The Quiet Man.
The Quiet Man. He touched your life today, all of you, though you may not have noticed. He is ignored, today, as he is every day. Ignored by the public, ignored by the politicians, ignored by the unions.
The Prime Minister didn’t fly to Afghanistan to check on the quality of his Christmas dinner. The Chancellor of the Exchequer didn’t address him at the annual Mansion House Ball. The Leader of the Opposition didn’t rail that he was ‘slipping further into poverty’. The Union leaders didn’t stop essential services because his pension wasn’t as good as he had been led to believe. He had neither been stabbed, nor had he stabbed anyone, so Sky didn’t want to film him. He isn’t believed to be the cause of any cancer, so the Daily Mail omitted to mention him. He isn’t a ‘public servant’ so he wasn’t enjoying a public holiday. He isn’t even a ‘vile banker’, so the Archbishop of Canterbury didn’t give him a mention. He wasn’t lauded for being part of our essential services, ‘nobly’ manning the police stations and ambulance stations on this day of rest. He certainly wasn’t out shopping.
The 6.03 from Penge ran as normal this morning, the rail employees enjoying an extra bonus for taking the train down the line – they may not have realised why. They did so because the Quiet Man needed to get to work, the country needed him to get to work.
The Quiet Man had made himself coffee at 5am this morning, he had wrapped up warmly and walked to the station; he had scrapped the ice off his car and driven off in the morning fog; he had jumped on his motor bike and careered off down icy roads. When he arrived, he’d opened up icy store rooms, turned on the heaters, warmed towels, separated icy cold slices of bacon, rearranged cars that refused to start, fired up computers.
The Quiet Man is part of the great army of self employed. He’s the personal trainer who borrowed against his house to turn that disused shop into your gym. He’s the hairdresser who will do your wife’s hair today. He’s the independent travel agent that is praying you can still afford a holiday this year. He runs your local corner shop; he’s the greengrocer who will restock your fridge after the holiday. He’s the man who runs the ‘greasy spoon’. He runs that little garage that always manages to fit you in when your car breaks down. He’s the computer software engineer that was made redundant and discovered that he could earn a crust writing software for the man who tests the catalytic converter in your car. He’s the mini cab driver who collected you for work this morning. He’s all manner of things.
In a month’s time he will fill in his on-line tax return, and send off a check for his tax bill. The government will let him keep just over half of what he has earned to keep his wife and children – the other half they will take to keep other men’s wives and children in the manner to which they are ‘entitled’. If he doesn’t he will be fined £100 for every day he is late – even if he has earned nothing. No top level negotiations over lunch for him. Just a cold reminder. He must do his bit for the country.
The Prime Minister can’t be bothered to talk to him. He’ll talk to journalists, he’ll address the bankers, he’ll talk to the fashionable ‘Mumsnet’, he’ll talk to European leaders. Will he face the cameras and address the Quiet Man directly? Will he explain what is happening to the country, why the Quiet Man must keep going, harder than ever, must try to employ more people in his fledgling business, support more of other people’s children?
Does he even notice that the Quiet Man is quieter than ever these days? Trying to sell his house, hoping he can raise enough money to flee the country. He can cut hair anywhere, drive taxis anywhere, write his software anywhere.
Who will the Noisy Ones lean on when the Quiet Man has gone?
December 31, 2011 at 15:43
-
Yes, it’s the “quiet men” who generally perform above and beyond the call
of duty – because that’s how you survive and hopefully thrive. I wearied of
all the tax and legislation oppression doled out to those who could least
afford to comply. I jumped ship eight or nine years ago, and I’ve not had a
moment’s regret.
- December 31, 2011 at 01:45
-
Fine. Some points I accept – clearly it is not the bankers who decided to
bail out the banks with public money. And of course there are both
ultra-hardworking, well-meaning people in the private sector, and lazy, greedy
people in the public sector. No reasonable person could deny any of those
things.
But I didn’t blame “greedy bankers”; I just pointed out that a massive
proportion of the deficit derives from the cost of bailing out the banks.
