So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
Indeed. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only way to fix the economy is to have a housing crash. And if people end up in negative equity then that's a case of caveat emptor.
Investments can go down as well as up.
And wipes out most of the banks in the process
If they were foolish enough to inflate the market enough that a correction in the market wipes them out then they deserve to be wiped out too. Again caveat emptor applies, if the banks have put their money into tulips then keeping tulips at an extremely high cost to save the banks is a moral hazard we shouldn't engage in.
The problem is that if you wipe out the banks, it's not going to 'fix' the economy. It would instead annihilate it by instantly making capital and even current account running expenses unavailable. So, to take only the most obvious point, all food distribution would stop at once.
Now that could lead to the creation of a different economy (although in practice I suspect the political turmoil would see a totalitarian government come to power minded to seize all assets for themselves) but to put it mildly it would be a very bumpy transition.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
Indeed. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only way to fix the economy is to have a housing crash. And if people end up in negative equity then that's a case of caveat emptor.
Investments can go down as well as up.
And wipes out most of the banks in the process
If they were foolish enough to inflate the market enough that a correction in the market wipes them out then they deserve to be wiped out too. Again caveat emptor applies, if the banks have put their money into tulips then keeping tulips at an extremely high cost to save the banks is a moral hazard we shouldn't engage in.
The problem is that if you wipe out the banks, it's not going to 'fix' the economy. It would instead annihilate it by instantly making capital and even current account running expenses unavailable. So, to take only the most obvious point, all food distribution would stop at once.
Now that could lead to the creation of a different economy (although in practice I suspect the political turmoil would see a totalitarian government come to power minded to seize all assets for themselves) but to put it mildly it would be a very bumpy transition.
No if the banks are wiped out it'd be like 2008 again. Those who hold equity in the bank's would lose everything but the system would be nationalised to ensure that the banking system still worked.
If people have made bad investments then I don't see why we should rig the market to prevent them from facing the consequences of their choices.
Everyone who has ever made an investment should have been informed that prices can go down as well as up.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
Indeed. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only way to fix the economy is to have a housing crash. And if people end up in negative equity then that's a case of caveat emptor.
Investments can go down as well as up.
And wipes out most of the banks in the process
If they were foolish enough to inflate the market enough that a correction in the market wipes them out then they deserve to be wiped out too. Again caveat emptor applies, if the banks have put their money into tulips then keeping tulips at an extremely high cost to save the banks is a moral hazard we shouldn't engage in.
The problem is that if you wipe out the banks, it's not going to 'fix' the economy. It would instead annihilate it by instantly making capital and even current account running expenses unavailable. So, to take only the most obvious point, all food distribution would stop at once.
Now that could lead to the creation of a different economy (although in practice I suspect the political turmoil would see a totalitarian government come to power minded to seize all assets for themselves) but to put it mildly it would be a very bumpy transition.
House prices would certainly be lower though.
Houses would be worthless as nobody could afford to buy them. And priceless, because nobody could afford to build or repair them.
In Nevil Shute's In The Wet, such a crisis led to the government deliberately removing the roofs of empty houses in order to keep up the value of the others, to the princely sum of £5.
I find it very disturbing the notion that a victim of a crime shouldn't get justice because they already got compensation from one of their abusers so the rest shouldn't get sued.
That's like saying if a murderer gets convicted that their accomplice shouldn't get out on trial once identified because that's "double jeopardy" since the case has already been dealt with and justice served.
That's not how it works. That's never been how it works. One criminal facing justice doesn't let others get away with it without facing justice.
If the accusations are false then he shouldn't have to pay compensation. But if the accusations are true then the fact she got compensation from Epstein is irrelevant.
Surely that depends on the terms of the settlement?
No. Why should it?
The settlement was between her and Epstein. The law explicitly and deliberately permits victims to sue other attackers and so it should.
Innocent until proven guilty, if he's innocent he shouldn't face a judgment but if he's able to be proven guilty then ssaying he shouldn't face justice simply because others have before him isn't justice.
If she agreed it was a full and final settlement of all and any claims related to the events in question it would.
A civil case isn’t “justice” - that’s a criminal case. A civil case is “you’ve wronged me, I want restitution”. If she already has received restitution then you don’t get to double dip.
To be clear, I have no idea what I’d in the settlement, so just challenging your assertion from a theoretical perspective.
Where is "double dipped" defined in the law?
It can be full and final from Epstein, that is OK. Andrew is not Epstein though is he?
Restitution from Andrew is a different matter from restitution from Epstein.
If this was a Bradford gang instead of a prince of the realm would you be of the same opinion?
It is, of course, possible that Andrew is innocent. The one thing that indicates that this might be the case is the lack of other women coming out of the woodwork.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
Indeed. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only way to fix the economy is to have a housing crash. And if people end up in negative equity then that's a case of caveat emptor.
Investments can go down as well as up.
And wipes out most of the banks in the process
If they were foolish enough to inflate the market enough that a correction in the market wipes them out then they deserve to be wiped out too. Again caveat emptor applies, if the banks have put their money into tulips then keeping tulips at an extremely high cost to save the banks is a moral hazard we shouldn't engage in.
The problem is that if you wipe out the banks, it's not going to 'fix' the economy. It would instead annihilate it by instantly making capital and even current account running expenses unavailable. So, to take only the most obvious point, all food distribution would stop at once.
Now that could lead to the creation of a different economy (although in practice I suspect the political turmoil would see a totalitarian government come to power minded to seize all assets for themselves) but to put it mildly it would be a very bumpy transition.
