Sessions of York goes into administration (From York Press)

In the late eighties, Chancellor Nigel Lawson capped pension funds from holding more than 105% of their actuarial requirements and this precipitated the employers 'contribution holidays'. Next, Chancellor Gordon Brown started taxing the dividends of pension funds. These 'arch-criminals' have caused the pensions problems that are reinforcing themselves through the law of a 'viscious circle'.

Another good solid company bites the dust, great shame I fear this has been on the cards for some time.

A very sad day for York.

If this lousy government, and heaven forbid it isn't followed by a Tory one, could just try to think along different lines to resolve this problem once and for all.

Companies could be helped greatly if we scrapped the benefits system and paid everyone say £100 per week whether in work or not.

Not only would this save just about what it costs to run the benefits system but would also stimulate the economy by increasing localised cash-flow.

Also companies could reduce their own level of wages to employees and make their business profitable.

With 10 million unemployed in the UK and the credit bubble over, it is up to the government to think again on the way forward.

The banks are as useful as a chocolate fireguard to companies and housing which is why I favour independent new local enterprise and mortgage banks that offer companies and house hunters long term assistance for minimal interest.

Sessions could easily be rescued if the above points were implemented.

How many more businesses are going to go under in York while the banks and politicians sit around fiddling - Neroesque, as decent companies disappear.

The bowl-of-rice-a-day people will be doing all this type of work in the end. How they survived this long is a miracle.

My condolences to all those involved.

What planet are you on? - "pay everyone £100 per week wether in work or not"????


Incredible........

Pay everyone £100 a week! Then we'll all need to be on benefits to help pay the bills

T. Scaife wrote:
If this lousy government, and heaven forbid it isn't followed by a Tory one, could just try to think along different lines to resolve this problem once and for all. Companies could be helped greatly if we scrapped the benefits system and paid everyone say £100 per week whether in work or not. Not only would this save just about what it costs to run the benefits system but would also stimulate the economy by increasing localised cash-flow. Also companies could reduce their own level of wages to employees and make their business profitable. With 10 million unemployed in the UK and the credit bubble over, it is up to the government to think again on the way forward. The banks are as useful as a chocolate fireguard to companies and housing which is why I favour independent new local enterprise and mortgage banks that offer companies and house hunters long term assistance for minimal interest. Sessions could easily be rescued if the above points were implemented. How many more businesses are going to go under in York while the banks and politicians sit around fiddling - Neroesque, as decent companies disappear.

I hope you're being ironic...it worries me greatly that people with opinions like yours are allowed to vote!!
`
10million unemployed?! You obviously don't read the news, as it was reported only yesterday that 2.5million are unemployed, and only 1.54million of these people are claiming benefits!! Where on earth did you dream 10million from?!
`
The credit bubble is over for those who are not able to control their own spending - would you lend a tenner to a friend who you knew for a fact would never give it back? So why should a bank lend you £100,000 when they know they won't ever get it back?
I have managed to buy 2 houses during this recession...the credit was there because I can be trusted to repay it - those who can't be trusted shouldn't ruin it for the rest of us. Let's not forget it is those people who can not pay their debts who got us into this mess, not those who repay each month.
`
I fail to understand how companies would benefit from government subsizing wages...perhaps you could enlighten me? Surely workers would be less inclined to work, therefore reducing output, reducing profit and reducing growth?
`
Your £100 a week proposal is simply laughable...why should those people who earn millions get £100 a week, while those who are on minimum wage struggle? The benefits system is designed to help those that need it, and not everyone needs it!
`
The current government has a plan to get out of this mess - growth. If they stimulate the economy, more people become more successful and pay more tax. More tax means a lower deficit. It's a simple idea, and it beats the pants off anything any other party can come up with - none of which I am even aware of, presumably because they don't exist of they are deeply flawed.
`
You've had some posts on here before which contain a degree of common sense - has someone hacked your account to start spouting this nonsense?!

Most of the print business areas are badly affected. Next month's IPEX in Birmingham is struggling to attract bouyant exhibitors and companies like Heidleberg, Xerox and Komori are token exhibitors. It'll be the same at DRUPA in two years time unless the recession eases, though paper printing will never recover its heydays.

This is a terrible blow to York. I know some people who still haven't found work after being made redundant due to the recession last year, and it seems more and more people are joining them. It's also a shame as it's a local, home grown business- few and far between in this climate!

