Johnny Bognor

Errrr...... original plan to cut 9000 jobs in 2014. In July, announcement to cut a further 3000. Total to be cut 12,000. "the 3000 jobs referred to in my post, from today's news, is in addition to the 9000 mentioned in 2014" is a re-hash of the july announcement to cut 3000 jobs in addition to those 9,000 announced in 2014. Quite simple really. I guess two pint's error was to rely on a poorly written and poorly researched article, whilst your error was to blindly follow because it suits your agenda. Donut! (Sorry, but I did warn you)

Perhaps you need to read this too... before I call you a donut... https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/28/lloyds-bank-to-axe-3000-jobs-and-close-200-branches The additional 3000, over and above the 9000 in the original 2014 plan, is down to the accelarating decline in branch use.... and it was announced back in July.

Errrr, no it's not. Let me help you out a little bit... 2nd Paragraph: The 1,340 job losses are part of a three-year restructuring plan first announced in 2014, 5th Paragraph: Though the latest round of cuts is NOT RELATED to the Brexit vote As for the further 3000 cuts mentioned in paragraph 5, these were announced in July. Please see my previous post. No, actually, don't. Please go back and click-on the link and actually READ the article. You never know, you might learn something you donut.

It's unfortunate that you don't actually "read" the news articles, as opposed to scanning the headlines and making things up about brexit. The 3000 job losses, attributable to the changes in the way we bank, were announced back in July... https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/28/lloyds-bank-to-axe-3000-jobs-and-close-200-branches If you're refering to the 1300 announced yesterday, these are part of the previously announced 9,000 head count reduction... https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/12/lloyds-banking-group-accused-of-death-by-a-thousand-cuts-as-it-axes-1340-jobs Remainers making things up???? No siree, no way....

Many of Unilever's products are manufactured in the UK. They are trying to instill a 10% hike, when the actual impact is less. Quite simple really. They are trying it on with Sainsbury's and Co as well. With the fall in the pound, rises are to be expected, but IMO Unilever are taking the ****, especially when you consider how Unilever didn't lower their prices when the currency went in the opposite direction a few years ago. Anyway marmite was a bad example, as most leftie remainers will be more concerned about the price of balsamic vinegar, avacado and bitter melon (quite apt don't you think?? ;-) )

I used marmite as a worked example. Many of Unilevers products are made in the UK (where the overhead and labour costs are unaffected by exchange rate changes). Some raw materials are imported (such as those based on petroleum like cleaning products), so there is some impact. But at the same time, some of the products manufactured here are exported and are now cheaper in destination countries. Are Unilever proposing to reduce prices in these destination countries in order to maintain margins? Of course they aren't. Yes the impact is real, but it's a lot smaller than Unilever are claiming and does not justify 10% price hikes. It's big business simply profiteering and using brexit as an excuse. Tesco are well within their rights to push back. The cost of oil went up by 700% between 2000 and 2005 and you still went to work. Pump prices hit £1.40 per litre three years ago, so let me go and dig up your post moaning about how you were not going to go to work in protest... LOL

Hypothetical, yes. Realistic, yes. The actual average cost of a product in a supermarket is around 30% of the retail price. But as marmite is produced in the UK with UK sourced ingredients, you think a 10% hike is justified and not simple expoitation of a political situation? Tesco are right to tell them to do one

Don't know where you got that from... António Horta-Osório, Lloyds’s chief executive, said the decision to cut jobs – which will save £400m – had been tough. But he said the use of branches had fallen by 15% year on year, faster than had been the case when he announced a £1bn cost-saving programme of 200 branch closures and 9,000 job cuts in October 2014. This is to do with the changes in the way we do banking.... but hey, blame it on brexit if it makes you feel better

OK, let me break this down for you in terms you can understand. Let’s take a jar of marmite (you either love it or hate, much like brexit). The average price of a jar is around £2.50. This is what we pay at the tills. So assuming an average retailers margin is 40%, the actual cost paid by Tesco to Unilever is around £1.50 per jar. Now let’s assume that from this £1.50, unilever make a 5% net profit, which goes back to the Netherlands (presumably to avoid corporation tax). This 7.5p net profit has taken a bit of a hit due to sterling devaluation. OK, so we’re left with £1.40 per jar. 50% of this will be attributable to the UK overhead in running the factory, sales, marketing, admin etc. So we’re looking at a production cost of £0.70 per jar. We don’t know how much labour is involved on the shop floor, so for the sake of argument, say it is 20%. But, as the product is made here, the devaluation is irrelevant in terms of labour anyway. We can safely estimate that the potential exchange rate exposure from raw materials is down to £0.56 per jar. Now after researching, the ingredients are all UK sourced, so there is in fact no / very little exposure to exchange rates in terms of raw materials. So by my calculations, Unilever have taken a 17% hit on the 7.5p net profit, which equates to 1.5p. We know Unilever are taking a hit of 1.5p on a jar of marmite (forgetting that exports of marmite are now 17% cheaper), so here is a question for you. Can you explain how a 10% hike in prices (equivalent to 25p on the retail price) is down to the fall in the pound and/or brexit, when the net effect is 1.5p per jar sold in the UK???? Seems like remainers are buying the lies of big business who are seeking to profit from their gullibility.