That’s not casting aspersions at individuals, it’s just a fact. The incentives
were wrong, the regulation was flawed, the system allowed it. I’m no partisan,
and if Alistair Darling says that we would have needed to rein in spending
anyway, so be it, but that can’t hide that a huge amount of our economy’s
overstretch is down to the bank bailouts.
Rick Hamilton – if there were no profits, there would be no tax, fine. But
if there were no tax there would be no police, no security, and therefore no
profits for those who couldn’t physically defend themselves. No law, in other
words. We need a state, we need a private sector, and it’s ridiculous that
anyone could suggest otherwise – yet somehow it seems to be fashionable to
suggest we don’t need a state.
Could I generate a profit myself? In all honesty, I can’t prove it either
way. I assume I probably could, given that I’m intelligent and willing to work
hard. But I’ve never particularly wanted to – it feels selfish to me, and I
couldn’t be motivated by it.
No disrespect intended to those who do it to give their families a good
life, but I don’t have a family to support, I don’t need much money and I want
a job where I can come home at the end of the day and know I helped make the
world a better place for someone else.
-
December 31, 2011 at 06:12
-
James – Well that’s a fair reply. Keep up the good work, whatever it may
be.
And a Happy New Year to you.
- December 31, 2011 at 11:33
-
James – that’s a fair and reasonable response, but may I correct one
point?
The country was running a deficit (albeit a relatively small one) before
the 2008 crisis. The banks were at the time making record profits, and in
consequence paying record sums in tax. Government believed the economic
situation to be sound and sustainable, and set levels of public expenditure
that accorded with tax receipts (indeed, as mentioned above, somewhat
exceeded them). When the crisis broke, and bank profits tumbled, tax
receipts also tumbled, but public expenditure commitments did not. That’s
where most of the present deficit arose.
The amount of public money directed to banks in the immediate crisis is
difficult to pin down, but seems to be a lot less than is generally
supposed. I’ve seen figures of between £14bn and £50bn, but I don’t know
which to believe. It is clear, however, that the deficit arose mainly
because of the drop in tax revenue from banks, not because of public funds
they received (some of which we’ll get back, eventually).
It’s also true that public expenditure is also still rising year on year,
though not at such a fast rate as it was. The constant reference to ‘Cuts’
in some sections of the media are a trifle misleading. When he came to
office, Osborne gambled that a return to economic growth would steadily
increase tax receipts, thus eroding the deficit (in combination with a
tighter control on spending). His plans have been somewhat derailed by the
current European/North American debt crisis, and it’s stifling of economic
growth.
Things this coming year might be very difficult for all of us – we’ll
just have to wait and see how the global economic picture unfolds. Let us
all fervently hope that things turn out rather better than they currently
look like they might.
- December 30, 2011 at 12:14
-
Time the quiet man was less quiet and thought about doing something to
redress the balance. Surely if the Syrians can…………………..
- December 30, 2011 at 00:33
-
Oh, come off it. Self-employment is the very definition of self-serving. If
self-employed people do well, good for them, but if they fail, that’s the risk
they took.
It says everything that the author of this piece thinks the world would be
worse off without “the mini cab driver who took you to work this morning”.
Newsflash, Anna – those of us in the real world don’t get minicabs to work,
and don’t think it’s a public service to drive a minicab.
I work in the public sector. I could be paid more money to work in the
private sector, but I didn’t want to chase money, I wanted to do something
that would help people. And I do help people.
But I am sick, sick, sick, sick, sick of people like you, and a lot of the
posters here, claiming that anyone in the public sector is a leach on “the
taxpayer” (as if I don’t pay tax). What kind of bizarre logic is it that says
that it’s more noble to pursue your own private profit than to try and help
others? That is just sickening.
A couple of other points. Engineer – the reason the deficit is so big is
the banks – private sector incompetence, not an inefficient state. That’s just
a matter of fact. Before the bank bailouts, spending was happening at a
sustainable rate, and George Osborne had admitted it by committing to
maintaining Labour’s spending levels.
There are many out there in the public sector working damned hard and
paying some pretty swingeing taxes on their sometimes not-very-substantial
earnings. A nurse in the public sector earns less than half what a nurse earns
in a private hospital. State teachers earn a fraction of what private school
teachers earn. Do we really want to drive every decent nurse or teacher into
the private institutions that only serve the rich? Better pensions are a small
compensation for massively inferior wages for similar work.
