We are all in this together - part 3

  zzzz999 10:23 30 May 2011


shameful leadership being shown by the self serving cabal that is the UK CEO club.

  spuds 11:12 30 May 2011

Rick'scafe link www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13588114

When the recent near collapse of world finance took place, we were all told that 'lessons would be learned' and the world leaders would make sure safeguards were strictly adhered to. But reading reports like this (and there's some even worse), it would appear that very little as or was done about it. Some countries are still virtually bankrupt, and asking for urgent or emergency survival finance and resources.

In another few years, will we all wake up to another shock and error story, like we did a short time ago?.

  Quiller. 11:15 30 May 2011

Cameron is not doing much for us all that are all in it together.

£30,000 facelift

  Forum Editor 11:24 30 May 2011

Dick Tattor

For goodness sake, the flat is the official home of the British Prime Minister. If we are going to become so petty that we start complaining when he spends money on what was (by all accounts) badly-needed work to make the place presentable I despair for our country's future. We're turning into a nation sour-faced, X-factor watching, binge drinking,petty minded cynics.

  wids001 11:36 30 May 2011

Always happens, nothing new here. What are the options: A prices and income policy would be fairer, but that is not going to happen whilst the Tories are in power. Having said that it did happen before and it worked quite well.

I'm afraid that when times are hard and wages are frozen or cut it is the workers that suffer. I can only remember one time back in the early Seventies with Ted Heath's government, that prices were controlled by government legislation along with wages. At least then we knew that "we were all in it together".

  Bingalau 11:59 30 May 2011


It seems that every new Prime Minister we get carries out some sort of alteration to number 10. As we change Prime Ministers on a regular basis there must have been a complete rebuild over the last fifty years.

Maybe it should come under some regulations as it is an Historic Building and alterations should not be allowed at the whim of a new occupant.

  spuds 12:12 30 May 2011


It isn't just the Prime Minister, many other ministers seem to change their accomodation and office decor of the new establishments when they take up residence. Wasn't there a remark about the cost of wallpaper once!.

I recall many years ago, when a Chief Constable lost his job, through going 'over the top' with the refinements of his office and other expenses.

  oresome 13:07 30 May 2011

Never mind jetting off for the weekend without the kids. Sam and Dave should have been off to the local DIY shed like the rest of us, buying a few pots of paint and some flat packs.

They could have done the job for a quarter of the price.

  Quiller. 13:29 30 May 2011

"If this thread gets diverted onto a ridiculous discussion of the flat at No. 10"

Why is it ridiculous? The thread title says

We are all in this together - part 3

This to me and it seems quite a few other posters, that the majority of the country has to pay for others mistakes while those decision makers in banks and government carry on with out regard to others. Your not telling me that the flat was left in such a bad condition that it needed £30,000 worth of work doing.

FE you forgot the Victor Meldrew effect.

  zzzz999 13:36 30 May 2011

Thanks FM, very useful post. However, the FTSE 100 is amended quarterly and the change is at best normally only one or two companies; I think the record in the midst of the economic melt down was 7 companies. As you say, we are not privy to the full report findings and the base data that fed their report, however, given the relative stability of the FTSE 100 make up and the apparent clarity of language used by the report authors, it looks like we are comparing apples with apples.

I agree with the point you make with regard to the independence of remuneration committees; they are far from independent and in my opinion suffer from what can only be perceived as a conflict of interest.

  oresome 13:43 30 May 2011

It really comes down to how many people can do the job and what it will it cost to attract and retain them.

Most of the top one hundred companies will be multi-nationals, competing with other world players both for market share and the pick of the right people to carry the company forward.

The only thing that grates as a shareholder is paying handsomely for mediocre performance, short termism or capital destroying acquisitions to feed massive egos.

Provide a sucessful strategy for future growth and above average returns for the shareholders and the salaries and bonuses are money well spent.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

iMac Pro review

Illustrator Charles Williams on how to create magazines and book covers

iMac Pro review

Les meilleures prises CPL (2018)