Spudda wants to be pro-business

Restrictions big business try to place on competition, whether by paying late, threatening legal action on intellectual property, pursuing unfair pricing to force out competitors and by imposing artificial standards that only they can meet will be resisted.

Pro-business by essentially abolishing both intellectual property – it doesn’t exist if you can’t enforce exclusivity – and price cutting?

24 thoughts on “Spudda wants to be pro-business”

  1. “……imposing artificial standards that only they can meet…..” Isn’t that exactly what employs hundreds of lobbyists within the corridors of Brussels and seats of government the world over?

  2. However, “paying late” is a major problem. Or, more accurately, forcing payment terms on to small businesses that are grossly unfair. And then paying late (or challenging invoices in the last days before the invoice is due for payment, rather than checking them on receipt and challenging them so that it can be discussed and, if necessary, corrected.) One other thing that really winds me up is that you get a signed contract, and then Purchasing (or whoever) don’t issue a purchase order number and Accounts Payable (or whoever) reject any invoice which doesn’t have a PO.

    This is one (tiny) aspect of commercial relations that (some) government departments are actually not that terrible at.

  3. Bits government departments are bad at.

    by imposing artificial standards that only large business can meet

    “You must encourage small business to bid.”
    Let’s issue 300 page ITTs and require whole buckets of certifications that, except in niche market areas, only businesses which are large enough to have a full-time Quality Manager will even consider.

  4. And of course the more regulation you insist on, the bigger the corporations have to be to still exist in the market – they are the ones who can afford the departments of lawyers and functionaries who ensure compliance.

  5. Paying late had nothing to do with restricting competition. It’s about reducing working capital.

    Direct competitors don’t often buy from each other!

  6. Bloke in North Dorset

    No government employee ever got sacked for awarding a contract to IBM.

    The risks of public opprobrium if a contract to a minor company goes wrong are far too great.

  7. at which point the entire pharmaceutical business in the UK, both research and supply of patent protected drugs into the NHS, walks away from the country altogether.

    *slow hand clap* Way to go, Poindexter

  8. “imposing artificial standards that only large business can meet”

    Like trying to impose a demand that local councils only deal with companies that have a “Tax Mark” which has no legal standing, backing or authority?

  9. “•Cheats will not be tolerated, meaning that those who form companies to undermine fair trade will be made personally liable for the debts they incur.”

    Could the Professor comment, candidly, on people who set up LLPs when the second silent member has an immaterial interest which (some would say artificially) allows the main (real) member to benefit from limited liability.

  10. @BraveFart

    That is different, for reasons.

    And it is purely co-incidental that a sole trader would not have been eligible for grants whereas an LLP was.

  11. “But what people will not want is a feeling that their own aspiration is constrained. I think that is also appropriate. I have nothing against aspiration. “- this from the man in his sucking up to the snp wanted to monitor everyones bank accounts to check for “excessive consumption” and more or less compulsory investment in government bonds- that’s inspiring – get rich and be forced to buy government bonds or be taxed to death to finance the lives of the feckless and build more fucking windmills instead of living the life of riley. Wow cant wait to make my first million so spud can monitor my spending and then appropriate anything he deems excessive to build the new jerusalem. FUCK OFF SPUD.

  12. “•Cheats will not be tolerated, meaning that those who form companies to undermine fair trade will be made personally liable for the debts they incur.”

    Where is this from?

  13. ‘I was slightly more prescient when writing about Labour and Venezuela than I realised I might be when commenting yesterday morning. With even Philip Hammond resorting to this new variant on Godwin’s Law, and throwing in Zimbabwe and Cuba for good measure, it appears that the only thing the Tories have left to them is fear ‘

    The issue with Godwin’s law and the comparison (and My goodness he is quick to invoke Fascism at every available opportunity like so many Left wing morons) is that Nazi Germany no longer exists – Cuba, Zimbabwe, North Korea and Venezuela all do and as I suggested yesterday, the Tories need to be showcasing life in those countries and ideally having blogs with Direct Quotes from Murphy’s utterances juxtaposed against tales of the shortages and bureaucracy that everyday people in those Murphyian/ Corbynite states struggle against daily.

    I am asked on occasion if I have the time to do this and the answer, reluctantly is that it is a struggle. The fact so many on the Corbynite side have time and resources to post across Social media suggest an Ecksian metaphorical ‘purge’ of the universities and indeed the entire public sector may be essential. The time for half measures is over. Any member of Momentum needs to be placed under surveillance and evidence sought for the involvement of either China or North Korea. In the event of a Corbynite defeat, immediate measures need to be taken to temporarily suspend the franchise for people under 30 and to tax those Momentum members an additional 10% to fund those inconvenienced by the increased policing costs and surveillance costs of their activities. They will be offered the option to head to Zimbabwe, Cuba, North Korea or Venezuela (or another Corbynite state)on a permanent basis and if taken up their flights will be paid for and their assets repatriated to the banking systems within those countries. A solution which enables them to live under a Socialist administration and frees up resources employing them for people who might be more appreciative of living in the UK.

  14. Cheats will not be tolerated, meaning that those who form companies to undermine fair trade will be made personally liable for the debts they incur

    I don’t know the context in which this statement was made, but on face value it is incredible. What is “fair trade”? Looks to me like a Corporatist dream – deny entry to new businesses and even sue them for your own losses!

  15. Rob

    “•Cheats will not be tolerated, meaning that those who form companies to undermine fair trade will be made personally liable for the debts they incur.”

    Where is this from?

    Do you really need to ask – another manifesto criterion for The Courageous State utopian socialist paradise published by Murphy on TRUK.

  16. “Could the Professor comment, candidly, on people who set up LLPs when the second silent member has an immaterial interest which (some would say artificially) allows the main (real) member to benefit from limited liability.”

    And when the silent partner (who was publicly declared to be intimately involved in the day to day work of the LLP) now lives 15 miles away and seemingly has nothing whatsoever to do with the work of the LLP at all?

  17. And why, when a settlement was agreed in respect of libellous material published on the blog in the name of the LLP, the LLP accounts did not include any disclosure of the settlement.

  18. @ Sam Jones
    Because the accounts were “exempt” from the standards required for Public Companies. Murphy is not, as one might wish, utterly stupid – he frequently knows what he is doing.

  19. The LLP accounts include a detailed P&L (which to be fair to Murphy goes beyond what is required). I don’t recall seeing any damages/legal costs in that P&L and presumably they would have been material items. This implies Murphy paid directly not via the LLP.

  20. I raised a complaint with ICAEW about his libel settlement and his failure to self-report it to them under the obligation to report misconduct. They said they didn’t think there’s a case to answer. Unbelievable. Anyone fancy a mass-complaint?

  21. @ Sam Jones
    Not *that* detailed – also inaccurate. Work-in-progress is defined on one page as “Stocks” and on another as negative cost of sales. Reserves are deemed to be included in and equal to “Members Other Interests”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *