I reckon Sir Keir Starmer KCB QC is a good bet.
Intelligent, some charisma, doesn't look too odd.
His mistake so far is insisting on a second referendum for Brexit.
Not sure he is left wing enough for much of the current party and he certainly isn't working class which may put some voters against him.
|
>> I reckon Sir Keir Starmer KCB QC is a good bet.
>> Not sure he is left wing enough for much of the current party and
>> he certainly isn't working class which may put some voters against him.
>>
Its all kicking off nicely :-)
An ally of Keir Starmer has ridiculed the idea that the next Labour leader must “have ovaries or a Northern accent”,
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-race-kier-starmer-rebecca-long-bailey-angela-rayner-corbyn-a9249611.html
|
|
He always comes across as a bit of a grey man and more than a bit awkward. I don't think politics in the public eye is really his thing or at least that's what he seems to me.
|
>> Not sure he is left wing enough for much of the current party and he
>> certainly isn't working class which may put some voters against him.
Some advocated his standing as leader in 2015 but he was newly elected in that year's GE and understandably deferred to other centrist candidates.
Whether or not he's working class is an interesting point.
He was born into an ordinary family. His father was a toolmaker which I think would count as skilled working class. He went to Reigate Grammer School (so by inference passed some sort of 11+) and studied law at a red brick uni - Leeds. His QC status was achieved by the professional route of hard graft in Chambers (ie not appointment Honoris Causa because of his public role) and his knighthood, a title he seems not to use, followed his work as DPP.
Has he outgrown his class at birth? Is he more or less working class than Jess Phillips whose parents were a Senior NHS Officer and a Teacher. Emily Thornberry is a lawyer's daughter, was on free school meals as a child after her parents separated but is now the wife of a High Court Judge.
All a bit of a minefield.
|
|
"working class" is a completely rubbish and irrelevant archaic term with no value in the real world.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 18 Dec 19 at 11:24
|
The class system is alive and well in the UK. You dismiss the use of "working class", No FM2R. What criteria do you use, Brompton, to define middle and working classes?
|
>> The class system is alive and well in the UK.
I said nothing about the class system, I referred to the term "working class".
>>You dismiss the use of "working class", No FM2R.
I know. I was there when I wrote it.
|
>> "working class" is a completely rubbish and irrelevant archaic term with no value in the
>> real world.
>> I don't agree. There is a large portion of the population who would self identify as "working class" and as such it has a value. The term can be somewhat elastic but I would define working class as that group of people employed in manual or lesser skilled jobs. They usually have no further education beyond 18 and little in the way of qualifications. They are likely to have little in the way of savings or wealth.
|
It's still a rubbish term. And it's the term that I am objecting to.
"Manual workers" may be better. How would lorry drivers, as one example, feel about that?
|
Guardian reports Ms Thornberry has thrown her hat in the ring:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/18/emily-thornberry-throws-her-hat-into-ring-for-labour-leadership
Article also adds David Lammy and Clive Lewis to the possible runners/riders.
|
The National Readership Survey devised the system of Social Grade Definitions in the 1960s, based on audience research, to facilitate consumer marketing segmentation for firms wising to home in on defined markets. The NRS included the age, sex and social class of readers. As its definition of class it used occupation and manual and non-manual work marked the division between working class (grades C2, D and E) and middle classes (A, B and C1). (“Manual” is indeed here a more accurate term than “working” but the latter is firmly entrenched.)
This was based on the observed structure of British society and a firm wishing to target, say, young women aged 20 to 25 in grade B could turn to Willing’s Press Guide and select qualifying publications in which to advertise.
This is a commercial application of class structure although I believe Government uses it for certain purposes. For others purposes it has a far more differentiated National Statistics Socio-economic Classification. The term “socio-economic” usefully makes clear that social class and income are both significant in social stratification.
Details are obtained via questions asked in the national population census and are used (inter alia) to shape social policy. They reveal, for example, that working class children have reduced life chances in terms of health, nutrition and longevity, education and work.
|
What 21st cent class are you?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22000973
Elite apparently, despite not having a high percentile income.
|
Technical Middle Class.
Checked my income but not my occupation(s).
|
Well, it seems that I am....
New affluent workers
This class group is sociable, has lots of cultural interests and is in the middle of all the class groups in terms of wealth. According to the Great British Class Survey results, lots of people in this group:
Are young
Come from a working class background
Own their own home"
Apparently I am young and sociable. Seems perfectly accurate to me.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 18 Dec 19 at 15:06
|
Traditional Working Class apparently, which will come as a surprise to the valet.