T. Scaife wrote:
If this lousy government, and heaven forbid it isn't followed by a Tory one, could just try to think along different lines to resolve this problem once and for all. Companies could be helped greatly if we scrapped the benefits system and paid everyone say £100 per week whether in work or not. Not only would this save just about what it costs to run the benefits system but would also stimulate the economy by increasing localised cash-flow. Also companies could reduce their own level of wages to employees and make their business profitable. With 10 million unemployed in the UK and the credit bubble over, it is up to the government to think again on the way forward. The banks are as useful as a chocolate fireguard to companies and housing which is why I favour independent new local enterprise and mortgage banks that offer companies and house hunters long term assistance for minimal interest. Sessions could easily be rescued if the above points were implemented. How many more businesses are going to go under in York while the banks and politicians sit around fiddling - Neroesque, as decent companies disappear.

I don't want to be given £100 per week thank you very much! I studied very hard and racked up lots of student debt so I could gain qualifications and earn my own money. I would like the fair wage from the job I currently do. I pay my taxes so would have no qualms with claiming what I'm entitled to if the worst occurred, but I do not want to be given hard working tax payers money on a weekly basis for no reason whatsoever while others struggle. The mere suggestion is ridiculous.

Bit late to be speeking up now Bayley. Same goes for Waller the useless fool.

In fairness, I think T. Scaife meant that everyone should be given the £100 per week employed or not, i.e the unemployed get £100, the employed get their wages + £100, thus eliminating the bureaucracy of the benefits system at a single fell stroke. Not convinced it's a great idea, mind you.

The sheer rudeness of ripostes on this subject should appal me, yet it is to be expected from people, who like the politicians, can't see further than their noses or think outside the rather small box they have become accustomed to.

However I will attempt to explain and help them to understand.

Contrary to the view that 2.5 million are unemployes the fact is their are 10 million economically inactive. That is to say, 2.5 million massaged unemployment figures + 2.5 million on incapacity benefit + students and schooleavers taken off the register and carers and "housewives" and many who choose not to register as unemployed because they have simply given up.

The benefits system costs the UK about £100 billion annually. On top of this is all the grants for business and of course the billion wasted on consultants, administrators and the billion ripped off by asset strippers.

This is a growing problem and th eUK is a land of inequals of up to 50% unemployment in places and huge disparities in aspiration.

We have business after business collapsing because even before the recession they were being sueezed.

So therefore by eliminating all this beauracracy the government will be able to pay everyone adult of working age £100 a week.

This is not a great deal of cash so wil be spent on living expenses by those without work. It will circulate round and stimulate the economy and go back to the treasury.

Companies would be able to reduce their wages costs and employ more people because the economy will lift and their cashflow will improve.

Also if job sharing were common there would be full employment.

Local mortgage banks offering long loans and tenancies at low interest could really help those unable to afford a home. Local enterprise banks could help all business too.

For those who still think this ridiculous htey can't either add up properly, lack compassion for the millions struggling and wish to do nothing to reverse the rot for millions of people in the UK.

T. Scaife wrote:
The sheer rudeness of ripostes on this subject should appal me, yet it is to be expected from people, who like the politicians, can't see further than their noses or think outside the rather small box they have become accustomed to. However I will attempt to explain and help them to understand. Contrary to the view that 2.5 million are unemployes the fact is their are 10 million economically inactive. That is to say, 2.5 million massaged unemployment figures + 2.5 million on incapacity benefit + students and schooleavers taken off the register and carers and "housewives" and many who choose not to register as unemployed because they have simply given up. The benefits system costs the UK about £100 billion annually. On top of this is all the grants for business and of course the billion wasted on consultants, administrators and the billion ripped off by asset strippers. This is a growing problem and th eUK is a land of inequals of up to 50% unemployment in places and huge disparities in aspiration. We have business after business collapsing because even before the recession they were being sueezed. So therefore by eliminating all this beauracracy the government will be able to pay everyone adult of working age £100 a week. This is not a great deal of cash so wil be spent on living expenses by those without work. It will circulate round and stimulate the economy and go back to the treasury. Companies would be able to reduce their wages costs and employ more people because the economy will lift and their cashflow will improve. Also if job sharing were common there would be full employment. Local mortgage banks offering long loans and tenancies at low interest could really help those unable to afford a home. Local enterprise banks could help all business too. For those who still think this ridiculous htey can't either add up properly, lack compassion for the millions struggling and wish to do nothing to reverse the rot for millions of people in the UK.