No if the banks are wiped out it'd be like 2008 again. Those who hold equity in the bank's would lose everything but the system would be nationalised to ensure that the banking system still worked.
If people have made bad investments then I don't see why we should rig the market to prevent them from facing the consequences of their choices.
Everyone who has ever made an investment should have been informed that prices can go down as well as up.
You're the economist, not me. But my understanding is that banks can only take deposits and lend in proportion to the capital they have. How do they do either if they have no capital?
Or in your scenario, would the government assign a notional capital value to them based on deposits?
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
Indeed. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only way to fix the economy is to have a housing crash. And if people end up in negative equity then that's a case of caveat emptor.
Investments can go down as well as up.
And wipes out most of the banks in the process
If they were foolish enough to inflate the market enough that a correction in the market wipes them out then they deserve to be wiped out too. Again caveat emptor applies, if the banks have put their money into tulips then keeping tulips at an extremely high cost to save the banks is a moral hazard we shouldn't engage in.
The problem is that if you wipe out the banks, it's not going to 'fix' the economy. It would instead annihilate it by instantly making capital and even current account running expenses unavailable. So, to take only the most obvious point, all food distribution would stop at once.
Now that could lead to the creation of a different economy (although in practice I suspect the political turmoil would see a totalitarian government come to power minded to seize all assets for themselves) but to put it mildly it would be a very bumpy transition.
No if the banks are wiped out it'd be like 2008 again. Those who hold equity in the bank's would lose everything but the system would be nationalised to ensure that the banking system still worked.
If people have made bad investments then I don't see why we should rig the market to prevent them from facing the consequences of their choices.
Everyone who has ever made an investment should have been informed that prices can go down as well as up.
Home owners in the SE haven’t made bad investments. They’ve seen their asset values rise very healthily in the last two decades.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
Indeed. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only way to fix the economy is to have a housing crash. And if people end up in negative equity then that's a case of caveat emptor.
Investments can go down as well as up.
And wipes out most of the banks in the process
If they were foolish enough to inflate the market enough that a correction in the market wipes them out then they deserve to be wiped out too. Again caveat emptor applies, if the banks have put their money into tulips then keeping tulips at an extremely high cost to save the banks is a moral hazard we shouldn't engage in.
You are positive advocating something. I have noted a seriously negative impact that you didn’t consider. Your reaction “it’s their fault”.
Impossible to argue with that. Not because you have a good case. Just impossible to argue.
What we actually need is for house prices to grow at less than wages for an extended period of time, but without a crash. Modest increases in interest rates are part of that.
I find it very disturbing the notion that a victim of a crime shouldn't get justice because they already got compensation from one of their abusers so the rest shouldn't get sued.
That's like saying if a murderer gets convicted that their accomplice shouldn't get out on trial once identified because that's "double jeopardy" since the case has already been dealt with and justice served.
That's not how it works. That's never been how it works. One criminal facing justice doesn't let others get away with it without facing justice.
If the accusations are false then he shouldn't have to pay compensation. But if the accusations are true then the fact she got compensation from Epstein is irrelevant.
Surely that depends on the terms of the settlement?
No. Why should it?
The settlement was between her and Epstein. The law explicitly and deliberately permits victims to sue other attackers and so it should.
Innocent until proven guilty, if he's innocent he shouldn't face a judgment but if he's able to be proven guilty then ssaying he shouldn't face justice simply because others have before him isn't justice.
If she agreed it was a full and final settlement of all and any claims related to the events in question it would.
A civil case isn’t “justice” - that’s a criminal case. A civil case is “you’ve wronged me, I want restitution”. If she already has received restitution then you don’t get to double dip.
To be clear, I have no idea what I’d in the settlement, so just challenging your assertion from a theoretical perspective.
Where is "double dipped" defined in the law?
It can be full and final from Epstein, that is OK. Andrew is not Epstein though is he?
Restitution from Andrew is a different matter from restitution from Epstein.
If this was a Bradford gang instead of a prince of the realm would you be of the same opinion?
It entirely depends on how the settlement agreement was drafted. @Cyclefree described it very well.
It could be that a bunch of famous people were included in the protections in the settlement agreement. I don’t know and you don’t know. But it is certainly been an argument for a while that the settlement agreement was comprehensive. Perhaps she has found a way through that and can sue other individuals. Perhaps she hasn’t.
Edit: and just to comment on your offensive jab at the end. A Bradford gang should have exactly the same rights as Prince Andrew. But I suspect they wouldn’t be in the position because they don’t have money to go after or a reputation to damage. So aren’t a good target for a shakedown.
I find it very disturbing the notion that a victim of a crime shouldn't get justice because they already got compensation from one of their abusers so the rest shouldn't get sued.
That's like saying if a murderer gets convicted that their accomplice shouldn't get out on trial once identified because that's "double jeopardy" since the case has already been dealt with and justice served.
That's not how it works. That's never been how it works. One criminal facing justice doesn't let others get away with it without facing justice.
If the accusations are false then he shouldn't have to pay compensation. But if the accusations are true then the fact she got compensation from Epstein is irrelevant.
Surely that depends on the terms of the settlement?
No. Why should it?
The settlement was between her and Epstein. The law explicitly and deliberately permits victims to sue other attackers and so it should.
Innocent until proven guilty, if he's innocent he shouldn't face a judgment but if he's able to be proven guilty then ssaying he shouldn't face justice simply because others have before him isn't justice.
