wear a mask in the coffee shop as its safe indoors with people but if you go there on the bus wear a mask as it isn't safe indoors with people."1 -
I would 100% support abolishing employers NI altogether but again that has the same issue you raised - greater even. Tinkering with employers NI will reduce taxes across the entire economy not specifically those employers that are most at risk due to having been shut down for much of the spring and early summer.noneoftheabove said:
Cutting employers NI is a similar route, floated pre announcement, that has fewer costs to it than this scheme and probably more benefits. It would perhaps have attracted less press attention however.Philip_Thompson said:
Because we are operating in a pandemic trying to keep the economy alive while borrowing at 0% or even negative interest rates.Mexicanpete said:
My point is the measure is not well targeted, although the intention is faultless.Philip_Thompson said:
You're lucky to be in a position that you're intending to keep on your staff anyway . . . not every business is. If your position was universal there'd be no recession and no unemployment coming.Mexicanpete said:
From my perspective it is fantastic. Free money to keep on staff we were intending to keep on A+! As a taxpayer, not so good, maybe a C- or a D+.Philip_Thompson said:
That's far from embarrassing for Rishi. If large businesses turn down the money because they don't need it, while small businesses take it and survive and keep on their staff because of it . . . then that is a double victory for Rishi. First win - its done what it intended to; second win - it cost even less than he'd planned.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
Now back to Susan Rice. Rice or Harris, either enhance the ticket.
To me it seems entirely logical to do this from the taxpayers perspective. The taxpayer has funded furlough through this crisis with no guarantee that people actually go back to work afterwards . . . by tying these final payments with ensuring people are back working for a few months through the Festive Period into the New Year then it is helping to ensure we got more value for money with the original furlough.
Why not analyse these measures in detail and weigh up the costs and benefits. Some will be good, others flawed? The fact that a policy is from the pen of Johnson or Sunak doesn't automatically mean it is perfect. Conversely, neither are they always bad.
When we are facing a once in a century pandemic and the deepest depression in over 300 years of recorded history then value for money right now is not the top priority. Next year post-pandemic we will need to get value for money but moving fast and swiftly is more important than seeking good value right now.
Plus if we tried to do it in a much more complicated way then no doubt the added complication will make it cost much, much more per head.
Like-for-like the job retention scheme will get more money per job saved to businesses that were forced to furlough than simply tinkering with NI would. But I would 100% support employers NI being cut or even abolished in the next Budget or next year's Budget.1 -
FWIW on population adjusted case numbers, I see the US has overtaken Andorra and Armenia and is now tenth on the list even including all the islands and tiny countries.0
-
Just means they do not want to tie themselves to not being able to not start redundancies before January.noneoftheabove said:
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-534659710 -
There are going to be several million unemployed and cutting employers NI would have helped with getting those back into work on top of saving some existing jobs - its more effective because it aids growing and new businesses as well as struggling ones.Philip_Thompson said:
I would 100% support abolishing employers NI altogether but again that has the same issue you raised - greater even. Tinkering with employers NI will reduce taxes across the entire economy not specifically those employers that are most at risk due to having been shut down for much of the spring and early summer.noneoftheabove said:
Cutting employers NI is a similar route, floated pre announcement, that has fewer costs to it than this scheme and probably more benefits. It would perhaps have attracted less press attention however.Philip_Thompson said:
Because we are operating in a pandemic trying to keep the economy alive while borrowing at 0% or even negative interest rates.Mexicanpete said:
My point is the measure is not well targeted, although the intention is faultless.Philip_Thompson said:
You're lucky to be in a position that you're intending to keep on your staff anyway . . . not every business is. If your position was universal there'd be no recession and no unemployment coming.Mexicanpete said:
From my perspective it is fantastic. Free money to keep on staff we were intending to keep on A+! As a taxpayer, not so good, maybe a C- or a D+.Philip_Thompson said:
That's far from embarrassing for Rishi. If large businesses turn down the money because they don't need it, while small businesses take it and survive and keep on their staff because of it . . . then that is a double victory for Rishi. First win - its done what it intended to; second win - it cost even less than he'd planned.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
Now back to Susan Rice. Rice or Harris, either enhance the ticket.