Scaifey, what you are proposing is what was done in the USSR in the days of Brezhnev and co. Look how far it got them.

For those who still think this ridiculous htey can't either add up properly, lack compassion for the millions struggling and wish to do nothing to reverse the rot for millions of people in the UK.
The above is a bit of a sweeping statement. Either I agree with you or I'm cold hearted, mathematically challenged and careless? I was made redundant last year and have been lucky enough to find alternative employment, but when I was briefly reliant on benefits I would have been incensed to hear that I could get no more assistance than David Beckham. I understand the concept of your idea from the point of view of the economy, but it is flawed in that the business world doesn't care about those who struggle daily so the £100 allowance is unlikely to be taken into account by them in the manner that you suggest. The rich will just getricher whilst the poorer people will remain in the same situation, if not worse.

jez b, selby - comparing what I am suggesting to the USSR is just silly.

The unemployed and others I have pointed out already receive billions in benefits - so is that the USSR too?

What I am proposing is a means to stimulate the economy by getting rid of the benefits system - hardly USSR methodology.

People would still be taxed however companies wages bills would be reduced enabling them to propser.

The key thing is to gain full employment and improve th eliving standards of everyone - there would actually be more millionaires as companies would not be going bust as they are today.

hifive - you just don't get it.

There are 10 million and more who are either on benefits or JSA etc.

The whole benefits culture creates a them and us atmosphere and requires that billions are spent on subsidising companies and housing because of greedy banks.

The country relies on people being in debt to expand the economy.

Business would welcome having to pay less in wages so they can survive.

The employees would not lose out as they would all receive the minimum payment guarantee.

The alternative is for things to become worse and a third of the nation left behind.

Inadequate housing and prolonged poverty leading to generations of unemployed and violent crime and drug abuse.

The other thing is that government massage the unemployment figure in many ways but also include part-time workers in the employment figure.

I wonder just how many people are actually in full time jobs on decent income.

Businesses would certainly welcome paying less to employees, but do you really think the fat cats would pay themselves less? Believe me, I get it, my problem lies with the fact that your proposition relies on everyone sharing a common interest and they simply don't. I wish they did but I'm being realistic. Please don't suggest I don't know what you're talking about just because I don't agree.

hifive - I never mentioned fatcats. I do not want fatcats to pay themselves less - the tax system would take care of any greed from them.

I am interested in equalising society, increasing prosperity and safeguarding liberty and freedom.

I am fed up with reading about businesses collapsing and poverty and hardship.

But no one will listen to the likes of me. So let the bad times continue to get worse.

Totally shocked, my Dad has worked for Sessions since leaving school for 33 years and left with nothing. I feel for everyone that has been in this situation and other families of those at Sessions

10 million unemployed. Thats a bit much, yes maybe there is 10 million people not in work, but how many of them are actually of age or able to work, about 2.5 million. Housewifes who dont work coz they choose to bring up a family dont count, neither do children at school or colege and people who are incapable of working. If you look at statistics long enough you can find anything to back up any arguement.
Paying people £100 a week is just plain silly, some young families would struggle to feed themself's on that money, how this could be deamed fair to all is beyond me. Spending goverment money to pay people in work at say 20K a year an extra £100 a week, and give that same £100 a week to a young girl with two children and no work and expect her to survive is outragious. Plus at what age do you get this £100 16+ 18+ birth...
Anyway getting back to the real news story, this is terrible news, i was made redundent and it's a terrible feeling, to see yet another York company go under is a real shame.

T.Scaife

In the UK there are just under 29 million people in employment. Source:http://www.st
atistics.gov.uk/cci/
nugget.asp?id=12

So at £100 per week this would cost the economy just shy of £150 billion pounds a year.

Then add in the other 10 billion people you claim are unemployed each @ £100 per week and the figure you reach is just over £200 billion per year.

Which is more than we're spending now!

Great suggestion, make society even less fair and even more expensive for those of us in lucky enough to be in work.

T. Scaife wrote:
hifive - I never mentioned fatcats. I do not want fatcats to pay themselves less - the tax system would take care of any greed from them. I am interested in equalising society, increasing prosperity and safeguarding liberty and freedom. I am fed up with reading about businesses collapsing and poverty and hardship. But no one will listen to the likes of me. So let the bad times continue to get worse.