If she agreed it was a full and final settlement of all and any claims related to the events in question it would.
A civil case isn’t “justice” - that’s a criminal case. A civil case is “you’ve wronged me, I want restitution”. If she already has received restitution then you don’t get to double dip.
To be clear, I have no idea what I’d in the settlement, so just challenging your assertion from a theoretical perspective.
Where is "double dipped" defined in the law?
It can be full and final from Epstein, that is OK. Andrew is not Epstein though is he?
Restitution from Andrew is a different matter from restitution from Epstein.
If this was a Bradford gang instead of a prince of the realm would you be of the same opinion?
Remember that this is a civil case - it’s all about money, no-one can go to prison.
I find it very disturbing the notion that a victim of a crime shouldn't get justice because they already got compensation from one of their abusers so the rest shouldn't get sued.
That's like saying if a murderer gets convicted that their accomplice shouldn't get out on trial once identified because that's "double jeopardy" since the case has already been dealt with and justice served.
That's not how it works. That's never been how it works. One criminal facing justice doesn't let others get away with it without facing justice.
If the accusations are false then he shouldn't have to pay compensation. But if the accusations are true then the fact she got compensation from Epstein is irrelevant.
Surely that depends on the terms of the settlement?
No. Why should it?
The settlement was between her and Epstein. The law explicitly and deliberately permits victims to sue other attackers and so it should.
Innocent until proven guilty, if he's innocent he shouldn't face a judgment but if he's able to be proven guilty then ssaying he shouldn't face justice simply because others have before him isn't justice.
If she agreed it was a full and final settlement of all and any claims related to the events in question it would.
A civil case isn’t “justice” - that’s a criminal case. A civil case is “you’ve wronged me, I want restitution”. If she already has received restitution then you don’t get to double dip.
To be clear, I have no idea what I’d in the settlement, so just challenging your assertion from a theoretical perspective.
Where is "double dipped" defined in the law?
It can be full and final from Epstein, that is OK. Andrew is not Epstein though is he?
Restitution from Andrew is a different matter from restitution from Epstein.
If this was a Bradford gang instead of a prince of the realm would you be of the same opinion?
Remember that this is a civil case - it’s all about money, no-one can go to prison.
Unless they commit perjury, of course, and sometimes not even then if the judge is (ahem) sympathetic.
Further to the recent discussion on the Channel Islands (non) resistance.
Perhaps assassinating high ranking Nazis and blowing up non-existent trains wasn't practicable, but maybe some of those letters grassing up the Jews to the Third Reich could have been lost in the post?
The reason house prices are high in SE England is that people like living in SE England. Better climate, better infrastructure, nicer pubs and superior restaurants than any other segment of the UK. And London is the best city in the world. Also, the SE England countryside is woefully underrated by northerners. It is, in many parts, absolutely lovely.
I'm watching you Anabobs! You're not getting away with that. I'll give you climate and infrastructure. I'll even admit your pubs can be as lovely as ours. But you're not getting away with countryside. Many parts of the south east are very pleasant, I'll grant you. But they don't come close to the Lakes, or the Dales. The North is lovelier. And according to the Telegraph and the Spectator all the best ranking restaurants are in the North. I take no view on this personally as don't tend to eat in such loft venues.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
Indeed. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only way to fix the economy is to have a housing crash. And if people end up in negative equity then that's a case of caveat emptor.
Investments can go down as well as up.
And wipes out most of the banks in the process
If they were foolish enough to inflate the market enough that a correction in the market wipes them out then they deserve to be wiped out too. Again caveat emptor applies, if the banks have put their money into tulips then keeping tulips at an extremely high cost to save the banks is a moral hazard we shouldn't engage in.
The problem is that if you wipe out the banks, it's not going to 'fix' the economy. It would instead annihilate it by instantly making capital and even current account running expenses unavailable. So, to take only the most obvious point, all food distribution would stop at once.
Now that could lead to the creation of a different economy (although in practice I suspect the political turmoil would see a totalitarian government come to power minded to seize all assets for themselves) but to put it mildly it would be a very bumpy transition.
No if the banks are wiped out it'd be like 2008 again. Those who hold equity in the bank's would lose everything but the system would be nationalised to ensure that the banking system still worked.
If people have made bad investments then I don't see why we should rig the market to prevent them from facing the consequences of their choices.
Everyone who has ever made an investment should have been informed that prices can go down as well as up.
You're the economist, not me. But my understanding is that banks can only take deposits and lend in proportion to the capital they have. How do they do either if they have no capital?
Or in your scenario, would the government assign a notional capital value to them based on deposits?
Have a look at how the world rebounded post 2008. Especially look at Iceland.
Iceland allowed their banks to fail, only ensuring that deposit guarantees etc were honoured. Everyone with deposits that weren't guaranteed, like Brits that had put their cash into high interest Icelandic banks, lost their cash instead.
No moral hazard, the system worked as it should. The banks were restructured and within a few years of the crash the economy was growing again, the deficit was eliminated and debt to GDP was falling again.
The way Iceland simply let the market work rather than seeking to save the world, nationalising only what was required and letting everyone else lose what they'd invested worked much better than what we and the rest of Europe did.
If you invest in tulips and lose out, then that's your fault.
EDIT: PS post 2008 the banks are supposed to have restructured to be less vulnerable anyway. If they fail because tulips collapse in overinflated value then they've failed to do what they were supposed to do.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
Indeed. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only way to fix the economy is to have a housing crash. And if people end up in negative equity then that's a case of caveat emptor.