Might be because I had to skip the "who do you know socially" section, as I know nobody.
|
|
I'm an emergent service worker apparently.
|
I did that BBC test several years ago when it was first published; I came out as 'elite' which leads me to suspect that Zeddo was cheating. ;-)
Recent investigations have shown that my great, great uncle lost his life in the Whitwick Colliery pit disaster (fire) of April 1898 when 35 miners died. Apparently, I was preceded by at least 5 generations of coal miners but was the first of the line to study phytopathogy. My dad told me that I shouldn't go down pit and, imo, the old state grammar schools were a vital route for social mobility.
I can appreciate the difficulties of defining 'class' but, nevertheless, I consider myself to be working class.
Last edited by: Haywain on Wed 18 Dec 19 at 21:21
|
>> I did that BBC test several years ago when it was first published; I came
>> out as 'elite' which leads me to suspect that Zeddo was cheating. ;-)
I am appalled to be lumped in the same class as you.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tXBC-71aZs
|
"I am appalled to be lumped in the same class as you."
I would never have believed that train-spotting could score so highly :-)
|
>> "I am appalled to be lumped in the same class as you."
>>
>> I would never have believed that train-spotting could score so highly :-)
Well as I make videos of them, and indeed make money from that act, I put it down as "heavily into arts and crafts"
Was that wrong?
|
>> Might be because I had to skip the "who do you know socially" section, as
>> I know nobody.
Thats good, because we all denied knowing you. None of us wanted to labeled "traditional working class"
|
I wanted to be Traditional Working Class but it tells me that I'm Elite. "This is the wealthiest and most privileged group in the UK."
Yeah. Right!
I think they need to look at that algorithm again.
|
Seems I come out as 'Technical middle class'.
Also I get a vote in the leadership battle due to affiliate membership from my union.
Going to be interesting who I might go for...
I like both of the two mentioned so far, ET puts up a good fight against some of the Tory radio presenters when I've heard her during the resent debates.
|
"... during the resent debates."
Have they started already?
|
|
Please remember that spelling is impotent.
|
|
Absolutely, and you can get tablets to fix it.
|
|
I usually have mine corrected automatically.
|
>> Absolutely, and you can get tablets to fix it.
>>
Straight up?
|
....I didn't know those tablets were supposed to enable a successful election.....
(must have mis-read the label :-( )
|
|
We had the choice between a hard left or a hard right prick
|
Ambo outlines the socio-economic classification very well ( although E is usually thought of as unemployed). This is probably what most people understand in a post-war context when thinking about what they might mean by working class, typically C2 and D. It was roughly reliable when cross referenced against income, a triangle with lowest/highest at the bottom/top, which is what made it useful.
Very different now and much more a diamond shape as “working class” incomes and standards of living have improved. As a tool for thinking about societal interaction it has become much less useful and hence more sophisticated systems are used in an attempt to aggregate people into broad groups. Fundamentally these systems are based on either individual’s characteristics and observable behaviour and/or their values and attitudes as a predictor of future behaviour. Hence the sometimes rather indirect questions. With “big data” sophisticated companies can divide their target populations into thousands of different groups, rather more than A-E!
In modern society I think the term working class, where mass, largely unskilled employment is stepwise diminished, is largely useless. Except for politicians of course who use the rhetoric of the post war period, but actually can be much more sophisticated in their use of data to target their message. In most cases anyway. It seems to me that the Labour Party not only had the wrong message but it didn’t matter because they were hopeless in understanding how and who to communicate it to. Complacency? The Islington bubble? An introverted group suffering group-think? I would be fascinated to hear the analysis assuming they have the humility to prepare any.
|
>>In modern society I think the term working class, where mass, largely unskilled employment is stepwise diminished
Not gone, replaced by call centres, the care industry, catering, low-skilled assembly, retail (where decent full time jobs and sensible hours have been reduced to part time and zro hours contracts) warehouse and delivery work.
The tragedy is that we really needed Labour now, not least to have a chance of rescuing the NHS, but the did a dreadful job of making what should have been an easy pitch (which, it has to be said, New Labour made a good start on privatising which has been enthusiastically carried on by the Conservatives).
|
|
Elite, it says. You could have fooled me.
|
|
Class? Its gone downhill if you ask me
|
I've never had any class...
;-)
|
|
I was a poor boy, from a poor family so to speak. Working class roots on both sides of my parents' family, but they were educated and literate. We were given similar opportunities and values. I ran the test and came out as technical middle class. I was thinking about the people I socialise with, my best friend and biking buddy works for the council in a good office job as a manager, he is from a similar background, professional parents (both nurses) but strong Working Class backgrounds. I socialise with retired senior Police Officers (one is now a JP), teachers and other professional types. I could have ticked the "arts and crafts" box maybe..Wales is odd, especially the Welsh language side of it class-wise. Apparently owning a Volvo estate is halfway to being middle class, the other half is owning a harp to put in the back of it.
|
"Elite" apparently. Who knew eh?
Must prove something, if only the wild inaccuracies of online surveys I suppose.
;-)
|
>> "Elite" apparently. Who knew eh?
Me too. Rubbish. You must have admitted to listening to classical music or something.
|
Well, I think the point I was making about the term working class being much less relevant was really with respect to the post war context of mass, organised labour. With mines, docks, automotive, shipbuilding etc no longer the industries they were.
This is not to deny the inequities of current conditions for some or indeed many, but such people no longer have strength of organised labour behind them and the trade union movement is not the force, for both good and ill, that it was.
A concerning issue to me is the disparity in earnings between the highest and lowest paid, particularly in the context of living and housing costs. My grandfather was a gas fitter and kept his bike in the hall of his terraced Victorian house in south London. That house now sold a couple of years ago for £1.6m, I somehow doubt to another gas man. This is very much a concern of the conscious capitalism movement who advocate no more than a 20x gap between the highest and lowest paid. How much is a senior manager really worth?
|
>> to another gas man. This is very much a concern of the conscious capitalism movement
>> who advocate no more than a 20x gap between the highest and lowest paid. How
>> much is a senior manager really worth?
>>
Good news though,if you work for bet365 ;)
www.bbc.com/news/business-50834994
And especially as the Coates family are massive Labour Party donors :)
FWIW I came out as elite, which seems fair :p
|
>> London. That house now sold a couple of years ago for £1.6m, I somehow doubt
>> to another gas man.
You have mixed two issues there.
2019 gas man is considerably better financially compensated than 1950's gas man in real terms.
London social mobility has nothing to do with a gap earnings, its simply a matter of fashionability, and always has been. Clapham was posh, then it wasnt, then it was again, and it wont be again.
>> who advocate no more than a 20x gap between the highest and lowest paid. How
>> much is a senior manager really worth?
CEO with responsibility for the livelihoods and success of 7000 of his workers IS worth paying 20 times more than the post room boy.
|
The biggest issue in the UK which drives the divide between the haves and have nots is housing and the lack of it, especially affordable housing.
The country needs more housing and more housing in areas which are both suitable for families and near to employment without driving. They have built thousands of new flats in and around Manchester city centre, but the Labour controlled council has not sought for one (even one) to be affordable. Thus all the low income workers need to commute in whereas the wealthy can walk to work.
The sale of council homes under Right to Buy was a sensible policy as far as it went, but the mistake was not reinvesting the money in new housing. Nowadays I see Housing Associations building new homes only for the 'tenants' to buy them a couple of years later. Not sure that is sensible. If you can afford to buy, then buy a private property not one built using public money.
|
>>The country needs more housing and more housing in areas which are both suitable for families >>and near to employment without driving.
Really? I'm not convinced about the last bit. I've never lived near my work by choice, I can't think of anything worse than living in a city with congestion, crime, noise, pollution etc. And what happens if you move employer? Not going through all the hassle and expense of moving. Far better to live in an area which is reasonably convenient for commuting to a number of different potential employers - which is what we did.
>>If you can afford to buy, then buy a private property not one built using public money.
Agree 100%
Last edited by: The Melting Snowman on Thu 19 Dec 19 at 17:45
|
|
But if we are going to attempt to reduce reliance on the use of the motor vehicle which has now strangled our suburban roads at peak traffic times then there has to be a complete rethink around work commuting and viable public transport.
|
Really? I'm not convinced about the last bit. I've never lived near my work by
>> choice, I can't think of anything worse than living in a city with congestion, crime,
>> noise, pollution etc. And what happens if you move employer? Not going through all the
>> hassle and expense of moving. Far better to live in an area which is reasonably
>> convenient for commuting to a number of different potential employers - which is what we
>> did.
Best thing i did was have a very short commute, currently have about a 10 minute walk. Last one was about 10 minutes in the car. Never worked in a city so I guess all the noise, pollution etc never a factor.
I have commuted in the past, 30 mins or so across country not really a fan. Seems a bit a waste of your life somehow, I suppose I'll have to go to commuting at some point. I can't say I'll look forward to it.
|
When i was last in trade, my own retail properties, my commute varied between 60/90 minutes each way, depending on location. 05:30 start most days to get to the wholesaler at 7AM, staff canteen for a good breakfast, home by 18:30 ish.