Businesses will always collapse...that's the life of a business. If the cost to make something is greater than the value society puts on it, the business must adapt or fail. Regardless of how low the business costs are, if the costs are greater than income, it's inevitable what will happen. The government can't be expected to bail out every single business...which is what you're proposal is suggesting...the government takes over some of the cost of every companies wage will. In reality, how would that ever be feasible?!

Stiltzkin

I have already explained the 10 million figure.

All of these receive benefits already and many are inadequate.

I have already explained about the correction to the benefits system and culture.

What you are not understanding is that I am proposing is that all working age adults receive a payment but this is deducted from the wage bill of companies when they are in employment.

For those who are permamently out of the conventional jobs market they would be helped by adequate housing and job sharing and working from home.

Also mothers would be regarded as workers and be paid the minimum wage.

This is the real news because if we continue as we are this country is proceeding down a slippery dark tunnel to despair for millions.

So you're proposing to pay people for having children?! And you think that is not open to severe abuse?!?!

mystic_genius

The government already subsidises business and employees but through a lumbering welfare system.

Of course businesses will continue to fail but we should remove the risk of failure due to lack of cashflow and recessions. Also business could be encouraged to prosper if they were properly supported.

In addition the EU countries and elsewhere where our jobs are going to offer cheap wages and conditions which is the main reason our businesses are undermined.

T. Scaife wrote:
Stiltzkin I have already explained the 10 million figure. All of these receive benefits already and many are inadequate. I have already explained about the correction to the benefits system and culture. What you are not understanding is that I am proposing is that all working age adults receive a payment but this is deducted from the wage bill of companies when they are in employment. For those who are permamently out of the conventional jobs market they would be helped by adequate housing and job sharing and working from home. Also mothers would be regarded as workers and be paid the minimum wage. This is the real news because if we continue as we are this country is proceeding down a slippery dark tunnel to despair for millions.

If you feel this strongly about this and whilst I disagree with you why aren't you putting your money where your mouth is and standing as an independant in the forth coming election? Nobody is stopping you, all I'm saying is you're talking the talk now try to walk. I wouldn't vote for you myself but if you feel that strongly for it then do something about it. At least then you'd have done something instead of ruining a thread about people who have just lost their jobs and deserve some compassion to all who worked at Sessions I hope you find jobs soon.

mystic_genius

People already are mothers and I am proposing to support families - afterall they are already supported on benefits and we are not having enough children hence the millions of immigrant workers into th eUK.

mystic_genius wrote:

T. Scaife wrote: hifive - I never mentioned fatcats. I do not want fatcats to pay themselves less - the tax system would take care of any greed from them. I am interested in equalising society, increasing prosperity and safeguarding liberty and freedom. I am fed up with reading about businesses collapsing and poverty and hardship. But no one will listen to the likes of me. So let the bad times continue to get worse.

Businesses will always collapse...that's the life of a business. If the cost to make something is greater than the value society puts on it, the business must adapt or fail. Regardless of how low the business costs are, if the costs are greater than income, it's inevitable what will happen. The government can't be expected to bail out every single business...which is what you're proposal is suggesting...the government takes over some of the cost of every companies wage will. In reality, how would that ever be feasible?!

Exactly. If a business is poorly run and has allowed itself to collapse due to bad decisions, existing beyond it's means etc. , why should it be bailed out? No lessons learnt, no incentive to right wrongs, simply saved by the government regardless? Recently in York, lots of businesses like Jarvis and Sessions have fallen victim to the recession and to lack of demand etc. Then we have the Lamb and Lion/ Harvilles saga where a renowned greedy family always lived beyond their means whilst treating staff like garbage and over borrowing. T. Scaife's idea would see the DeBretton group bailed out on the same terms as much more deserving businesses! Not fair or feasible and far too general. And as aforementioned - the idea relies on everyone sharing a common goal. They don't.

IlikeCake

Your figures are incorrect. The amount you speak of is already paid out in benefits and subsidies to business and the cost of company failure and unemployment.

Companies would reduce their wages bill so people in employment would not receive any more. The whole point is to help business to survive and prosper and compete with other EU countries.

By giving people enough money to live on and support business the taxman prospers and we head toward full employment.

The taxman can also adjust to system to ensure that the tax is taken from those who can afford it more than those on low income.

The treasury will lose nothing.

Silver

How dare you. I am not doing anything at the expense of Sessions workers. On the contrary I feel truly sorry for them.

Lets be realistic the chances of me winning as an Independent are zero but I am allowed to offer alternatives to failing politicians.

Anyway I won't convince my critics on here so good luck and good day to you all.