And finally, this idea that public services could be delivered by the
priate sector and paid for by the State – well, yes they could, but what would
be the point of that? It’s just pure ideology. The taxpayer would still have
to pay for the service, but the private company wouldn’t do it out of charity,
so we taxpayers have to pay for a profit margin as well. Meanwhile the entire
incentive becomes to cut costs and so raise profits. If the service gets
worse, the taxpayer doesn’t even realise any corresponding cost savings
because it all goes into private profit. What kind of madness is that?
-
December 30, 2011 at 08:00
-
James – Just exactly what is wrong with a private profit? Could it be
that you have not the slightest idea how to generate one yourself?
If there were no profits there would be nothing to tax and no money to
pay bureaucrats, politicians or welfare dependents. Unless you got it from
rich foreigners which is basically what our financial services ‘industry’
tries to do.
I am just as sick of hearing people who live on the public purse telling
us how vitally important and selfless they all are. Always trotting out the
poor underpaid nurses, the police, the teachers. What about the so-called
CEOs of local government being paid more than the PM to do a job that used
to be called Town Clerk? They try to justify that because of the scale of
the budget they are ‘responsible’ for.
Any fool can spend money, just look at Gordon Brown. However not many can
find a way of earning it by offering a product or service that people
actually want to buy. That’s the activity that pays the national bills,
however altruistic and self-denying you might claim to be. Try it some time,
using your own savings, and see how you get on.
- December 30, 2011 at 09:08
-
For every one of those CEO’s on 6 figure salaries there are thousands
of administrative and lower managerial staff on much less than the average
salary for the country. Perhaps you and the Daily Mail might want to
remember that when you’re demonising people who were not responsible for
the current economic situation but are now being blamed for all society’s
ills.
- December 30, 2011 at 10:37
-
December 30, 2011 at 18:34
-
“For every one of those CEO’s on 6 figure salaries there are
thousands of administrative and lower managerial staff on much less than
the average salary for the country. ”
And in the private sector
likewise. It’s called pay differentials on promotion (but that’s not
available to the self-employed).
The public sector used to be paid
less than the private sector for two reasons
A Job security – the
public sector can’t go bust
B Pensions – public sector pensions are
more generous (any private sector pension scheme that tries to match the
inflation-proofing of the public sector or offer higher accumulation
rates will lose its tax shelter).
Gordon Brown increased average
public sector nominal pay to more than that in the private sector so,
allowing for the cost of pensions, public sector workers are now paid
around 20% more than private sector workers (and still have more job
security).
I don’t read the Daily Mail, I don’t demonise public
sector workers but I do work a lot harder for less money than the
average civil servant. My wife, like James, works in the public sector
because she wants to help people and repeatedly complains that I work
too much.
When not working I prefer to deal with self-employed people
because they are more willing to put themselves out to help a customer
and more honest in dealing with regular customers – in contrast to
public sector bureaucrats where for every decent helpful one I’ve
encountered there have been two who were either too idle to do the job
properly or who twisted and distorted the facts to get the result they
wanted.
James – self-employed is NOT “self-serving”: if you talk like
that you have no right to criticise the Daily Mail. Secondly the
“profit” for the self-employed is just an Inland Revenue term for wages.
If “profit” is a dirty word then “wages” and “salary” should be
also.
Thirdly spending was not sustainable before the banking crisis
– even Alastair Darling admitted that – a structural deficit of over 9%
is not sustainable. Osborne made an unwise promise based on assuming
Brown’s outright lies were near the truth: he has since increased taxes
to bridge part of the gap exposed by Darling and OBR has shown that
Darling understated it.
- December 30, 2011 at 11:20
-
James – a couple of points.
No banker has ever been responsible for setting the level of public
spending. Responsibility for that lies solely and entirely with politicians.
The decision to throw the public’s money at failed banks also lies solely
and entirely with politicians (and possibly with the complicity of the Bank
of England). Don’t just swallow the spin about ‘greedy bankers’ (and oh yes
– there are some!) without thinking through the facts of the matter.