6 days a week, but I loved the job, and where I lived away from the city. Once sold up, I had ‘regular hours’, 07:30 train from Settle, start work at 08:30, finish 5PM, time for a few pints after work every night before the next train home. Pretty much perfect for me, although in more recent times three jobs with only a 30 minute walk to work which seemed like cheating !
|
Regarding low to high earnings multiples - we criticise people in business for their "unfairly" high earnings, yet apparently accept even higher incomes for top sportsmen, film stars, singers and entertainers. You pay to get what you think is the best for the job and sometimes get it wrong. Dual standards working here??
If the government get serious about climate change it will have a massive impact on how we live our lives. At the moment, despite protestations to the contrary, they are just tinkering at the edges. We will need:
- a massive investment in cheap, frequent, reliable public transport
- huge increases in "green" energy production (is nuclear green?)
- major improvements in EV and battery technologies
- major investment in power distribution infrastructure
- you need to think seriously about commute vs move home
- etc etc
Back to the subject. Labour have a major problem. A large part of the party are still in denial as to the reasons for the electoral disaster - but it is evident that the main causes were:
(a) no real Brexit strategy after 3 years sitting on the fence
(b) promised referendum was just an attempt to please everyone (it didn't)
(c) spending plans and nationalisation perceived as unaffordable dogma
(d) anti-semitism publicity
The Brexit issue will be consigned to history. But Corbyn would have saved himself a lot of personal grief had he resigned the morning after - as it stands there is no effective opposition right now.
I also suspect that if Labour elect another left wing leader they will be destined to lose the next election as well - bar a total screw up by Boris. Unfortunately all candidates are having to pay lip service to a momentum sponsored left wing who think they woz robbed.
Hopefully the slightly left of centre will win out over the far left nutters as our democracy relies on an effective opposition to keep the worst excesses of the government under scrutiny. So my money would be on Keir Starmer, possibly Thornberry.
|
>> Hopefully the slightly left of centre will win out over the far left nutters as
>> our democracy relies on an effective opposition to keep the worst excesses of the government
>> under scrutiny. So my money would be on Keir Starmer, possibly Thornberry.
Both Starmer and Thornberry were sidelined during the election which tells you what the controlling forces in the party think of them. If the same people choose the next leader it won't be either of those two or anyone in that mould and Labour will get nowhere.
I've just been listening to Mark Serwotka on last night's Newsnight, and he stuck by the 'ideology' and lauded Corbyn for increasing Labour membership x 3. Unless a new wave of people join to outvote the far left then Labour will continue to go backwards. I'm not even sure that they can, I think Labour might have changed its voting system (again). Momentum et al will not win them an election, the disaster in the heartlands shows how little they understand the people who were their base.
It's looking less and less likely that Labour's post mortem review will break out of the groupthink that sunk them in the election. Tragic.
|
“You have mixed two issues there”
No I haven’t. I acknowledged that living standards have improved and the “working class” and most of the rest of us are significantly better off than previous generations. Interesting to think that social mobility has nothing to with income.
“CEO with responsibility for the livelihoods and success of 7000 of his workers IS worth paying 20 times more than the post room boy.”
Really? Who says?
I agree valued skills should be appropriately rewarded but differentials have widened significantly between the highest and lowest paid. Whether that differential should be 20x as advocated by the Conscious Capitalism movement is another matter.
Was the previous chief executive of Persimmon worth a £75m bonus? Or the vice-chancellor of a middle of the road, provincial university earning a couple of hundred grand worth a 20% salary increase when the rest of the several thousand staff received nothing (post room boys included). Then of course there are the bankers bailed out by the tax payer notorious for their extravagant bonuses. I think there are readily available examples of inappropriately high senior management remuneration. The issue is not that senior managers are worth more, of course they are, but how much more and when does that become excessive.
|
>> “CEO with responsibility for the livelihoods and success of 7000 of his workers IS worth
>> paying 20 times more than the post room boy.”
>>
>> Really? Who says?
I do, As would any of the shareholders who after all provide capitol for the company
>> I agree valued skills should be appropriately rewarded but differentials have widened significantly between the
>> highest and lowest paid. Whether that differential should be 20x as advocated by the Conscious
>> Capitalism movement is another matter.
Exactly, it goes to show that putting hard and fast arbitrary ratios in place are stupid. Which is always an issue with those who seek to redistribute. They have no idea of value.
|
>> Exactly, it goes to show that putting hard and fast arbitrary ratios in place are
>> stupid. Which is always an issue with those who seek to redistribute. They have no
>> idea of value.
Government (taxpayers) paying for infrastructure and any form of welfare or services involves redistribution. It's just a question of how much is right.
Once you recognise that it is the complete system that creates wealth then you are likely to think that more redistribution is generally a good thing.
Stick Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerburg in the middle of the Sahara on their own and see how much wealth they create.