T. Scaife wrote:
Silver How dare you. I am not doing anything at the expense of Sessions workers. On the contrary I feel truly sorry for them. Lets be realistic the chances of me winning as an Independent are zero but I am allowed to offer alternatives to failing politicians. Anyway I won't convince my critics on here so good luck and good day to you all.

How dare I? Ummm I dare a lot but you're deviating from the actual story printed here. And why should that be realistic? This is a democracy, independants do win seats why not try?

Sessions seeing the problem was coming should have stopped printing and gone into being a bank/building society. Then they could run into financial difficulties ...............and get bailed out by the Tax payer, and have their boss's also rack up huge bonus's.

Same with Jarvis, they too should have become Jarvis Building Society, problem solved by the Tax payer.

HOBC

While the recession pushed it over the edge, Sessions has actually been in trouble for a long time. They've just spent millions on a factory move that came to nothing. From what I hear their problems were down to lack of solid business sense, rather than the recent economic disasters.

Keep taking the tablets Scaifey

I am interested in equalising society, increasing prosperity and safeguarding liberty and freedom.

Although i dont particulary agree with your points regarding the £100 payment i like your line of thought, sadly though weve gone too far the world is almost entirely driven by greed and profit. Its a shame really

Stitzkin wrote:

"and give that same £100 a week to a young girl with two children and no work and expect her to survive is outragious. "

Sums it up really, unless of course the fathers aren't contributing.

T. Scaife wrote:
mystic_genius People already are mothers and I am proposing to support families - afterall they are already supported on benefits and we are not having enough children hence the millions of immigrant workers into th eUK.

Woah woah woah!
`
Families should be able to support themselves, in the same way as a business should.
`
Help should be there for the people who fall on hard times, but increasingly it is used as a lifestyle choice for people who simply do not want to work.
`
If you can't afford to have children, in the words of Jeremy Kyle, "PUT SOMETHING ON THE END OF IT". Your proposal of paying mothers will simply be a career move for young women who don't fancy working and instead fancy living for free with a herd of children.
`
Whilst I agree that the current system is widely open to abuse, your system is hugely flawed. Would your mothers get their £100/week as well as a minimum wage pay, or instead of?

Your proposal of paying mothers will simply be a career move for young women who don't fancy working and instead fancy living for free with a herd of children

'
Doesnt this already happen with the current system?

Its great too see that the "unbiased" press approach My Bayley for comment, but none of the other PPCs. But then I suppose he was the one who presided over the closure of most of the big businesses in York. Working mans party? what a laugh.....

What's the government doing about it, that's what I want to know.

The computer industry uses a vast amount of fine paper for it's printers and scanner systems, Have Sessions thought about such a market?

can i have the last comment please?

A replica of his shop, and of the original press, can be seen today in York’s Castle Museum.

Hmm, when did anyone from the 'Press' go round the Castle Museum recently! It was removed to make way for the new exhibition in the Debtors' Prison cells about a year ago!

Vic Mellons wrote:
What's the government doing about it, that's what I want to know.

What is the government going to do about it? Hopefully nothing!
`
The business failed. End of. It's sad for the workers, it's perhaps sad for York, but it failed. Endless subsidy from tax payer money for a printing work is just daft.
`
The government, rightly, will support (kinda) the workers through redundancy pay, benefits and other things, if it comes to that, but the government should not be expected to bail out failing businesses. They didn't with Woolies, they didn't with Jarvis and they shouldn't with Sessions. There are many hundreds, if not thousands, of companies which have gone under in the past 2 years' recession...should the government save them all?! Quite simply, NO.

mystic_genius, Acomb and jez b, selby

I can't resist this: you two aren't advisers to Failed New Labour and The Nasty Tories are you by any chance?

Heartless, unimaginative and more of the same failed policies of allowing business to collapse, people to struggle and the attitude of "I'm all right Jack" and who cares about the rest.

Quite sad really.

mystic_genius wrote:

T. Scaife wrote:
If this lousy government, and heaven forbid it isn't followed by a Tory one, could just try to think along different lines to resolve this problem once and for all. Companies could be helped greatly if we scrapped the benefits system and paid everyone say £100 per week whether in work or not. Not only would this save just about what it costs to run the benefits system but would also stimulate the economy by increasing localised cash-flow. Also companies could reduce their own level of wages to employees and make their business profitable. With 10 million unemployed in the UK and the credit bubble over, it is up to the government to think again on the way forward. The banks are as useful as a chocolate fireguard to companies and housing which is why I favour independent new local enterprise and mortgage banks that offer companies and house hunters long term assistance for minimal interest. Sessions could easily be rescued if the above points were implemented. How many more businesses are going to go under in York while the banks and politicians sit around fiddling - Neroesque, as decent companies disappear.

