Jump to content

Er, can we have 250 million quid, please?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Derek Flint said:

Yes - the same deal is available via HMRC. We just offer a more ‘boutique’ service apparently.

And what did we actually "get" out of it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 210
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Just out of curiosity, what are you basing any of that on? In particular, Why would the economy of the Island (with a much smaller population, more limited industrial and services base, etc.)

As long as the intention is indeed to deploy it into the private sector of course. As posted previously, £250M equates to @ 6 months of PS pay on current commitments with no signs of any intentio

There are some really good people across the civil service. Grafters, and they care. The problem as I see it is there are a lot of ‘non jobs’ at a management level that have been created for unclear p

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Derek Flint said:

It was embarrassing. The cops tried hard, and lost a significant tranche of staff. Elsewhere it was a licence to fanny around.

And there was no bigger "fanny around" than the ensuing "Brown Reshuffle". Never before was so much Departmental headed paper binned and expensively reprinted for so little gain. And all since undone (with the exception of DOI which has gone on to speak volumes for the whole operation).

Yet Brown was most unlikely to have come up with the "no reductions or losses" arrangement by himself (some might say that there wasn't much that he could do by himself).

Somebody would have advised him. Who and what vested interests would those persons have had are the questions.

Edited by Non-Believer
Typo
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cambon said:

Yes. What Hamilton did could have been done in the uk. However, in the uk there is loads of red tape to cut, hops to jump through and therefore it costs a lot more. Here, he flys in at a pre arranged time, signs a few forms, writes a cheque and leaves. 

@Cambon

Link?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Derek Flint said:

Yes - the same deal is available via HMRC. We just offer a more ‘boutique’ service apparently.

Then why did it prompt a tour by various EU worthies?

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

It would look like the UK economy. In real terms, the majority would be better off. We’d look a bit like the Isle of Wight, I suspect.

its not a great option on the face of it, but like I say, are we just effectively playing at being a country? 

Barclays have revealed 70% of their staff worldwide are working from home. This has major ramifications for the industry, especially in respect of location. We are going to see some major rethinking on the horizon. 

Having lived on the Isle of Wight for 10 years and IOM for 8 years now I really struggle to see how we could end up looking like the former, and even if we did, I can see no advantage to it, certainly not financially.

Tourism is IOW's big income (day trippers, boats, as well as seaside hols). The population of 138,000 more than doubles in the summer with tourists (3 million visitors per year). They have zero financial services, insurance, gaming etc. Agriculture is much bigger than here with a number of 2,000 acre farms, the sweetcorn matures 3 weeks earlier than Hampshire due to to the mild weather (though the market price gain is lost in ferry costs - ferries are more expensive per mile than here).

They have roughly one third of the GDP of the IOM but with almost double the population. GDP/Capita is way below here. Their highest paid workers commute to Southampton / Portsmouth and even London to work (100 + ferries a day)

I agree with Phillip Dearden, there would be a max exodus from here, all financial services would leave taking a load of professionals (including hospital staff) with them.

I think that the Isle of Mull would better represent a future IOM under UK taxes except that Mull is half as big again as here. Crofting would be my best bet too.

Normally if one company was seeking shareholder permission to buy another, they would attempt to show that shareholder value would be enhanced by the move. If you were to compare IOM financial metrics (especially debt) to the UK's then I think that you would have a shareholder revolt. Merging UK Plc with IOM Plc would be financial ruin for here.

£250M equates to a couple of weeks' 'turnover' (GDP) for IOM - No need to chuck the baby out with the bath water. (Did I mention the weather).

Edited by Manximus Aururaneus
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Derek Flint said:

It would look like the UK economy. In real terms, the majority would be better off. We’d look a bit like the Isle of Wight, I suspect.

Just out of curiosity, what are you basing any of that on? In particular,

  • Why would the economy of the Island (with a much smaller population, more limited industrial and services base, etc.) look anything like the UK economy?
  • Is 'it would look like the UK economy' even a meaningful statement? The local economies of most places in the UK don't 'look like the UK economy'---there's massive variation across the country.
  • Why the Isle of Wight (and, in fact, are we currently worse off than the Isle of Wight)? We're not exactly similar in terms proximity or transport links to Great Britain, population numbers, or even tourist industry. Why not the Isle of Lewis, or the Shetlands (not that either of these are better comparisons)? 

To my mind, the most likely short-to-medium outcomes of becoming a part of the UK is

  • A large amount of money permanently lost from the local economy and government coffers thanks to much of the local taxes being funnelled to Westminster and apportioned around the UK.
  • Rates are replaced with Council Tax, and water is farmed off to one of the big water companies, leading to increased costs for households and even less money coming into local government as a portion of revenue is taken by the local county council (who often have a tendency to throw money at the biggest towns/cities in their county and pay only lip-service to smaller areas). 
  • Service industries largely leave because there is suddenly no advantage to operating on the Island to counter the benefits of being located in the United Kingdom (or the Channel Islands). As a consequence, unemployment grows and is exacerbated as people leave the Island, taking custom away from local business, which gives the local economy another kicking.
  • Those who are lucky enough to still have a job find that their taxes go up, a lot, with little commensurate drop in the cost of living.
  • Education, Health, and other services are absorbed into the local authority, NHS trust, etc., of whatever area we're dumped into, probably with a cut in services and facilities being the most obvious consequence.

