23 comments on “Doing well then, eh?

  1. The plan was for it to become a public procurement requirement, that would have brought in the customers.

    I gave him the position here

    http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/05/01/tax-dodging-should-be-considered-when-the-government-is-spending/

    i got the usual poisonous spray.

    I am reasonably well connected in local authority procurement, including some pretty big councils. Haven’t heard a peep about requiring this. Nothing, nyet, nada. I’ve even asked directors whether they’ve even heard of Murphy and FTM – not one has answered in the affirmative.

    If any Council does require it, give my card out to unsuccessful bidders. It would be a dead easy challenge.

  2. More start ups than FTSE 100 companies one suspects.

    Mainly co-ops, which is basically handing gongs out to your mates. The one exception is SSE but no one gives a shit really.

    Perhaps more importantly, it’s yet another attempt of the Left to redefine a word and try and force that definition on others. It doesn’t appear to be working…this time.

  3. The business plan from 2014 stated “We have created a detailed business plan that proposes modest but steady growth to a turnover of £150,000 after three years (and having accredited and licensed roughly 350 companies). We have modelled this partly to look at the need for start up capital and cash flow in year one in particular. We do not, however, rule out the potential for much more significant growth.”

    They even had a competition to give away 25 FTMs to small businesses. The competition was such a success, it created no more FTMs.

    From the (not quite 30) awarded, 2 have been found guilty of violating minimum wage laws, delete the one-man band companies and the co-ops who are being paid to get it, not a lot left.

    I’ve said before, their slogan should be “The Fair Tax Mark – we can’t even fucking give it away”

  4. Noel, they needed someone like the public sector to make it compulsory in tender – that would have been the kick along it needed.

    Public sector tenders usually do require accreditations (often to act as a filter to kick out the tyre kickers), but the wind is blowing in the direction to reduce, not increase these requirements.

    The other thing is that if they went down this route, the public body could never specify the FTM itself. They would need to open it up to other accreditations (which would open up new entrants). And any accreditors would need a level of transparency and independence on which FTM would currently fail (the involvement a political campaigner like Ethical Consumer would be an instant no-no).

    Murphy makes it his business to remain ignorant of these things.

  5. Many times have had ‘accreditation providers’ ring me at work about getting this accreditation or that accreditation for the charity I worked for and how it would help us bid for contracts and apply for funding.

    Of course they were selling their product – which usually was not required by anyone and had no value to the organisation anyway.

    Have worked for organisations with accreditation, usually awarded based on a tick box exercise from what I recall, cannot think anyone actually meant it when awarding ‘Investors in People’ and such things to organisations that had no interest in their staff.

  6. Adrian

    Apologies for copying this from your link.

    Your perfectly rational doubts (to it becoming a public procurement requirement):

    there are a number of reasons a Fair Tax Mark requirement wouldn’t be suitable under current rules (and I wouldn’t touch it in the tenders I work on):

    • The Fair Tax Mark doesn’t seem very transparent. The only public information I can find on how it works is from its own website. Who decides whether a FTM is awarded or denied (or whether an accountant can be accredited to distribute it)? Does everyone get it, as long as they pay? Is the mark (or right to award the mark) given or denied on merit, or does it depend on whether your face fits (or doesn’t)? You may know the answer, but I don’t.

    • Who is Ethical Consumer? According to its website, it seems a fairly politicised organisation that seems to encourage boycotts. Not suitable for also dispensing accreditations to be used in public tenders.

    The Murph:

    The first two questions are so absurd you simply reveal your bigotry

    How can anyone (at all, anywhere) take him seriously?

  7. PF

    Your last sentence is a question I have often asked. It’s also no doubt one that people were asking about a famous Austrian in Germany in the 1920s. Luckily for us Murphy is not as charismatic as that Austrian is reputed to have been….

  8. BiS

    “mark”

    That deserves traction. Those who have paid might like to be aware of their official “status”.

  9. PF – if my concerns are so ‘absurd’, how come its take up rate is zero?

    Murphy’s contradiction is that he loves the state and all that’s in it – he just regards everyone who works there as complete muppets.

    I’ve gently teased him in the past suggesting he gets a job in the public sector, which he has no intention of doing. He is frightened his delusions will be shattered.

    Not that it is all bad, but just like any big organisation, it is made up ordinary, generally decent, pleasant people muddling through life as we all do, with all their qualities and flaws. Not terrible but no magic bullet either.

  10. Let’s take a quick look at Crunchers South London, proud holders of the FTM and “the first accountancy practice to gain the Fair Tax Mark, leading the sector on fair tax practices”

    http://crunchers-south-london.co.uk/the-team/

    One accountant and a PA/admin/secretary. Two of their clients have dead websites. I bet the Big4 are looking at Damion with a mixture of admiration and terror in their eyes.

  11. Once saw a company awarded an investors in people award after it cut 50% of its workforce including cancelling its apprenticeship program

  12. BniC
    Every company I’ve worked for had investors in people award – none of them gave a toss about most of their people…

  13. Yep, this is just a cynical attempt jump on the accreditations gravy train with the added bebenift of doing some virute signalling

  14. The business plan from 2014 stated “We have created a detailed business plan that proposes modest but steady growth to a turnover of £150,000 after three years”

    Why would an organisation dedicated to social justice aim to trouser 150 grand a year?

  15. @ Rob
    The £150k is turnover not profit. Murphy could not possibly, ever, want a profit! All the revenue his LLP receives is simply to cover costs including a modest wage for the worker at umpteen times the minimum wage.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.