I hope you're being ironic...it worries me greatly that people with opinions like yours are allowed to vote!!
`
10million unemployed?! You obviously don't read the news, as it was reported only yesterday that 2.5million are unemployed, and only 1.54million of these people are claiming benefits!! Where on earth did you dream 10million from?!
`
The credit bubble is over for those who are not able to control their own spending - would you lend a tenner to a friend who you knew for a fact would never give it back? So why should a bank lend you £100,000 when they know they won't ever get it back?
I have managed to buy 2 houses during this recession...the credit was there because I can be trusted to repay it - those who can't be trusted shouldn't ruin it for the rest of us. Let's not forget it is those people who can not pay their debts who got us into this mess, not those who repay each month.
`
I fail to understand how companies would benefit from government subsizing wages...perhaps you could enlighten me? Surely workers would be less inclined to work, therefore reducing output, reducing profit and reducing growth?
`
Your £100 a week proposal is simply laughable...why should those people who earn millions get £100 a week, while those who are on minimum wage struggle? The benefits system is designed to help those that need it, and not everyone needs it!
`
The current government has a plan to get out of this mess - growth. If they stimulate the economy, more people become more successful and pay more tax. More tax means a lower deficit. It's a simple idea, and it beats the pants off anything any other party can come up with - none of which I am even aware of, presumably because they don't exist of they are deeply flawed.
`
You've had some posts on here before which contain a degree of common sense - has someone hacked your account to start spouting this nonsense?!

When you say that "it worries me greatly that people with opinions like yours are allowed to vote!!", can we assume it's because they might not be voting you you councillor .

T. Scaife wrote:
mystic_genius, Acomb and jez b, selby I can't resist this: you two aren't advisers to Failed New Labour and The Nasty Tories are you by any chance? Heartless, unimaginative and more of the same failed policies of allowing business to collapse, people to struggle and the attitude of "I'm all right Jack" and who cares about the rest. Quite sad really.

T Scaife, and those others involved in the personal attack.
`
I actually work for Portakabin, having survived the recent bout of redundancies which many of my colleagues did not. I consider myself fortunate.
`
My partner worked for Jarvis Rail, prior to 31 March, when she was made instantly redundant along with 1200 other unfortunate souls. She has been unemployed ever since.
`
Neither experience detracts from my point of view, however. If a business fails, it should not be supported. If a business is unable to adapt to economic circumstance, it should be "allowed" to fail. The government should not be given authority to step in and take over every single business which has failed...otherwise what would the incentive be for businesses to succeed? The tax payer bill for proping up millions of businesses which aren't economically feasible would be massive - let's be honest, Sessions going into administration, like Jarvis, are not the backbone of the UK economy. If all the banks were to go into liquidation, the economy would have literally collapsed, therefore they were saved.
`
I didn't see you complaining during the 13 years of growth under a labour government. I think those people who are hell-bent on blaming Labour for the recent recession are deluding themselves. This was a GLOBAL recession. It was not caused by a relatively insignificant island in Northern Europe, it was caused by the collapse of 2 major (internationally major) investment banks in America, who had been buying bad debt for many years. If you believe that Gordon Brown is able to extend his jurisdiction to cover this, feel free to believe that. Back on earth, however, there isn't much he could've done to stop those banks from collapsing. Arguably, he could've done more to stop Britains involvement with those banks, however isn't hindsight brilliant! As I say at the start of this paragaph, you were not complaining during the 13years of growth.
`
This doesn't mean I am a Labour supporter, and nor does it mean I am an advisor to any party. What I do do, however, is read manifestos, and read political papers, I read the news (from a variety of sources) and I formulate an opinion based on what I believe to be fact.
`
For your information, as a result of paragraphs 2 and 3, I'm not "all right Jack". If fact, things are very much "all wrong Jim", in my personal finances at the moment, however little that is of your business. I still stand by my opinions, though, and say that failing businesses should be "allowed" to fail. It's the poor management which collapses the vast majority, nothing else.

mystic_genius

I suppose you turn blind a eye to your own personal attacks on others.

Your own experience of business failure along with the many others round the UK highlights the desperate need to equalise opportunity in the UK.