To me it seems entirely logical to do this from the taxpayers perspective. The taxpayer has funded furlough through this crisis with no guarantee that people actually go back to work afterwards . . . by tying these final payments with ensuring people are back working for a few months through the Festive Period into the New Year then it is helping to ensure we got more value for money with the original furlough.
Why not analyse these measures in detail and weigh up the costs and benefits. Some will be good, others flawed? The fact that a policy is from the pen of Johnson or Sunak doesn't automatically mean it is perfect. Conversely, neither are they always bad.
When we are facing a once in a century pandemic and the deepest depression in over 300 years of recorded history then value for money right now is not the top priority. Next year post-pandemic we will need to get value for money but moving fast and swiftly is more important than seeking good value right now.
Plus if we tried to do it in a much more complicated way then no doubt the added complication will make it cost much, much more per head.
Like-for-like the job retention scheme will get more money per job saved to businesses that were forced to furlough than simply tinkering with NI would. But I would 100% support employers NI being cut or even abolished in the next Budget or next year's Budget.1 -
No financial risk, only reputational risk.noneoftheabove said:
You dont take the money and commit to having x employees in FebOldKingCole said:
Surely the big 'hidden' is that by taking the money firms take back the employees, and one of the big assumptions that appears to be being made is that everything will go back to where it was before. I'm quite certain that that won't be the case. For consumer-facing industries and for those which don't require group working, anyway.eek said:
John Lewis are frightened that:-noneoftheabove said:
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it.
2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
You count number of employees who were on furlough and are still there in Feb and claim for them. You can have some redundant in between.
There is no risk to employers from over committing.0 -
OT I follow a few Trumpists on the twitters and two have them have defected to Kanye. Is anyone else seeing this?0
-
They could make 99% of the people on furlough redundant this summer and still make a claim for the 1% still there in February.malcolmg said:
Just means they do not want to tie themselves to not being able to not start redundancies before January.noneoftheabove said:
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
Companies are not stopped from claiming the bonus if they make redundancies despite this being a widespread belief. They can choose whatever headcount suits them and then still claim per employee.0 -
So that’s three candidates with serious questions over their mental health.rottenborough said:
On West.Scott_xP said:
Worries for his mental health.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53467658
I know we laugh and say that no-one sane would want the job, but really?0 -
I think it conclusively shows that the vast majority of the money is going to be wasted because the scheme is poorly designed.noneoftheabove said:
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
But I suppose the other way of looking at it is that a slightly smaller amount of money is about to be wasted than we previously thought.
It's embarrassing because he's made a big play about saying how he is going to spend to keep employment down, and he's now come up with something that is going to cost billions and isn't going to make a difference.0 -
If the government are offering this bonus (and I dont think its the best way frankly of supporting the economy or jobs) then companies (especially Not for Profit ones/cooperatives ) should take it and give it to their workers -Its not as if John Lewis dont have low paid staff (as do all retail) .- they also have a mechanism in their bonus scheme for staff to pay it easilynoneoftheabove said:
They could make 99% of the people on furlough redundant this summer and still make a claim for the 1% still there in February.malcolmg said:
Just means they do not want to tie themselves to not being able to not start redundancies before January.noneoftheabove said:
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
Companies are not stopped from claiming the bonus if they make redundancies despite this being a widespread belief. They can choose whatever headcount suits them and then still claim per employee.1 -
For someone like rightmove, ocado or Amazon I can see reputational risk. They dont pay a fair share of tax anyway, and may even have benefited from the crisis financially.Sandpit said:
No financial risk, only reputational risk.noneoftheabove said:
You dont take the money and commit to having x employees in FebOldKingCole said:
Surely the big 'hidden' is that by taking the money firms take back the employees, and one of the big assumptions that appears to be being made is that everything will go back to where it was before. I'm quite certain that that won't be the case. For consumer-facing industries and for those which don't require group working, anyway.eek said:
John Lewis are frightened that:-noneoftheabove said:
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it.