Investments can go down as well as up.
And wipes out most of the banks in the process
If they were foolish enough to inflate the market enough that a correction in the market wipes them out then they deserve to be wiped out too. Again caveat emptor applies, if the banks have put their money into tulips then keeping tulips at an extremely high cost to save the banks is a moral hazard we shouldn't engage in.
The problem is that if you wipe out the banks, it's not going to 'fix' the economy. It would instead annihilate it by instantly making capital and even current account running expenses unavailable. So, to take only the most obvious point, all food distribution would stop at once.
Now that could lead to the creation of a different economy (although in practice I suspect the political turmoil would see a totalitarian government come to power minded to seize all assets for themselves) but to put it mildly it would be a very bumpy transition.
No if the banks are wiped out it'd be like 2008 again. Those who hold equity in the bank's would lose everything but the system would be nationalised to ensure that the banking system still worked.
If people have made bad investments then I don't see why we should rig the market to prevent them from facing the consequences of their choices.
Everyone who has ever made an investment should have been informed that prices can go down as well as up.
You're the economist, not me. But my understanding is that banks can only take deposits and lend in proportion to the capital they have. How do they do either if they have no capital?
Or in your scenario, would the government assign a notional capital value to them based on deposits?
Have a look at how the world rebounded post 2008. Especially look at Iceland.
Iceland allowed their banks to fail, only ensuring that deposit guarantees etc were honoured. Everyone with deposits that weren't guaranteed, like Brits that had put their cash into high interest Icelandic banks, lost their cash instead.
No moral hazard, the system worked as it should. The banks were restructured and within a few years of the crash the economy was growing again, the deficit was eliminated and debt to GDP was falling again.
The way Iceland simply let the market work rather than seeking to save the world, nationalising only what was required and letting everyone else lose what they'd invested worked much better than what we and the rest of Europe did.
If you invest in tulips and lose out, then that's your fault.
But the UK government had to borrow more than a trillion pounds to deal with the fallout, and had barely recovered by the time of the following crisis a dozen years later.
Somewhere between static house prices and a 5% annual fall in money terms, accompanied by 3-4% annual CPI inflation, generates a soft landing that doesn’t see millions of people wiped out.
The reason house prices are high in SE England is that people like living in SE England. Better climate, better infrastructure, nicer pubs and superior restaurants than any other segment of the UK. And London is the best city in the world. Also, the SE England countryside is woefully underrated by northerners. It is, in many parts, absolutely lovely.
I'm watching you Anabobs! You're not getting away with that. I'll give you climate and infrastructure. I'll even admit your pubs can be as lovely as ours. But you're not getting away with countryside. Many parts of the south east are very pleasant, I'll grant you. But they don't come close to the Lakes, or the Dales. The North is lovelier. And according to the Telegraph and the Spectator all the best ranking restaurants are in the North. I take no view on this personally as don't tend to eat in such loft venues.
Nonsense on restaurants. Vastly higher concentration of good restaurants here than up North. That is not to say there aren’t good restaurants up there, there are lots of great places, just nowhere near as many as down here.
As for countryside, nowhere did I claim that the southern countryside was “better” than the north. Merely that it is woefully underrated by many northerners (you clearly excepted), an allegation I stand by!
The reason house prices are high in SE England is that people like living in SE England. Better climate, better infrastructure, nicer pubs and superior restaurants than any other segment of the UK. And London is the best city in the world. Also, the SE England countryside is woefully underrated by northerners. It is, in many parts, absolutely lovely.
I'm watching you Anabobs! You're not getting away with that. I'll give you climate and infrastructure. I'll even admit your pubs can be as lovely as ours. But you're not getting away with countryside. Many parts of the south east are very pleasant, I'll grant you. But they don't come close to the Lakes, or the Dales. The North is lovelier. And according to the Telegraph and the Spectator all the best ranking restaurants are in the North. I take no view on this personally as don't tend to eat in such loft venues.
We had the nicest meal we've had in years in York yesterday (it was at 31 Castlegate) prior to a show at York Theatre Royal.
Two courses with a bottle of wine for 3 - at a table were we sat for 2 hours with no rush to leave £80 before tip.
As for the difficulty in picking it - it was literally the first random selection (from 40 or so) on Opentable's website. So I wouldn't say there is a lack of good choices up North.
Interesting in-depth study of New Zealand by Ashcroft. It sounds pretty harmonious - there are no political parties at all that a majority wouldn't consider voting for. There's an open dislike of culture war stuff and most people pretty favourable to immigration. Democracy and environmentalism get overwhelming support from all parties, with opinion on monarchy, capitalism, socialism and other concepts fairly evenly divided.
Some frustration about Covid, but on balance people supporting the hardline Government approach, with a 2-1 majority for trying for "zero Covid" rather than opening up and accepting Covid as something to live with.
Politically Labour really dominant - most voters prefer them on nearly all of 18 different issues and Jacinda Ardern remains very popular. Interestingly, though, mental health and housing dominate as key issues over Covid.
How does NZ Labour overlap with the European Left, if it is left?
NZ has an essentially non-subsidy farming sector aiui. In Europe, statist or non-statist bits of party platforms is interesting.
Compare the Swedish-left approach to housing, with their approach to markets, with their approach to the super-rich, with their approach to schools, with similar in other countries, for example.