Nobody needs or can even benefit from excess billions in the bank. Money is only a problem when you run out. Collectively, we have more than enough, so people should not generally suffer just because they have run out especially when it is through no fault of their own. You can have a debate about the deserving and undeserving poor, but unregulated capitalism creates poverty as well as wealth. It is the job, the main job after defence, of government to alleviate it. There is really no way round that conclusion IMO.
As for the CEO of Persimmon, if he's had £75m bonus then he's stitched up the remuneration committee and the shareholders (who, as I recall, thought exactly that). Housebuilding is cyclical. Now and then it throws off great waves of profit, almost regardless. It would make more sense to pay CEO's extra after they have successfully guided the business through a recession.
|
>> Government (taxpayers) paying for infrastructure and any form of welfare or services involves redistribution. It's
>> just a question of how much is right.
>>
>> Once you recognise that it is the complete system that creates wealth then you are
>> likely to think that more redistribution is generally a good thing.
>> Stick Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerburg in the middle of the Sahara on their own
>> and see how much wealth they create.
The state, state controlled or state legislation has a very poor record of invention, investment, emerging markets or creating anything new. (except in time of war)
The middle of the sahara is a pretty sterile environment. The state would flourish there.
That the capitalist market creates and generates undistributed and unfair wealth is a given. Give that job to the state and there is nothing generated to redistribute.
|
>> That the capitalist market creates and generates undistributed and unfair wealth is a given.
>>Give
>> that job to the state and there is nothing generated to redistribute.
My point, exactly. The state's job is the other bit. Every state regulates the markets, taxes and distributes. The USA seems to think that should be minimised, presumably to maximise wealth but what's the point of that if it is unfairly hoarded by capital and millions struggle to exist?
Clearly if the state takes everything (USSR) then capitalism and enterprise are neutralized, but what if the objective is to distribute (the "re" is redundant) an optimal proportion such that all can benefit without undermining the profit motive? Some [more] successful [than ours] economies get a lot nearer to that than we do.
There has been at least one illustration that capitalism is not the only way of getting things done, at least in discrete functions. The NHS was already remarkably successful before Mrs Thatcher created the the internal market and introduced business methods. It was run by senior doctors and nurses in a very organic way that was evolved rather than designed (see "clan control"). Administration then consumed about 5% of cost, managing those "markets", measures and controls now costs a multiple of that amount and proportionately less goes into care. It has not been demonstrated as far as I know that efficiency or effectiveness has improved in relative terms since 1991 and the legacy of PFI is now sucking the life out of the NHS. We have been encouraged to believe that a healthcare system like the NHS is unsustainable on grounds of cost, which is also unproven - it would be right if there was never any form of rationing or limit (prioritisation and waiting lists for elective operations served a purpose, it was probably trying to eliminate them altogether that was a mistake) but it did work and it could work now.
Market economies in their present form are unsustainable - does anybody disagree with that?
|
>> Stick Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerburg in the middle of the Sahara on their own
>> and see how much wealth they create.
Put Jeremy Corbyn in charge of Sainsburys and see how much wealth (and how many jobs...) he destroys...
|
>>
>> >> Stick Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerburg in the middle of the Sahara on their
>> own
>> >> and see how much wealth they create.
>>
>> Put Jeremy Corbyn in charge of Sainsburys and see how much wealth (and how many
>> jobs...) he destroys...
:)
And your point is...?
|
>>Awful, awful, awful establishment.
Superb in Poole.
|
>> And your point is...?
>>
My point is that few people flourish in the wrong environment, as you pointed out. Some do even more harm than not being there at all. But Dave Lewis and Mike Coup (and to be fair Terry Leahey and Justin King before them) understood what their customers wanted, and built businesses creating value and jobs along the way to deliver that. A leaders job is to create the right environment and build the right team. Successful CEOs get that. Successful entrepreneurs get that. Successful politicians get that.
Jeremy surrounds himself with people who think like him; but guess what, he’s not reflective of society and no longer even represents the membership of the Labour Party. So he didn’t get support from them. But apparently it’s the electorates fault for not understanding, in that classic patronising, we know what’s best for you affluent pseudo intellectual labour leadership way. And the tragic thing is, they really believe they’re right ;)
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 21 Dec 19 at 21:19
|
>> Jeremy surrounds himself with people who think like him; but guess what, he’s not reflective
>> of society and no longer even represents the membership of the Labour Party. So he
>> didn’t get support from them.
The worrying thing is that that's exactly who he does represent and that the lesson of unelectable leaders has not been learned. Yesterday I joined the Labour party with the intention of 'doing my bit'.
