There are some who have Rishi Sunak’s name down for a REALLY big job in his foreseeable future. Chancellor of the Exchequer is a good, working title, but pencils are scribbling his name onto illustrious lists of jobs much grander than the one that must burden him currently. Whisper it quietly, but will Piers Morgan’s prodigious backside ever fill the chair again at Good Morning Britain? Is Ole as secure at United as people say he is?
But surely Rishi must have his eye on the really big one? Would he want Boris’ job? Is there any kudos now in filling the shoes of a criminal Bankrupt former Wimbledon champion?
With so much at stake Rishi has to keep his eye firmly on the ball. He cannot afford to be caught doing U-turns like his boss. There were reports yesterday (Friday 9 October) that the spanking new Government job support scheme, slotted in to succeed furlough when that word finally exits our vocabulary at the end of this month, is such an about turn for 00 Sunak, who repeated continuously that the Treasury would not offer such further support.
Worse, the mewlers and whingers are out early doors, complaining that some businesses will fall through the cracks in his new scheme. That’s quite a shock, as in 2019 there were only 5.9 million private sector businesses in our fair land, up by 200,000 compared to the year previous to that. Just how hard can it be to put together a scheme that saves everyone and does a complete job and (while you are at it) to please all of the people all of the time?
Roger Barker, director of policy at the Institute of Directors (so, again, Roger - what do you actually DO?) warned the Government needed to do more to address potential second-order impacts of local lockdowns which would hit firms in other areas and across the supply chain. And we all know how difficult it is to give great and meaningful advice from the sidelines, particularly when you have no financial or any responsibility for what you are suggesting.
But Roger was on a roll. He also argued the Government’s decision to reinstate Wrongful Trading liability was a serious mistake that would add pressure on directors to pull the plug on their companies, particularly those who were very, VERY honest and only want the best for their creditors. (Have you never looked up the word ‘objective’ in the context of ‘objective test’, Mr Barker? If that is the measure against which directors are being assessed, it doesn’t matter if section 214 is reinstated or not. If a director is reasonable when compared to the diligent and prudent, at the time and in the circumstances they find themselves running a company, they will be just fine.)
The Association of Independent Professionals and Self-Employed, pushed Mr Barker out of the way, wanting their own pop at the (potential) next host of Question of Sport, saying it was dismaying that the self-employed were again missing out. “If a self-employed hairdresser, plumber or contractor is caught in a local lockdown and unable to work, they are entitled to just 20 per cent of their usual earnings.”
Come on, Rishi. If you are going to save some people you have to save EVERYONE. If you want to be a national treasure, a knight of the realm or rear-of-the-year you have to get your act together.