I never suggested that government steps in to save every single business that failed. I gave examples to help British business and British workers so they can survive and prosper in return for employing more British workers.

You are wrong about small business as they are the backbone of the economy as small business provides 50% of UK GDP and employ two thirds of UK private sector employees.

The banks are based on ultra-capitalism and should have either saved themselves or collapsed and been nationalised or at least the commerce sector separated from the mortgage sector.

The economy would not have collapsed because the government mainly temporarily nationalised some of the worst offending banks.

The bailout has merely paid for the bankers bonuses whilst they increase interest rates for credit cards and other charges in a 0.5% interest rate environment. The banks are not supporting business allowing them to collapse.

I have constantly complained for years about New Labour, Blair and Brown and our pathetic political system.

The recession was caused by irresponsible people like Blair and Brown who permitted the credit bubble even though they were warned years ago what the eventual consequences would be.

The war in Iraq exacerabted the global recession as Bush allowed the run on credit in the housing market and derivatives to create cash that he did not have to pay for his $6 billion war in Iraq.

The 13 years of growth are of no value if all it does is create a bubble of prosperity where the only people to profit are those with wealth well invested. It most certainly is no good for business. Brown adopted the CPI rate of inflation rather than go with the RPI because the CPI excuded mortgage inflation therefore interest rates could be kept artificially low allowing the credit bubble to expand and continue out of control.

I am not interested in your personal finances but to say that business collapse is just the fault of poor management is plain wrong because the economy depends on the right decisions from governments and banks.

They all let us down badly and did not set enough aside for the bad times and failed to support the poor the unemployed and business interests in the UK.

Your attuitude of allowing poor business to fail results in unemployment and unhappiness and is detrimental to the UK economy overall.

I'm not sure if I'm missing the point here...if the economy relies on decisions made by banks and government, then surely the opposite is true also - banks and government rely on decisions made by businesses.
`
No bank in their right mind was going to invest in Jarvis - therefore it failed. It had been in debt for too long, couldn't get out and eventually Bank of Ireland and America (I think) said enough was enough and wound them up to recover what they could. I would guess the same for Sessions, however don't have detailed knowledge of this. The decisions for Jarvis to get into unmanageable debt was made by Jarvis management...nothing to do with banks or government.
`
If you aren't suggesting that Government step in to all failing businesses, then what are you suggesting? Allowing some to fail but not others? That is what we have now, and that is what you are complaining about!! You are right that small businesses make up a large % of UK GDP, however it would take 500 small businesses to fail to cover 1 Woolies-style failure (making the numbers up but the point remains valid). If 500 large companies were to fail the effect on the economy would be massively more significant that 500 small ones - although that obviously depends on your definition of 'large' and 'small'.
`
"They" did not let anyone down. People let themselves down by borrowing beyond their means; people as individuals and as businesses. Arguably the banks or government are not blameless (as I said before), but the bulk of the blame must lie with those persons who borrowed more than they could afford.
`
Credit is still very easy to come by, IF you can be trusted to repay. My credit card rate fell during the recession, and has fallen again since. It is all based on risk - the riskier you are the more you should pay. I agree with that - it's the same logic as insurance premiums.
`
Your logic doesn't sit true - 'artifically low' interest rates can't increase the credit bubble because it was putting more cash in people's pockets. If the banks were being as tight-fisted as you suggest then have more cash for most people is surely a good thing, not a bad thing. Or is having low mortgage repayments bad? I'm not sure I understand your point.

mystic_genius

Borrowing makes the world go round.

Most people never have enough funds to make purchases and often do not have even enough to heat their homes, if they have one, or pay council tax.

Therefore they need to borrow.

The same with business large and small they need to rely on banks for cashflow and a trust develops over long term between the parties.

What has happened is the banks have been bailed out but they will not honour the usuual overdrafts to business as they have done so in the past - therefore businesses collapse.

No fault of the business because they often run near to empty at times and need the security of cash from the banks.

I believe Jarvis is a casualty of privatisation and equity stripping from previous times and only required £19 million to survive - peanuts over the long term.

And Woolwothrs could have easily have been bailed out too.

Your perception of small business is inaccurate. When small business collapse they have a domino effect on others because redundancies narrow the cash supply in the local economy placing increased pressure on other small business.

The problem too is that large companies are collapsing which take many small businesses with it.

What I am suggesting is a streamlining of the welfare benefits system, a reappraisal of how society and government functions together.