NZ Labour is pretty centrist, but a bit more keen on public housing and state-led projects and a bit less liberatarian than the opposition. The Greens are more identifiably left-wing in European terms - their voters are outliers on most issue, as the Ashcroft poll shows.
On the whole, leftists are tolerant of wealth inequality if nearly everyone feels life is getting better every year - it's a right-wing fallacy that most leftists are consumed by envy. The clearest example is China, where the gap between rural farmers and metropolitan capitalists is enormous, but even rural farmers reckon that things are amazingly better than in their parents' and grandparents' days, so mostly (according to anecdote) they feel the country is well-run. I've no time for the oppressive paranoia of the Chinese leadership, but it's hard to deny that they've been successful economically and make an effort to avoid having areas who feel totally left behind.
Life is generally pretty good in Sweden, so it's hard to get very worked up about some people being super-rich, especially as the culture is very dismissive of flashy one-upmanship - OK, you own a large house on an island, or even the whole island, but you don't boast about it and your summer holidays there are not that obviously different from Fred Svensson in his little summer cottage. The identification of the left with public ownership varies a lot by country - in Scandinavia it's never been much of a thing. Mandatory standards laid down by the state but carried out by competing private companies is the way they approach it.
The reason house prices are high in SE England is that people like living in SE England. Better climate, better infrastructure, nicer pubs and superior restaurants than any other segment of the UK. And London is the best city in the world. Also, the SE England countryside is woefully underrated by northerners. It is, in many parts, absolutely lovely.
Nicer pubs ???
I doubt that pubs vary much across the country.
You'll find pubs of various types and ages anywhere you go.
Now more expensive pubs I could believe.
As to 'superior restaurants' I doubt that varies much either nor that there are many people who can appreciate what differences there might be.
That's assuming they have the time, means or inclination to go to restaurants.
Better infrastructure ? Well it wasn't northerners queuing to buy petrol was it
The weather ? Possibly but is it more than half a degree and who wants to be in the urban heat island of London in summer ?
The countryside you're right about - people often underrate anywhere which isn't in a national park.
Each to their own though - the country is better having a variety of places and people should be able to find one which suits their work, interests and lifestyle.
Interesting in-depth study of New Zealand by Ashcroft. It sounds pretty harmonious - there are no political parties at all that a majority wouldn't consider voting for. There's an open dislike of culture war stuff and most people pretty favourable to immigration. Democracy and environmentalism get overwhelming support from all parties, with opinion on monarchy, capitalism, socialism and other concepts fairly evenly divided.
Some frustration about Covid, but on balance people supporting the hardline Government approach, with a 2-1 majority for trying for "zero Covid" rather than opening up and accepting Covid as something to live with.
Politically Labour really dominant - most voters prefer them on nearly all of 18 different issues and Jacinda Ardern remains very popular. Interestingly, though, mental health and housing dominate as key issues over Covid.
How does NZ Labour overlap with the European Left, if it is left?
NZ has an essentially non-subsidy farming sector aiui. In Europe, statist or non-statist bits of party platforms is interesting.
Compare the Swedish-left approach to housing, with their approach to markets, with their approach to the super-rich, with their approach to schools, with similar in other countries, for example.
NZ Labour is pretty centrist, but a bit more keen on public housing and state-led projects and a bit less liberatarian than the opposition. The Greens are more identifiably left-wing in European terms - their voters are outliers on most issue, as the Ashcroft poll shows.
On the whole, leftists are tolerant of wealth inequality if nearly everyone feels life is getting better every year - it's a right-wing fallacy that most leftists are consumed by envy. The clearest example is China, where the gap between rural farmers and metropolitan capitalists is enormous, but even rural farmers reckon that things are amazingly better than in their parents' and grandparents' days, so mostly (according to anecdote) they feel the country is well-run. I've no time for the oppressive paranoia of the Chinese leadership, but it's hard to deny that they've been successful economically and make an effort to avoid having areas who feel totally left behind.
Life is generally pretty good in Sweden, so it's hard to get very worked up about some people being super-rich, especially as the culture is very dismissive of flashy one-upmanship - OK, you own a large house on an island, or even the whole island, but you don't boast about it and your summer holidays there are not that obviously different from Fred Svensson in his little summer cottage. The identification of the left with public ownership varies a lot by country - in Scandinavia it's never been much of a thing. Mandatory standards laid down by the state but carried out by competing private companies is the way they approach it.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
I am not entirely sure your first paragraph is remotely correct. Perhaps you should have added "relatively speaking".
A modest 3 bedroom semi-detached house in North Cardiff that I paid a little over £50k for in 1991 is now pushing towards half a million. On a three times salary mortgage...wow, that's unaffordable to most, other than PB posters. This is why interest rates and mortgage rates following inflation scares the wits out of me.
Isn't North Cardiff the Welsh equivalent of Hampstead ?
That's certainly more than double the average house price in Cardiff:
Interesting in-depth study of New Zealand by Ashcroft. It sounds pretty harmonious - there are no political parties at all that a majority wouldn't consider voting for. There's an open dislike of culture war stuff and most people pretty favourable to immigration. Democracy and environmentalism get overwhelming support from all parties, with opinion on monarchy, capitalism, socialism and other concepts fairly evenly divided.
Some frustration about Covid, but on balance people supporting the hardline Government approach, with a 2-1 majority for trying for "zero Covid" rather than opening up and accepting Covid as something to live with.
Politically Labour really dominant - most voters prefer them on nearly all of 18 different issues and Jacinda Ardern remains very popular. Interestingly, though, mental health and housing dominate as key issues over Covid.