Having worked in both public and private sectors, I can assure you that
there are some (not all) in the public sector who truly believe that the
world owes them a living, and a good one at that. That attitude rarely
exists in smaller private sector organisations or amonst the self-employed,
because they are starkly aware that they have to EARN their living – it
never ‘just appears’ in the bank account at the end of the month.
- December 29, 2011 at 14:49
-
Very nice piece Anna, and a fine albeit depressing first comment from the
Scrobster. Happy Crim and New Year to one and all.
-
December 29, 2011 at 14:17
-
While I do take the point about diversity co-ordinators and, to a certain
extent, the Arts establishment, this just seems like an attempt to jump on the
bandwagon currently demonising public servants. Yes the public service does
waste money but it also delivers vital services. The question should be about
how we can deliver those services using fewer resources, rather than this
attempt to cash in on the current zeitgeist condemning all public
servants.
- December 29, 2011 at 15:16
-
There is also a belief in some quarters that if it’s vital to the public,
it must be provided by the State. (That’s why I used the ‘food’ example, to
demonstrate that the State doesn’t have to control something for it to work
well.)
It is beyond debate that the public sector costs too much (that’s why we
have a £127bn deficit this financial year), so it is time to have a sensible
debate about what the State should and should not do. There are some things
that are best under government control – the defence of the realm, keeping
the Queen’s peace and the administration of justice, for example – but
almost everything else could (not necessarily should, merely could) be done
by private enterprise. Education, for one, if means can be found to ensure
that the poorest have as much opportunity as the richest.
To return to the theme of the thread, there are many out there in the
private sector working damned hard and paying some pretty swingeing taxes on
their sometimes not-very-substantial earnings. It’s been tough for many of
them since 2008 – the construction sector shrank by 25% in 2008/9 alone, for
example. It rather sticks in their craw to see public servants whinging
about modest cuts to their pensions (a fight not supported by all on the
public payroll, I accept), when it is they who have to fund them by taxes on
their enterprise, and when funding their own costs so much.
We owe a very great deal to the self-employed and small businesses of
this land. Without them, we really would be in a serious hole – and we would
be totally unable to afford all but the most basic of public services.
-
December 29, 2011 at 15:54
- December 30, 2011 at 22:22
-
Sorry Whataloadoftosh, but whilst the truth may hurt, you need to
understand that there are two primary categories of job out there.
Jobs that create wealth.
Jobs that consume wealth.
The Public sector is the second category which can only exist because of
the taxes paid by the first category.
The second category cannot possibly
exist without the first category. The first category can thrive in the
absence of the majority of the second category.
The first category
actually pays the taxes of the second category!
-
December 29, 2011 at 10:25
-
Er, hang on. So the public servants dont pay tax? I could have sworn they
did…..
- December 29, 2011 at 12:22
-
No, they are merely forced to give back some of the tax monies they are
paid with. Public sector workers are a net tax loss to the exchequor.
- December 29, 2011 at 13:39
-
Yes, unfortunately all those vital services delivered by the public
service do cost money. Funny that.
-
December 29, 2011 at 14:00
-
So do all the vital public services (like production and distribution
of food, clothing, fuels etc) not run by the public sector. They cost
money too, so the people doing them charge for their services and have
to pay tax on what they charge. If they didn’t do what they do, we
wouldn’t get fed and there would be no tax revenue to pay for all the
Diversity Co-ordinators and the Arts Establishment.
- December 28, 2011 at 23:01
-
Then come to France… I was just taxed for 32,500EUR for money that I didn’t
yet receive and have to pay VAT next month [also considerable in the 10,000th]
for invoices, which are probably not going to be paid
- December 28, 2011 at 22:39
-
Actually you are overstating the tax grab – most self-employed people don’t
earn enough to pay higher-rate tax ….
- December 28, 2011 at 15:58
-
Great post.
I’m the quiet self employed man who has sold almost everything bar
furniture, been renting for some time and could exit UK in about 3 months.
Have no clue where to go but being single, travelling round the world seems
likely. I feel lucky now.
Happy New Year to all.
