Chancellor's statement live
- Thread starter platinumsage
- Start date
ska invita
back on the other side
My take on yesterday's announcement is
1, it won't even happen. It's due to kick in on 1st November, and by that time there'll be a more restrictive Lockdown which will require much wider financial support, which I hope will come, though may not
2. The offer itself is pretty shit and won't be taken up that much. It's too much money to be paid by employers. It doesn't add up.
3. They're encouraging talk of "zombie jobs" (which need killing off). In their minds it's time for a job cull. Sunak is briefing for mass unemployment today. Fuck their idea of "viable"
1, it won't even happen. It's due to kick in on 1st November, and by that time there'll be a more restrictive Lockdown which will require much wider financial support, which I hope will come, though may not
2. The offer itself is pretty shit and won't be taken up that much. It's too much money to be paid by employers. It doesn't add up.
3. They're encouraging talk of "zombie jobs" (which need killing off). In their minds it's time for a job cull. Sunak is briefing for mass unemployment today. Fuck their idea of "viable"
ska invita
back on the other side
Agree... Heard Frances O'Grady on the radio painting it as a victory for the TUC. She did say more was needed, however...
Some bleak words in Stephen Bush's mailout this morning
The Resolution Foundation argues that, as devised, the scheme makes it cheaper to keep one worker on full-time than have two on part-time. The Treasury's argument is that, in the real world, the additional costs of hiring and training new workers means that businesses are already incentivised to retain workers. That feels like a rather big bet about the economic recovery and the level of job creation in the next few months - if you're a business, you're incentivised to keep me on the books on a lower salary if you think you won't be able to rehire me at will. But the reality is that you almost certainly will be able to rehire me at will, or use me to top up any staff shortages you have whenever you want.
The explicit logic of Sunak's measures is threefold: 1) these things all have to be paid for so the cost of these income protection schemes has to be curtailed sooner rather than later 2) a vaccine is a way off, so the economy needs to adjust to that reality rather than be frozen in aspic until the age of coronavirus is over 3) there is no meaningful hope or prospect of a sufficiently advanced system to test, trace and isolate new cases of covid-19 to facilitate an end to social distancing.
So if you're employed by a theatre, a night club, or any of the other businesses who cannot meaningfully operate in the era of socially distancing, employed by a business servicing city centres in any shape or form, then these measures quite deliberately leave you out. More troublingly, there is nothing on the measures that ought to be there for you: an end to the welfare cap, a pause on rental evictions, and an increase in the generosity and eligibility of universal credit.
The Resolution Foundation argues that, as devised, the scheme makes it cheaper to keep one worker on full-time than have two on part-time. The Treasury's argument is that, in the real world, the additional costs of hiring and training new workers means that businesses are already incentivised to retain workers. That feels like a rather big bet about the economic recovery and the level of job creation in the next few months - if you're a business, you're incentivised to keep me on the books on a lower salary if you think you won't be able to rehire me at will. But the reality is that you almost certainly will be able to rehire me at will, or use me to top up any staff shortages you have whenever you want.
The explicit logic of Sunak's measures is threefold: 1) these things all have to be paid for so the cost of these income protection schemes has to be curtailed sooner rather than later 2) a vaccine is a way off, so the economy needs to adjust to that reality rather than be frozen in aspic until the age of coronavirus is over 3) there is no meaningful hope or prospect of a sufficiently advanced system to test, trace and isolate new cases of covid-19 to facilitate an end to social distancing.
So if you're employed by a theatre, a night club, or any of the other businesses who cannot meaningfully operate in the era of socially distancing, employed by a business servicing city centres in any shape or form, then these measures quite deliberately leave you out. More troublingly, there is nothing on the measures that ought to be there for you: an end to the welfare cap, a pause on rental evictions, and an increase in the generosity and eligibility of universal credit.
stdP
One Swiss dinosaur in Polly Gosling's anorak hood
Dilly-dallying about a furlough replacement during the furlough wind-down means lots of "non-viable" jobs (like 90% of the hospitality industry) started their redundancy consultations back in July. You'd have to be either exceptionally dim-witted and/or gleefully psychotic to see that firms would start getting rid of staff the second there was any hesitation from the government about wage subsidies, and that point came and went months ago. Companies already thought they were paying too much money keeping people on furlough when it's cheaper to just fire everyone on statutory minimum and, if the business can survive, employ some of the same people six months down the line on desperation wages (those that aren't made homeless anyway).
My partner (manager in a five-star central london hotel) finally got their redundancy letter this week, along with 80% of the rest of the front of house staff. From the hospitality grape vine, the same thing is happening across at least several dozen central london hotels.
According to wikipedia, nearly 3m people in the UK worked in hospitality in 2015, I wouldn't be surprised if we see at least 1m of those on the dole queue in the next month or two, if not more. I'm sure they'll be happy to be thought of as not economically viable.
My partner (manager in a five-star central london hotel) finally got their redundancy letter this week, along with 80% of the rest of the front of house staff. From the hospitality grape vine, the same thing is happening across at least several dozen central london hotels.
According to wikipedia, nearly 3m people in the UK worked in hospitality in 2015, I wouldn't be surprised if we see at least 1m of those on the dole queue in the next month or two, if not more. I'm sure they'll be happy to be thought of as not economically viable.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Occupancy rates have crashed, and the reduction of VAT to 5% makes no difference whatsoever.
I think it's becoming clear that it isn't dilly-dallying.
stdP
One Swiss dinosaur in Polly Gosling's anorak hood
Agreed, occupancy rates for her place were at something like 3-5% of the YoY average. I confess I don't really see the gain, political or otherwise, in paying to keep people in limbo for six months and forcing their companies' hand to unceremoniously throw them on the bonfire.
Sufficiently advanced malice is indeed indistinguishable from stupidity.
Similar threads