2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
You count number of employees who were on furlough and are still there in Feb and claim for them. You can have some redundant in between.
There is no risk to employers from over committing.
But John Lewis? High business rates, lots of staff, no fat cat bosses or shareholders and stores forced closed by the govt? Who is going to think its terrible they claimed a grant govt?2 -
Crap odds given he pulled out last week, and anyone who was not aware he was not firing on all cylinders is not too bright.rottenborough said:
On West.Scott_xP said:
Worries for his mental health.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-534676580 -
Why is the government choosing this moment to release reports that show lockdown will lead to 200,000 extra deaths?
Isn;t it something they should have released quietly next year, when things have returned to some sort of normal?
Bit of an act of self-harm it seems to me.0 -
It would be very difficult to start from scratch today with this business model in retail, due to the upfront property and inventory costs involved. It would have to involve shareholders of an existing company basically gifting it to the staff.noneoftheabove said:
It is a very intriguing business and has been quite successful over the years so perhaps surprising others havent copied the employment model.state_go_away said:
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imononeoftheabove said:
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all!eek said:
John Lewis are frightened that:-noneoftheabove said:
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it.
2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited0 -
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.rottenborough said:
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.Scott_xP said:1 -
Because they want you back in the office spending £10 a day on coffee. Its safe.contrarian said:Why is the government choosing this moment to release reports that show lockdown will lead to 200,000 extra deaths?
Isn;t it something they should have released quietly next year, when things have returned to some sort of normal?
Bit of an act of self-harm it seems to me.0 -
Er, Malc..... from the Beeb this morningmalcolmg said:
Crap odds given he pulled out last week, and anyone who was not aware he was not firing on all cylinders is not too bright.rottenborough said:
On West.Scott_xP said:
Worries for his mental health.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53467658
Kanye West has officially launched his campaign for the 2020 US presidential election, with an unorthodox rally in Charleston, South Carolina.
West, 43, is running as a candidate for his self-styled "Birthday Party".
Didn't seem the best of rallies, TBH, given the report!
0 -
Fair enough, I wouldnt have chosen this particular scheme either. But its neither as bad as you make out nor as good as others claim.rkrkrk said:
I think it conclusively shows that the vast majority of the money is going to be wasted because the scheme is poorly designed.noneoftheabove said:
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
But I suppose the other way of looking at it is that a slightly smaller amount of money is about to be wasted than we previously thought.
It's embarrassing because he's made a big play about saying how he is going to spend to keep employment down, and he's now come up with something that is going to cost billions and isn't going to make a difference.
If you judge it on the one off will employers keep someone on because of £1k, then it doesnt work. If you look at it as a form of pumping £5-9bn into the economy relatively cheaply and direct to business rather than via the banking system (where it always seems to disappear and not reach businesses), then it is ok. Jobs will be kept because companies have better balance sheets and the economy is more active not the £1k v redundancy trade off.
0 -
Trump doesn’t care because it keeps the media talking about him. He’ll start choosing music by people he knows will complain about it.kle4 said:
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.rottenborough said:
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.Scott_xP said:0 -
That gives him about 90% of the music industry to choose from!Sandpit said:
Trump doesn’t care because it keeps the media talking about him. He’ll start choosing music by people he knows will complain about it.kle4 said:
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.rottenborough said:
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.Scott_xP said:1 -
Taking the money and then laying off employees anyway is indeed the public relations disaster they are wanting to avoid.OldKingCole said:
Surely the big 'hidden' is that by taking the money firms take back the employees, and one of the big assumptions that appears to be being made is that everything will go back to where it was before. I'm quite certain that that won't be the case. For consumer-facing industries and for those which don't require group working, anyway.eek said:
John Lewis are frightened that:-noneoftheabove said:
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.rkrkrk said:I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it.
2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..0
This discussion has been closed.