Of the two so far declared I'd prefer Emily Thornberry but I think Starmer is who we really need. If it has to be somebody from the left (and I don't expect a winner in round one this time) then Rebecca Long-Bailey is preferable to Clive Lewis.
|
I think you miss the point. For businesses to succeed they need to exist in an environment that is conducive to their success. The country need to have a successful health care system for its workers, a good education system, good transport infrastructure and a good Goverment administration. The success of a business is not just down to the ability of its CEO and yet they are the ones who are rewarded with huge salaries and bonuses for success which sometimes has little to do with them
Incidentally why do these employees, need increases and bonuses of millions of pounds to motivate them for another years work when the rest of the employees should accept sub inflation pay rises and see their benefits such as pensions stripped away from them?
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Sat 21 Dec 19 at 09:26
|
>> Incidentally why do these employees, need increases and bonuses of millions of pounds to motivate
>> them for another years work when the rest of the employees should accept sub inflation
>> pay rises and see their benefits such as pensions stripped away from them?
No, I’m not sure I am missing the point. Of course we, and businesses, need the right environment. But not enough people thought that Labour could provide it. Or that Jeremy could run the Labour Party.
High salaries are a matter for shareholders and the tax system in my opinion. They’re not about short term motivation, but usually linked to creating long term shareholder value. It’s disingenuous to suggest that the CEO has little to do with successful businesses performances; occasionally they’re lucky, but for everyone that is there are many hundreds that make a real difference. The CEO of Bet365 was paid a salary of £323m last year. Through payroll, so including employers NI HMRC got around £200m I reckon, out of a total cost to the business of £400m. A 50% tax take. That’s a lot, in the scheme of things and would take an awfully big increase on those earning >£85k to recover...
Now I think there’s a case to be made for taking the US approach to high salaries, which is to not make them deductible for corporation tax purposes. But that still hasn’t held back US salaries so I don’t know what the real answer is. Capping them to a multiple of the lowest earning would mean that theCEO of an SME would earn the same, if not more, than that of the CEO of Tesco - palpably a silly position. I do know that a bigger cake overall is better than a small cake, as long as it is shared. 50% of £400m makes a lot more difference that 60% of nothing. And I’m not sure who gets sub inflation pay rises at the moment - minimum and living wages are rising at a higher than inflation rate, so it’s not them. On the south coast there’s a shortage of skilled workers, so it’s not the next tier either in my experience. And so on. I accept it might be different elsewhere, though not at the bottom end of the income distribution scale.
On the pensions front, Labour under Gordon Brown started the attack on private/company pensions. Again, unintended or ill thought through consequences. When everyone was in the same pension scheme CEO to shop floor interests were, broadly, aligned. As soon as the lifetime allowance was introduced that alignment was broken. Now that’s not the only reason, of course. But it was a key trigger.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 21 Dec 19 at 21:20
|
>> The CEO of Bet365 was paid a salary of £323m last year.
The CEO of a privately held company owned by her and her family on which she pays considerable income tax. So not really any problem I can see, it's their company.
The salaries within publicly traded companies are declared and a matter for shareholders. And who gives a crap if one CEO is paid more or less than other CEOs.
CEO salaries within nationalised and state run organisations are an issue, so let's not have any more of those.
Surely we're looking at the wrong end of the problem?
We should be looking more closely at the other end of the scale. No zero hours contracts, higher minimum wage, better work benefits, better education [free university], health care, including dental, and enforced security (better redundancy payments, increased TUPE security] and better pensions. etc. etc.
If you're clever about it then you will not hurt the economy, growth or initiative. You could, for example, have much more onerous responsibilities on a much steeper scale as the number of employees or revenue grew.
|
We pay footballers £5m+ because they can kick a ball (incredibly well but it is still just a ball)
We pay musicians ££mmm simply because they know a few chords
We pay comedians because they can tell a joke some find amusing - up to £40m pa
We pay artists for daubing a bit of paint, or making a pile of dirty bedding on a clothes on a bed
We are fools paying millions for a sunflower (or similar) painting
We pay TV sports presenters (no name no pack drill) up to £1.75m pa
All these people entertain some of us, or some of us may be enertained by all of them.
But none are there to create wealth, create jobs, manage the delivery of critical services etc etc
Yet we criticise them above the rest of the high earners even though mostly they earn a lot less. I think our values are barmy, driven by envy.
We should be very happy at the high earnings of those in business and the public sector as long as they do an exceptionally good job. If not they should be fired or demoted in favour of someone who can.
|
"We pay musicians ££mmm simply because they know a few chords".
No. Musicians are paid a fee, that's it, but for knowing more than 'a few chords' anyway. Songwriters are the earners (melody and lyrics) who earn from broadcasting, cds, dvds and concerts. But don't worry. If you're not buying their product, they're not spending your money.