I propose we address the problems head on and tackle poverty, homelessness and job insecurity all at once.

This can be acheived by paying all NI registered adults a weekly sum of cash - automatically. The unemployed, and those on incapacity benefits already receive up to £60 a week.

The private companies, not the public sector as they are already paid and supported by the State, would then be allowed to reduce their wages to their employees by the same amount as payment made by the State.

In return for which British based companies would agree to employ more British workers, full time and job sharing. It would not apply to public sector employees or foreign workers or British business based outside the UK.

Millions more unemployed and those on incapacity benefit would be able to find work either at workplaces or through a new network of home based working.

By reducing private companies wages bills it should help them to become more productive.

As far as credit for the consumers goes the banks and government behaved irresponsibly by awarding people credit without regulations and control or credit checks.

The banking system was encouraged to award credit due to the trading in hedge funds and derivatives fueled by subprime mortages which were available in the uK too - whereby people were encouraged to lie about their true income by estate agents, a crime that carries a 7 year prison sentence yet not one was prosecuted.

Interest rates are criminally high and the banks are doing this because the government is allowing them to as the government wants them to become as rich and powerful as before.

The low interest mortgage rates increased the property bubble which caused all the trouble in the first place - now property is completely unnafordable for many.

When the money supply takes off interest rates should have risen for investors and savers and in turn control the economy from becoming over-heated.

Brown allowed the economy to boil evaporating away.

You all digress.

Sessions has shut due to the naivity of the directors and higher management.

Jarvis shut because they were crap and no-one wanted to employ them unless they absolutely had to.

Neither have anything to do with the recession.

A company won't survive if it's run by f**kwits (sessions), similarly, a company won't survive if it employs f**kwits (Jarvis)

dsom73, myton

My what use of the English language - How enlightening.

And totally fails to suggest a way forward for the future social and business development of this country and its' people.

dsom73 wrote:
You all digress. Sessions has shut due to the naivity of the directors and higher management. Jarvis shut because they were crap and no-one wanted to employ them unless they absolutely had to. Neither have anything to do with the recession. A company won't survive if it's run by f**kwits (sessions), similarly, a company won't survive if it employs f**kwits (Jarvis)

Interesting point of view there, please allow me to prove you wrong.
`
Jarvis failed because Network Rail pulled the plug on many large renewal projects as a direct result of lower government spending on railways as a direct result of the recession. Jarvis were also hampered by large costs incurred with many project cancellations/postpo
nements due to the abnormally poor weather during the first month/6 weeks of this year, although it's hard to blame that on anyone. It's my belief that the cancellation costs are the straw which broke the camels back.
`
I'm not sure why you believe Jarvis are "crap", and I think you'll find that NWR had a choice of 4 other contractors willing to do the work, and they chose Jarvis for it...this would directly contravene the argument that "no-one wanted to employ them unless they absolutely had to".
`
I trust you have in depth knowledge (greater than my own) of all the men and women employed by Jarvis, and therefore are confident that they are all "f**kwits". I guess the previous 100 odd years of Jarvis history was achieved through employing similar-minded "f**kwits" also. I also wonder what qualifies you to call my partner a "f**kwit". Do you know her at all? Or any of her other 349 ex-colleagues?
`
Whilst I disagree with T Scaife, at least he is one of the few people to produce a proper discussion on these threads, rather than resorting to mindless comments with no substance, which I confess I am privvy to myself in moment of exasperation.
`
T scaife, I refute the comment that "most people...do not have enough money to heat their homes or pay council tax", however even if this were true, then this is surely the individuals fault. I take full responsibility for all I have borrowed, and all I wish to borrow in the future - other people just blame banks for giving it on a plate. I have borrowed cash before but NEVER to pay for bills - I borrow for stuff I want, not stuff I need. Those people who have to borrow for stuff they need are the ones who have caused the financial meltdown by getting in too deep. I didn't need my holiday this year, but I borrowed to pay for it...I do need to pay my mortgage, therefore I make sure I'm earning enough to cover it - before I'm made redundant. It's all about priorities, and quite simply, people and businesses made the wrong priorities. Businesses should borrow for investment, not for day-to-day running as that is not a sustainable business. Same applies for individuals. People shouldn't have to rely on debt for things they need.

mystic_genius

I wish you would read what I said. I said "often do not have even enough to heat their homes, if they have one, or pay council tax." I did not say most in that context.

However we will never agree it seems so hey ho - C'est la vie!