How does NZ Labour overlap with the European Left, if it is left?
NZ has an essentially non-subsidy farming sector aiui. In Europe, statist or non-statist bits of party platforms is interesting.
Compare the Swedish-left approach to housing, with their approach to markets, with their approach to the super-rich, with their approach to schools, with similar in other countries, for example.
NZ Labour is pretty centrist, but a bit more keen on public housing and state-led projects and a bit less liberatarian than the opposition. The Greens are more identifiably left-wing in European terms - their voters are outliers on most issue, as the Ashcroft poll shows.
On the whole, leftists are tolerant of wealth inequality if nearly everyone feels life is getting better every year - it's a right-wing fallacy that most leftists are consumed by envy. The clearest example is China, where the gap between rural farmers and metropolitan capitalists is enormous, but even rural farmers reckon that things are amazingly better than in their parents' and grandparents' days, so mostly (according to anecdote) they feel the country is well-run. I've no time for the oppressive paranoia of the Chinese leadership, but it's hard to deny that they've been successful economically and make an effort to avoid having areas who feel totally left behind.
Life is generally pretty good in Sweden, so it's hard to get very worked up about some people being super-rich, especially as the culture is very dismissive of flashy one-upmanship - OK, you own a large house on an island, or even the whole island, but you don't boast about it and your summer holidays there are not that obviously different from Fred Svensson in his little summer cottage. The identification of the left with public ownership varies a lot by country - in Scandinavia it's never been much of a thing. Mandatory standards laid down by the state but carried out by competing private companies is the way they approach it.
Thanks for the detailed reply, Nick.
The Scandinavian way is clearly the smart way. You get the benefits of private energy and entrepreneurialism, but tightly regulate the private sector so it doesn't do all the egregious abuse it inevitably does when left to its own devices.
Do we really want a society where the average 20 year olds ambition for 10 -20 years time is to be a landlord? Cos that is where we are headed. Michael Jackson just played on Desert Island Discs.
The reason house prices are high in SE England is that people like living in SE England. Better climate, better infrastructure, nicer pubs and superior restaurants than any other segment of the UK. And London is the best city in the world. Also, the SE England countryside is woefully underrated by northerners. It is, in many parts, absolutely lovely.
I'm watching you Anabobs! You're not getting away with that. I'll give you climate and infrastructure. I'll even admit your pubs can be as lovely as ours. But you're not getting away with countryside. Many parts of the south east are very pleasant, I'll grant you. But they don't come close to the Lakes, or the Dales. The North is lovelier. And according to the Telegraph and the Spectator all the best ranking restaurants are in the North. I take no view on this personally as don't tend to eat in such loft venues.
Nonsense on restaurants. Vastly higher concentration of good restaurants here than up North. That is not to say there aren’t good restaurants up there, there are lots of great places, just nowhere near as many as down here.
As for countryside, nowhere did I claim that the southern countryside was “better” than the north. Merely that it is woefully underrated by many northerners (you clearly excepted), an allegation I stand by!
I will certainly give you underrated. The countryside of the SE can be very pleasant. (Not as good as the North's, obviously!).
Where in Britain is the least pleasant countryside? I would cautiously venture the flow country of Caithness, or, for similar reasons, the Isle of Lewis. Though even bleakness has a certain fascination.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
Indeed. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only way to fix the economy is to have a housing crash. And if people end up in negative equity then that's a case of caveat emptor.
Investments can go down as well as up.
Not going to happen. The Tory vote is a coalition of homeowners. The govt will pull out all the stops to shore up house prices, when necessary. Even when not necessary.
Neither the government, nor their supporters subscribe to the notion that the housing market is a free market.
Precisely. Accounting for propensity to vote, half the electorate is over 55 and that's where the homeowners (and especially the mortgage free homeowners) are concentrated. Property prices are, therefore, sacrosanct on that basis alone, and that's without taking into account the possibility of a negative equity crisis begetting another banking crisis.
Factor in the corrosive effects of Nimbyism and property prices aren't merely going to remain buoyant, they'll keep on outpacing inflation comfortably for decades to come. The only way they're easing is if a heavy enough lid is kept on immigration for long enough for the population to go into decline and free up more property that way, and that process is going to take a very long time.
That is true, but every now and again we hit bumps in the road. House prices falter, and then a few years later they take off again. If a Government is unfortunate to be enjoying incumbency during a bump in the road they will be punished.
With new world economic theory I may be completely wrong here, but my old economics text books told me. Increase in money supply leads to inflation which leads to interest/ mortgage rate rises which then (albeit temporarily) adjust the housing market.
I can see bank rate creeping back up to the 0.75% it reached pre-Covid, but it certainly won't breach 1% unless or until this is forced by a sustained spell of high inflation - and I think what we're going through now is temporary. Individuals, businesses and especially governments all over the world are dealing with mountainous debts built up through the Great Recession and dealing with plague: the pressure acting to keep interest rates on the floor is enormous.
Absent rising interest rates and the associated credit crunch and extreme pressure on the finances of distressed households, there is no reason to suppose that constrained supply and sellers' needs and expectations of a healthy profit won't remain the primary drivers of the housing market, with consequent ongoing rises in prices.
I am far less sanguine than you.
When I saw Sunak's Covid hardship programme I panicked. I saw it as inflationary. Philip Thompson told me not to worry. And now we have inflation. If we have a sustained 5% inflation rate, interest rates and mortgage rates will follow to what? 3%.