OK, in France youth unemployment is 24% against the UK's 13%. So nearly twice the youth unemployment. So that's the EU ruining the future of youngsters in Greece, Spain, Italy and France... and Croatia, Portugal, Slovakia, Cyprus, Finland, Belgium, Sweden, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovenia and Bulgaria. Apart from that, they're doing a great job LOL

Or maybe the pound was already overvalued (https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/gbp-live-today/5265-overvalued-british-pound) and the brexit vote was a catalyst for a market correction, rather than the cause. What ever you do, don't blame it on the sunshine, moonlight or the good times. Maybe blame it on the boogey???

Maybe if people spent less time ****ing about on the Internet during the working day, our productivity would improve????

Acording to most analysts and the IMF the pound was up to 10% overvalued. This over valuation was damaging our economy. A lot of them believe that a readjustment was coming and that brexit was a catalyst as opposed to a cause. We were importing too much and spending too much, which is clearly unsustainable.. i enjoyed watching the economists on the BBC just now, debate how we would consume more home made goods. All agreed that this was on the cards. i was lambasted by a few on here for that opinion, but when I clearly have my finger on the pulse and economists have taken three months to come round to my way of thinking, you would be wise not to dismiss out of hand, anything i say. I will be serving british made humble pie for some of our remoaners. Do you want a slice???

The rate is 18 billion. That is what it is set at by the EU . Divide it by 52... there is your 350 mills. But it is discounted to 250 million. But why set a rate that no one is going to pay??? What a complete and utter waste of time. But I guess they have form on over complicating things and wasting time, money and resources ....

Perhaps such an education would help me to understand what on earth you are going on about ;-)

Good, I'm glad about that. It doesn't take away the fact we have been subsidising bone idleness and laziness ... They can raise the pension age, but with no jobs, they'll still be sitting on their arses all day long.

£18 billion (our membership fee) ÷52 = £346 million... so not quite plucked out of the air. It is the fee, but not what we pay. We don't pay that as we get an instant £5 billion rebate, bringing the net cost down to £250 million. We do receive funding, which some argue reduces the net amount further. But we have no control over that funding in terms of where or how it is spent. We often have to match it or it comes with strings attached. At the end of the day, wealthier countries like the UK and Germany are subsidising the poorer countries, which some might argue is right. But why should a UK tax payer work until 65 (which will probably rise to 67) to subsidise a Greek worker who can retire at 58 and sit on his arse for 7-10 years??? London and the south subsidise the north. Would it be right for northerners to retire 7 years earlier than the rest?

Errrrrr you'll probably find that as many people voted to leave for their children, as did remain. Plenty of lefties voted leave, so does this mean being a leftie is to be selfish and only think of oneself? Just look at how the Euro has destroyed the lives of millions of young people, with eye watering levels of youth unemployment. But hey, if you want to be part of that club, then you have to accept some responsibility for it.

Hannan in 2008 summed it up quite well... What is clear it that the UK, French and Dutch rejected it, when they were given the chance. The Irish rejected it initially, only to try try again until the right answer was found. Only Spain and Luxembourg held referendums that were in favour of it. Hardly a ringing endorsement is it... The EU didn't want us to have a referendum, because they were fearful of the result. They were right to be. But if the EU is so confident of the good they do and the benefits they bring, why were they so fearful? Why don't they suggest that all countries should have a referendum? I think we all know the answer...

Indeed, even the French and the Dutch had a referendum, where the EU Constitution was soundly rejected... ultimately, they were consequently ignored, as the changing of the word "constitution" to "treaty" negated the need for a further referendum and the legislation went through the back door. This for me is the worst abuse of power and ignoring the will of the people in this whole EU debacle. Only seconded by the Irish rejection of the referendum, only to hold another two years later with a few word changes and millions of euros spent on promoting a yes vote.

The remainers are complaining about the £350 million a week, when in fact the net amount is closer to £250 million a week. They would have been no worse off if they printed the £250m. To the ordinary person on the street, £250 mil sounds like a hell of a lot of money, but the reality is that it isn't really that much

“We don’t have to give the EU £350 million per week – only £250 million. For now.” .... I’m sure that argument would have brought people flocking back to vote Remain LOL

Indeed some of it is provided in grants, but in areas of the EU's choosing and often with a requirement for the UK to match the funding. Therefore although some comes back, we lose control of it. It would have been more accurate to state that we would save the net contribution (which is less than £350 million) and have control over the rest, rather than handing control of that budget to the EU. This would have been factually correct and funnily enough would have added up to £350 million LOL when you consider the EU is the overiding mother of all 'nanny states'

Article 50 to be triggered before the end of march... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37532364

Are you sure about that???? I'm struggling to find any cast iron promise to retain membership of the single market, irrespective of the referendum result. I mean, why bother holding the referendum. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/14/conservatives-election-manifesto-2015-the-key-points They said they would hold an in/out referendum. Which would be held after re-negotiation. The fact that the negotiation amounted to the square root of naff all, led to them to trigger the referendum. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/11/david-cameron-european-union-referendum-pledge