"We pay comedians because they can tell a joke some find amusing - up to £40m pa"
Same thing, they earn absolutely nothing if nobody buys their product. Nobody 'pays' them anything. When the public lose interest, the broadcasters dump them.
"We pay artists for daubing a bit of paint, or making a pile of dirty bedding on a clothes on a bed"
Again, they're paid nothing, they simply sell what people want. Mostly about taste. If nobody buys, nobody earns.
"We are fools paying millions for a sunflower (or similar) painting"
And that's as far from the truth as it gets. You pay for rarity. Something that that nobody else on the planet can have. Not a sunflower. Not for taste. And an income usually for the deceased's estate.
We pay TV sports presenters (no name no pack drill) up to £1.75m pa
Yup. So what? Makes no difference to my income. And some of of them, I really enjoy.
|
|
BBD has a point. And of course it's only the modest handful of top sportsmen/comedians/artists at the top of their game who make that kind of money (although rather more footballers than necessary IMO :-) )
|
Exactly.
Most musicians, entertainers and artists live on the breadline. And the small percentage of footballers who get to play in the Premier League and earn the big wages are paid a considerable percentage of that in money that comes from abroad.
|
>> Exactly.
>>
>> Most musicians, entertainers and artists live on the breadline.
and if they didn't, they wouldn't produce art. Most artists need pain and angst* to produce stuff we want to listen to or see.
*or mad, madness helps.
|
I was being deliberately dismissive of the skills deployed in other "trades". But you actually make the point very well:
- if they don't perform they don't make any money,
- whatever they make, my income is largely unaffected unless I buy a painting or CD etc,
- rarity and taste drives perceived value
And this is no different to the position a top business leader enjoys:
- they can make a lot of money if they are successful,
- they continue to make a lot (for a while) even if they are trading on past successes
- ultimately if they don't deliver, they are fired and make nothing
We could reasonably question what the definition of success is - maximising dividends, share price growth, incomes etc. The most "successful" companies are often found at both ends of the business ethos spectrum:
- pile it high, sell it cheap, exploit suppliers and staff (JD Sports??)
- pay the best, recruit the best, reward innovation, share the fruits of success (Apple??)
In summary it is all about supply and demand!
|
they can make a lot of money if they are successful,
- they continue to make a lot (for a while) even if they are trading on past successes
- ultimately if they don't deliver, they are fired and make nothing
Ho Ho Ho
If it worked like that most would have few problems with executive remuneration in the UK. In practice most company boards are self perpetuating and self rewarding. Even if the CEO is so bad that the send the company into administration they make sure their contract makes them entitled to a massive pay out.
|
Share price incentives are the main racket. Great idea for startups, give them a meaningful percentage of a company worth a few thousand and if they grow it to something substantial then arguably they deserve to be rich.
What usually happens however is that a large company goes into reverse for a bit, it might also be facing structural problems or external ones such as a market contraction in parts of its business, and the management changes. The share price crashes when the CFO and CEO leave, the new management comes in with big share incentives, chucks the kitchen sink into 'non-headline' restructuring costs, implements cost cuts, and waits to get rich. That they increase dividends along the way to boost the share price at the expense of sufficient capital investment and/or increased debt weakens the business ahead of the next reversal, after they have departed if they are smart. They have got their money and reputation and if the business does go bust, then the employees, their pension scheme, and their other creditors take the hit. If it doesn't then the shareholders take the capital losses until the cycle starts again.
I've often thought that management should get the big rewards when they have successfully managed a business through a recession, rather than being incentivised to pile it with debt or just run the business for cash to distribute and potentially weakening it fatally. I wasn't thinking of Carillion but it's a good example of a company being financially undercut while the directors were being paid 7 figure bonuses, then going bust owing something like £6bn.
|
So Jess Phillips has dropped out and it looks as if Starmer, Long-Bailey and Nandy have got the requisite union backing.
Not sure whether Thornberry will make the cut.
Local Party Branches are holding nomination meetings in next fortnight and I guess those three will get sufficient endorsements too. Curiously, although I can vote in the election I've not been a member for the 8 weeks required to participate in and vote at Daventry CLP's nomination meeting next week.
I'm still favouring Starmer but Lisa Nandy is proving an impressive performer in the media interviews. Could she come up on the inside rail for a surprise result?
|
|
They're all a bit humourless on the showings I've seen. Nandy is the most engaging I'd say.
|
|
Labour leaders have to be humourless and in fact characterless. When was the last Labour leader who wasnt?
|
>> Harold Wilson.
Only the Mike Yarwood version gave him any humour or character.
|
>> >> Harold Wilson.
>>
>> Only the Mike Yarwood version gave him any humour or character.
>>
I thought he usually had a twinkle in his eye. Yorkshire humour maybe.
|
>> >> Harold Wilson.
>>
>> Only the Mike Yarwood version gave him any humour or character.
Interviewed on TV and playing with his pipe (he actually preferred cigars) that might be true but as a speaker at conference, or engaging heckler, he was pretty sharp.
|
"but as a speaker at conference, or engaging heckler, he was pretty sharp."
My dad took me to hear Harold Wilson speaking at Granby Halls, Leicester when I was about 14 or 15. At that time, Harold and Alec Douglas-Home were at one another like Batman and the Joker.
Harold was winding up the audience which, I guess, would have been composed largely of coal-miners like my dad. It went something like .....
"Alec Douglas-Home tells the miners not to be greedy", Harold quietly asserted. Then louder ....
"Alec Douglas-Home tells the miners not to be greedy". Then louder again .........
"Alec Douglas-Home tells the miners not to be greedy", Then with an arm waving and thumping his fist down on the lectern ..........
"Alex Douglas Home owns half of Scotland, and he tells the miners not to be greedy!!!"
You can imagine how that went down.
|
Bet they wish they'd listened now.
|
>> Tony Blair.
Who I didn't value at the time, but given what has followed.....
|
>> Who I didn't value at the time, but given what has followed.....
His first term was quite radical. Problem came post 2001.....
|
Depends whether they put political dogma ahead of election victory.
None will say Corbyn got it wrong too worried about alienating the left wing of the party - but he was not remotely PM material.
Their only election success of any consequence in the last 50 years was a moderate, centre left, plausible, persona called Tony Blair.
My money is on Kier Starmer who looks and sounds the part. He has the brains and presence to make life difficult for Boris.
Long-Bailey would guarantee a Tory govt for the next 10 years. Thornberry seems too far behind to be a contender. Nandy may be a fair outside bet.
|
>> Tony Blair.
Too earnest
|
>> Labour leaders have to be humourless and in fact characterless. When was the last Labour
>> leader who wasnt?
You couldn't pin either charge on Kinnock. Or if swing had swung other way, Roy Hattersley. Not Smith or Blair.
In fact you're probably channelling the Attlee/empty taxi joke to no great effect.
|
>> You couldn't pin either charge on Kinnock.
Ah yes, Kinnock, forgot him, good call.
>> In fact you're probably channelling the Attlee/empty taxi joke to no great effect.
As I don't know that joke, I channeled nothing to any effect. As for Atlee I was one when he was last leader, and you weren't even born so you cant channel anything about him either.
|
|
Just googled it, attributed to Churchill in !946. Stretching the old barrel there brompy.
|
>> As for Atlee I was one when he was last leader, and you weren't even born so you
>> cant channel anything about him either.
You might just have been in fifth form when I entered secondary school :-)
Attlee was a manager and technocrat who achieved stuff without a massive persona. I'm sure you worked with people like that too.
I remember the posters for elections in 64 and 66. Possibly by former, certainly latter, I could read name 'Hiley' on the posters with a blue ground and white cross. 1970 was first time I was conscious of the arguments; we had a mock election in my primary class.
|
>>who achieved stuff without a massive persona. I'm sure you worked with people like that too.
In all seriousness, no, I don't think I ever did. Different personality volumes of course, but without a strong one? No, I don't think so.
|
|
I think Rebecca Long-Bailey would do admirably, as she thinks the Magic Grandpa was a winner!
|
As we've no labour thread, I'll put this here.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53902845
Looks KS is setting up Labour on a new course, a different message from the previous leader.
|
He has certainly made a good start and looks like a leader but mind you that’s not difficult when being compared to Johnson.
Never sure about the proud to be British thing especially if it means my country right or wrong. Sometimes I am not proud of my country, not one little bit.
|
>> He has certainly made a good start and looks like a leader but mind you
>> that’s not difficult when being compared to Johnson.
I think we'll see how he goes when HoC is back up and running, I think that's probably a fairer time to judge him. I think it'll also help him following Corbyn.
>>
>> Never sure about the proud to be British thing especially if it means my country
>> right or wrong. Sometimes I am not proud of my country, not one little bit.
>>
I'm not sure he's suggesting that?
|
|
No I don’t think he is but there is a an element of the electorate that thinks that.
|
|
Might well be, I bet its tiny though. If you were to say, back any particular political party right or wrong, then I'd agree with that. I'd bet the numbers would be much higher for the latter.
|
>> He has certainly made a good start and looks like a leader but mind you
>> that’s not difficult when being compared to Corbyn.
No need to thank me.
|
The Who's Going to be the New Labour Leader Thread - henry k