- December 28, 2011 at 14:23
-
Thank you for the thank you Anna.
Happy New Year to all; although it could be the one where the finger of
fate finally meets the reset button that spells the end of the sick little
journey our society has been on for the last four decades at least.
- December 28, 2011 at 11:39
-
Oh, it’s just men who do all this then is it?
-
December 28, 2011 at 13:24
-
And it was all going so well!
- December 28, 2011 at 11:16
-
good column – hits the nail …
A few years ago the FT carried a column that also highlightd that those
working in the private sector and unenthousiastic about the public sector are
putting in a lot and getting preciously little compared to those in the civil
service.
It’s behind pay wall, but this is the link to the column ‘Cosy nest of
public sector round robin’ by Jonathan Guthrie
- December 28, 2011 at 11:08
-
Steady now, Anna– you’re starting to sound like Ayn Rand’s fans asking
Atlas to shrug. Can’t have that now, mouths need to be fed, carcases need to
be housed and clothed; sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice– the spirit that made
Britain great! How dare you idolise the productive members of Society, when
they should be allowed to exist only insofar as they provide the dosh for
redistribution to the more worthy amongst us! Vote Labour for Social
Justice!
- December 28, 2011 at 10:17
-
Well said.
Many people in the country think they have the right their pension, to
their social services, to free education and healthcare and even the clean
paved streets. But these are all because of The Quiet Man who pays for much of
this and who works on behalf of others. He doesn’t riot or wave banners, he
works and pays for everything.
It is becoming increasingly hard to run a small business these days. Each
new regulation is meant with good intent but their collective weight is
breaking the backs of many. Shops, garages, consultancies are all becoming tax
collection agencies bound by health and safety and complex employment
laws.
If our Quiet Man can afford to save money after his tax bill then his
savings are taxed and eroded by the Bank of England’s mendacious inflation,
the highest in the western world. Yet our man does not howl like the benefit
recipients who feel entitled to RPI-rated benefit increases for sitting on
their backsides.
The game is rigged in favour of big business, big government and the
millions who feel entitled to a living (housing, cash, healthcare) from the
state and insist our Quiet Man funds their satellite television on top.
Nobody is doing anything to fix this.
-
December 28, 2011 at 10:15
-
Lovely, lovely article !
And spot on.
Although I think most of us embarking on self employment do so as a labour
of love ( or the result of redundancy ) it’s a desperately difficult
endeavour.
Now, I love the work I do and can’t see me doing anything
else….but there are some days when I’ve been working all hours, tired, blurry
eyed and knowing there’s still a lot more to do, when the thought of a regular
8 hour day becomes SO appealing. And other, worse days, when the works all
done and there’s no more on the horizon.
I’ve long thought that the ‘Quiet
Men and Women’ should start clearing their throats and bend the ears of
politicians with a stern ” Oy ! Any chance of some help here ?”
All in this
together ? Mmmm…
- December 28, 2011 at 10:01
-
House is on the market, place abroad is bought and ready to move into.
- December 28, 2011 at 09:50
-
I was a noisier sort of Quiet Man.
But I left as well. 2007. May. Best thing I ever did.
Can’t imagine any circumstance under which I would want to go back.
- December 28, 2011 at 09:44
-
Great, apart for the bit about the train from Penge running on time – that
never happens, and if you are talking Penge East you are luck if it turns up
at all…
- December 28, 2011 at 08:06
-
Excellent post, via Guido. As the co owner and manager of a medium sized
manufacturing business having to face the never-ending burden of regulation,
the matter I find increasingly depressing is the certainty from the civil
service and the ruling political elite who write these rules,of their moral
superiority over the “quiet man”. Apparently only they know how to treat their
fellow men with compassion and equanimity.
It is this arrogance that has
bankrupted the country and indeed the western world. Britain now has a
national debt approaching £1 trillion. We have to pay that back just to
be
left with absolutely nothing at all, but the people who will have to create
the wealth are constantly held back and regulated to the point of non
existence whilst our global competitors are trusted and free.
- December 28, 2011 at 05:45
-
‘Who will the Noisy Ones lean on when the Quiet Man has gone?’