Then there's the most permanent consequence: the loss of governance.  For all the criticisms of the Island's system of government, it's potentially a lot more responsive to local needs and opinion than would be the case if our representation in national government consisted of a single MP among hundreds.

Now, maybe all that's complete nonsense. But it would be reassuring if we could have something approaching proof that everyone would be better off and, for that matter, that the Island's experience with autonomy has indeed been a failure, before rushing into the arms of the UK.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Then why did it prompt a tour by various EU worthies?

Maybe they were offshoreing a few carrier-bags full of Euros, killing a few million birds with one stone?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VinnieK said:

Just out of curiosity, what are you basing any of that on? In particular,

  • Why would the economy of the Island (with a much smaller population, more limited industrial and services base, etc.) look anything like the UK economy?
  • Is 'it would look like the UK economy' even a meaningful statement? The local economies of most places in the UK don't 'look like the UK economy'---there's massive variation across the country.
  • Why the Isle of Wight (and, in fact, are we currently worse off than the Isle of Wight)? We're not exactly similar in terms proximity or transport links to Great Britain, population numbers, or even tourist industry. Why not the Isle of Lewis, or the Shetlands (not that either of these are better comparisons)? 

To my mind, the most likely short-to-medium outcomes of becoming a part of the UK is

  • A large amount of money permanently lost from the local economy and government coffers thanks to much of the local taxes being funnelled to Westminster and apportioned around the UK.
  • Rates are replaced with Council Tax, and water is farmed off to one of the big water companies, leading to increased costs for households and even less money coming into local government as a portion of revenue is taken by the local county council (who often have a tendency to throw money at the biggest towns/cities in their county and pay only lip-service to smaller areas). 
  • Service industries largely leave because there is suddenly no advantage to operating on the Island to counter the benefits of being located in the United Kingdom (or the Channel Islands). As a consequence, unemployment grows and is exacerbated as people leave the Island, taking custom away from local business, which gives the local economy another kicking.
  • Those who are lucky enough to still have a job find that their taxes go up, a lot, with little commensurate drop in the cost of living.
  • Education, Health, and other services are absorbed into the local authority, NHS trust, etc., of whatever area we're dumped into, probably with a cut in services and facilities being the most obvious consequence.

Then there's the most permanent consequence: the loss of governance.  For all the criticisms of the Island's system of government, it's potentially a lot more responsive to local needs and opinion than would be the case if our representation in national government consisted of a single MP among hundreds.

Now, maybe all that's complete nonsense. But it would be reassuring if we could have something approaching proof that everyone would be better off and, for that matter, that the Island's experience with autonomy has indeed been a failure, before rushing into the arms of the UK.

Welcome back Vinnie!

Any comparison can surely only be made when we find out what levels of taxation and expense are going to be visited upon the IoM population when it's time to pay the piper for the outlay incurred during this episode? It may become distinctly unattractive to live here for the low to medium earners for that reason alone? 

Our USP has always dictated that we don't tax business or the wealthy. IF that remains the case (and if it doesn't then that alone would result in their exodus, surely), then it will be business as normal; meaning the low and middle earners will be hit inordinately and perhaps much worse than before out of necessity?

Would one of the big water firms really be allowed to hold a supply monopoly to the Island? Ditto power? We might at least be given market choice of suppliers. Would the costs be greater than currently bailing out the MUA debt, disguising it as a sewerage charge of well over £200 per household/annum regardless of occupancy or usage?

We might get parity for legal services. No win no fee. An end to the Athol St brotherhood.

I watched a UK lady dairy farmer on tv a few weeks back, proudly proclaiming that she received £25k pa in subsidies. That's peanuts compared to what they get paid for doing nothing over here currently. We might see an end to our pockets being emptied in the name of that.

Of course, those who are currently doing very well out of the existing arrangement will find all sorts of reasons why things shouldn't change. In many cases it would mean the dismantling of their lucrative, well established structures funded by the taxpayer.

But above all else, our governance might become subject to some scrutiny.

Edited by Non-Believer
Typo
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Marrying up with the UK's debt?? No thanks! Things may not look that brilliant here at the moment, but any sensible suitor who's taken a good look at the UK's books would run a mile. And the debt situation in the US and Japan is equally unsustainable if the truth be told.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, P.K. said:

Then why did it prompt a tour by various EU worthies?

cos it got advertised everywhere and they didn't like it, also we process the paperwork rather faster than HMRC.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

Barclays have revealed 70% of their staff worldwide are working from home. This has major ramifications for the industry, especially in respect of location.

I wonder what the equivalent working from home percentage is for government admin jobs? And by that I mean working from home rather than being at home. 

Edited by Grayson
....
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...