Now compared to my mortgage rate of 18% circa 1992/3 that is small fry, but if you are used to dealing in fractions of one percent this could be a big blow.
You have to bear in mind my mental economics text book was written around 1980 so it may be way out of date.
However, European scientists, doctors and researchers are watching our freewheeling party with a mixture of horror and inquisitiveness. “I feel amazed that during a pandemic, despite any scientific evidence, politicians [in the UK] can make such sensational mistakes, risking compromising health and the economy only to obtain consensus,” said Nino Cartabellotta, president of Italy’s Group for Evidence-based Medicine.
Still, he continues, “The Italian population is exhausted. People can’t wait to leave the pandemic behind. The great part of the population, 80 per cent per cent, is vaccinated and I think they will adopt cautious behaviour.” Social distancing measures have been kept in place and masks remain mandatory indoors.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
I am not entirely sure your first paragraph is remotely correct. Perhaps you should have added "relatively speaking".
A modest 3 bedroom semi-detached house in North Cardiff that I paid a little over £50k for in 1991 is now pushing towards half a million. On a three times salary mortgage...wow, that's unaffordable to most, other than PB posters. This is why interest rates and mortgage rates following inflation scares the wits out of me.
Isn't North Cardiff the Welsh equivalent of Hampstead ?
That's certainly more than double the average house price in Cardiff:
Do we really want a society where the average 20 year olds ambition for 10 -20 years time is to be a landlord? Cos that is where we are headed. Michael Jackson just played on Desert Island Discs.
For people on the landlord side of the divide life can be very good indeed. Only a minority will be on that side, but the allure of aspiration is that a majority may believe that is where they are heading, and they want to make sure they can enjoy it to the full when they make it there.
Doesn't sound like a recipe for a happy and harmonious society, but I can see how the rentier class and their political representatives can make it work for them.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h +What will be the trigger for ceasing mass random testing of kids this half-term? Or is the plan to keep testing almost all of them at random even when virtually all of them have had covid & virtually none of them are catching it anew (which will happen well before term ends)?
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
Indeed. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only way to fix the economy is to have a housing crash. And if people end up in negative equity then that's a case of caveat emptor.
Investments can go down as well as up.
Not going to happen. The Tory vote is a coalition of homeowners. The govt will pull out all the stops to shore up house prices, when necessary. Even when not necessary.
Neither the government, nor their supporters subscribe to the notion that the housing market is a free market.
Precisely. Accounting for propensity to vote, half the electorate is over 55 and that's where the homeowners (and especially the mortgage free homeowners) are concentrated. Property prices are, therefore, sacrosanct on that basis alone, and that's without taking into account the possibility of a negative equity crisis begetting another banking crisis.
Factor in the corrosive effects of Nimbyism and property prices aren't merely going to remain buoyant, they'll keep on outpacing inflation comfortably for decades to come. The only way they're easing is if a heavy enough lid is kept on immigration for long enough for the population to go into decline and free up more property that way, and that process is going to take a very long time.
That is true, but every now and again we hit bumps in the road. House prices falter, and then a few years later they take off again. If a Government is unfortunate to be enjoying incumbency during a bump in the road they will be punished.
With new world economic theory I may be completely wrong here, but my old economics text books told me. Increase in money supply leads to inflation which leads to interest/ mortgage rate rises which then (albeit temporarily) adjust the housing market.
I can see bank rate creeping back up to the 0.75% it reached pre-Covid, but it certainly won't breach 1% unless or until this is forced by a sustained spell of high inflation - and I think what we're going through now is temporary. Individuals, businesses and especially governments all over the world are dealing with mountainous debts built up through the Great Recession and dealing with plague: the pressure acting to keep interest rates on the floor is enormous.
Absent rising interest rates and the associated credit crunch and extreme pressure on the finances of distressed households, there is no reason to suppose that constrained supply and sellers' needs and expectations of a healthy profit won't remain the primary drivers of the housing market, with consequent ongoing rises in prices.
I am far less sanguine than you.
When I saw Sunak's Covid hardship programme I panicked. I saw it as inflationary. Philip Thompson told me not to worry. And now we have inflation. If we have a sustained 5% inflation rate, interest rates and mortgage rates will follow to what? 3%.
Now compared to my mortgage rate of 18% circa 1992/3 that is small fry, but if you are used to dealing in fractions of one percent this could be a big blow.
You have to bear in mind my mental economics text book was written around 1980 so it may be way out of date.
Where is the inflation coming from.
As far as I can see its coming from energy, food and entertainment. The former cases are all supply / international demand side driven, its only entertainment where prices are being driven by local demand and increasing local (staffing) costs.
"Women getting sterilised to save the planet is an omen of totalitarianism As climate anxiety and woke politics take hold, young people are turning against human life altogether Zoe Strimpel"
Further to the recent discussion on the Channel Islands (non) resistance.
Perhaps assassinating high ranking Nazis and blowing up non-existent trains wasn't practicable, but maybe some of those letters grassing up the Jews to the Third Reich could have been lost in the post?
Does he explain what they should have done? Serious Q.
I've been looking a little into CI History.
It seems that they complied with some instructions, and pushed back on others (eg J on ID cards, no yellow stars on clothes, on Jersey).
What would have happened had the civilian authorities been abolished for non-cooperation? Where was the balance for the CI civilian authorities?
Personally I think I'm not really convinced that prosecuting a 96 year old women, who was a secretary when she was 18 at Auschwitz, meets the criteria of natural justice.