I wish I’d thought of that quote. Sublime.
- December 27, 2011 at 22:48
-
wher will he emigrate to. Australia and Canada are trying to emulate thre
U.K as fast as they can.
Australia already has ‘communities’, affirmative
action, doctors who can’t reall speak English (and don’t care) , heavy
dependence on a mining industry which is despised , rampant greens, toothache,
mad teachers.
- December 28, 2011 at 10:03
-
FFS get a map. There are 257 countries in the world.
- December 28, 2011 at 17:29
-
Very true, John Malpas. Both Canada and Australia are locked in a race to
the bottom with political correctness and “ethnic diversity”. Their upside,
of course, is that you keep more of what you earn there, but still.
- December 27, 2011 at 22:11
-
“In a month’s time he will … send off a check for his tax bill.”
A what?
-
December 28, 2011 at 02:50
-
A “check.” It’s something like a “cheque,” only American. I’ll wager you
still spell it “gaol,” “waggon,” and the like. It’s the 21st Century FFS.
America won the Spelling War a long time ago. I notice you’re using double
“inverted commas” (which are not commas any more, but let that pass). The
Yanks won that one too– “quotes” they’re called. Or did you not notice you
were using them?
-
December 28, 2011 at 11:12
-
It’s the Americans who use 19th century spelling FFS.
- December 27, 2011 at 21:46
-
Anna, you’ve made Guido’s list again this evening – keep up the good
work!
- December 27, 2011 at 20:17
-
All of the above, plus reg-yew-lay-shuns. ( I run a retail financial advice
business – I know all about reg-yew-lay-shun by capricious bureaucrats).
-
December 27, 2011 at 20:06
-
If a Conservative leader put the bulk of this article into his next big
speech, he would connect with the electorally critical ‘squeezed’ middle…but
is our Conservative leader a Conservative? Now there’s a question.
Great
article. Anna goes way up in my ‘favourites’.
-
December 27, 2011 at 17:59
-
With over four million self employed it’s not such a tiny minority. Up 4%
from last year.
- December 27, 2011 at 16:46
-
This is the kind of post that keeps me coming back most days. Keep it up
for 2012, Ms Raccoon.
- December 27, 2011 at 14:11
-
Loved the bit about selling up and legging it. Been waiting for years …
youngest almost grown up now … then two less self employed slaves will take
their enterprise, their money and their tax revenues somewhere else – where
their tax revenues are not used to maintain a state the size of which is just
not funny any more.
Yes, we all want coppers, nurses and (if we must have them) teachers (not
sure about teachers – fairly sure that what they currently achieve in 11 years
or so of full time education could actually be done in a year) but the council
leaders on 200k and the 50k diversity co-ordinators and their beautiful,
wonderful, precious (can I have one please? I have never had enough money to
save for my own) pensions – I really don’t want to keep on paying for
them.
- December 27, 2011 at 13:57
-
Quiet Woman, surely? As a general rule of thumb, the male minicab driver
you mentioned is anything but quiet.
- December 27, 2011 at 13:49
-
Ah yes, the quiet man with his government grants. I had almost forgotten
about him.
- December 27, 2011 at
14:12
-
What grants? For Mini-cab driving?
- December 27, 2011 at 14:20
-
My mistake, I thought we were generalising. You know, all union members
are communists, every unemployed person spends the day drinking Stella
watching Jeremey Kyle on their plasma TV. Public sector workers sit around
all day doing nothing…etc.
- December 27, 2011 at
15:12
- December 27, 2011 at 20:15
-
…and all of the sucking on the wealth creating teet of the Quiet
Man..
- December 30, 2011 at 12:09
-
“all union members are communists, every unemployed person spends the
day drinking Stella watching Jeremey Kyle on their plasma TV. Public
sector workers sit around all day doing nothing…”
Saul, they got to do something. I did 21 years in the civil service,
you’re description is more correct than not. The moment a public servant
moves one notch of the bottom, they become observers, not workers.
- December
27, 2011 at 13:43
-
Another post right on the nail. This should be required reading for all
politicians, and everyone in a public sector job or on benefits (but I repeat
myself) as well.
- December
27, 2011 at 11:27
-
I saw the title and wondered what the hell I’d done now
Now I know.
- December 27, 2011 at 11:00
-
National politicians should be embarrassed that your posting is oh so
true.
- December 27, 2011 at 10:31
-
Please excuse me repeating myself here Anna, it’s still pertinent to your
excellent piece. I wrote it in October, and nothing has changed since
then:-
Just today, I had a long-awaited meeting with three accomplished and
professional property people. It had taken me three weeks to get these people
together.
It was a sparse lunch, yeah, a couple of tinctures, but the theme was still
exasperation, and severe angst at the failure of this blasted government with
their lackey banks, to bring it on.
We discussed seven schemes. Seven big building projects, ranging from,
roughly – £6m to £15 million pounds.
Each one, when costed, appraised and verified, (RICS standards I might add)
showed a minimal profit for us, but, 10% of fees and/or profit going to other
starving businesses, like architects, engineers, builders etc. There was a
huge element of ‘funding’ expectation (i.e. what the banks will rake in for
their ludicrous ‘risk’), but this stupid administration are getting as bad as
the last lot. You’d expect a nulabour crowd to be incompetent and clueless
where commercial expertise is required, but the piddling about we’re coping
with right now is insufferable.
That 10% going to others, (forget the banks’ take, they’ll stuff you
anyway) therefore amounts to about £7,000,000 pounds, which will be used up by
waiting, desperate, consultants, builders, sub-contractors etc. The figures
are all calculated correctly, and they meet normal financial requirements for
funding. There would also be approximately 425 jobs created from our schemes
when the buildings are completed, and that’s after the builders have handled
countless jobs for tradesmen, labourers, school leavers etc for the next three
years..
From now on in, we are forced to ‘negotiate’ with councils for planning
permission. We’re not digging out green belt land, despoiling the parks etc,
we’re commercial people, making jobs in business areas etc. Councils prefer to
prevaricate for months, while the meter clocks up thousands of pounds in
interest (banks again), and of course, they might well charge for their
‘advice’. It’s an utter disgrace that these little twerps can hold so much
business to ransom, sit on their hands, and try to apply an obscure policy
which is beyond his/her understanding, or they go on paternity leave.
I can talk for ages about one particular site which actually had a full
planning permission with all boxes ticked, but we were persistently chased
away by the council’s weak acceptance of a pullovered National Trust person.
Nobody has the resources to fight those sorts of people. The money they have
to ‘preserve’ what is in fact a desolate, derelict concrete slab is counted in
millions. We decided to leave the council to it, and they still call me (and
many others) and cry out that they need what we develop and build. That
particular town is rated as one of the most deprived in the UK.
So Scrobs is feeling a bit let down by Cameron and his bunch of wandering
people. At this rate, he’ll be asking the Hon Prospective Member for UKIP a
few serious questions, like, ‘If you get in, how will you look after your own
country first…?’
- December 27, 2011 at 20:23
-
How little things seem to change in the UK.
I remember distinctly a meeting of project engineers in a large
mechanical services company (plumbing , air-conditioning and a multitude of
ancillary services for the uninitiated) in 1973. It was basically a year-end
summary of the entire companies many projects, the company was then one of
the top three grossing companies in its field working all over the UK and a
reasonable amount of international work. Our group manager made the
observation that nett profitability was in the region of 3% and at that time
it would make more business sense to close down the operation and invest the
working capital in what was then the national savings certificates which
were iirc bearing approx 7%.
This company was well-run and had superb monetary control considering
everything was basically done manually (pre personal computer) and was
somewhat feared by sub-contractors and suppliers for trimming their margins.
It was despised by consulting engineers who thought their practices of
demanding additional money for changes of the work in-progress was
scandalous and yet it was as near to breakeven as possible and was certainly
not over staffed or paying egregious salaries.
At that precise moment I concluded my days in the UK were numbered, I
left in February 1974.
These were not the quiet men that Anna is talking of, but they suffered
under the same yoke, and it appears from scrobs description that little has
changed, despite the pervasive understanding that developers are creaming
huge profits.
{ 59 comments }