A Transport Scotland official has vented his frustration as it emerged the agency has halted joint work with the UK Government to bring high-speed rail north of the Border despite ministers clamouring for years for faster progress from Westminster.
The reason house prices are high in SE England is that people like living in SE England. Better climate, better infrastructure, nicer pubs and superior restaurants than any other segment of the UK. And London is the best city in the world. Also, the SE England countryside is woefully underrated by northerners. It is, in many parts, absolutely lovely.
utter bollox , there are hundreds of better places to live around the UK
Life is generally pretty good in Sweden, so it's hard to get very worked up about some people being super-rich, especially as the culture is very dismissive of flashy one-upmanship - OK, you own a large house on an island, or even the whole island, but you don't boast about it and your summer holidays there are not that obviously different from Fred Svensson in his little summer cottage. The identification of the left with public ownership varies a lot by country - in Scandinavia it's never been much of a thing. Mandatory standards laid down by the state but carried out by competing private companies is the way they approach it.
Thanks for the detailed reply, Nick.
The Scandinavian way is clearly the smart way. You get the benefits of private energy and entrepreneurialism, but tightly regulate the private sector so it doesn't do all the egregious abuse it inevitably does when left to its own devices.
Yes, for all my leftism I've warmed to it over the years, except where there's a natural monopoly. I don't see the point of having a single private company managing water supply for a region - you might as well have it state-(or region-) run, so you have some democratic recourse to bad management in the absence of competition. But competing suppliers for well-regulated internet services or consumer goods, why not?
SNP not even hiding things nowadays, copying the Tories
An SNP minister was handed a prime speaking spot to promote his book at a literary festival funded through the Scottish Government department he runs.
But Angus Robertson cancelled his appearance last night – after the Sunday Mail started asking about the £30,000 handed to it by a group under his remit.
The Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture had been due to appear at the Borders Book Festival to plug Vienna – The International Capital.
The event was awarded the significant grant in August from Creative Scotland – a government- funded and accountable body falling under Robertson’s brief.
He has now cancelled the lecture and an advert was quickly removed from the festival website after this newspaper began asking questions about it.
It had previously described Vienna – which costs £25 – as a “beautifully written, rich and extraordinary story” in an advert for the £11-a-ticket talk.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
I am not entirely sure your first paragraph is remotely correct. Perhaps you should have added "relatively speaking".
A modest 3 bedroom semi-detached house in North Cardiff that I paid a little over £50k for in 1991 is now pushing towards half a million. On a three times salary mortgage...wow, that's unaffordable to most, other than PB posters. This is why interest rates and mortgage rates following inflation scares the wits out of me.
Isn't North Cardiff the Welsh equivalent of Hampstead ?
That's certainly more than double the average house price in Cardiff:
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
Indeed. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only way to fix the economy is to have a housing crash. And if people end up in negative equity then that's a case of caveat emptor.
Investments can go down as well as up.
And wipes out most of the banks in the process
If they were foolish enough to inflate the market enough that a correction in the market wipes them out then they deserve to be wiped out too. Again caveat emptor applies, if the banks have put their money into tulips then keeping tulips at an extremely high cost to save the banks is a moral hazard we shouldn't engage in.
The problem is that if you wipe out the banks, it's not going to 'fix' the economy. It would instead annihilate it by instantly making capital and even current account running expenses unavailable. So, to take only the most obvious point, all food distribution would stop at once.
Now that could lead to the creation of a different economy (although in practice I suspect the political turmoil would see a totalitarian government come to power minded to seize all assets for themselves) but to put it mildly it would be a very bumpy transition.
Philip does not even understand economics for Dummies. I suspect he needs someone to do the shopping for him and pay his bills.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
I am not entirely sure your first paragraph is remotely correct. Perhaps you should have added "relatively speaking".
A modest 3 bedroom semi-detached house in North Cardiff that I paid a little over £50k for in 1991 is now pushing towards half a million. On a three times salary mortgage...wow, that's unaffordable to most, other than PB posters. This is why interest rates and mortgage rates following inflation scares the wits out of me.
Isn't North Cardiff the Welsh equivalent of Hampstead ?
That's certainly more than double the average house price in Cardiff:
This was Whitchurch, not Lisvane. More Cricklewood than Hampstead.
But my point stands. A modest house now ludicrously unaffordable and outside the SE of England.
It is SE England plus most popular big cities, plus good coastal towns and villages plus many areas of natural beauty and probably still missing some more.
A lack of heating boilers is also causing long delays for installations in homes in France.
Cyril Radici, general secretary of heating company representatives Synasav, told Le Figaro: “Right now it is taking from two to three months to replace a boiler in the best case scenario, compared to 48 hours in normal circumstances.”
Yes, we get it. Foreigners have problems too so the OBR must be lying when it says the impact of Brexit is even worse than Covid. All hail World King Boris. When do we start to see the economic benefits of Brexit, that will leave Britain hundreds of billions of pounds better off?
Further to the recent discussion on the Channel Islands (non) resistance.
Perhaps assassinating high ranking Nazis and blowing up non-existent trains wasn't practicable, but maybe some of those letters grassing up the Jews to the Third Reich could have been lost in the post?
Does he explain what they should have done? Serious Q.
I've been looking a little into CI History.
It seems that they complied with some instructions, and pushed back on others (eg J on ID cards, no yellow stars on clothes, on Jersey).
What would have happened had the civilian authorities been abolished for non-cooperation? Where was the balance for the CI civilian authorities?
Personally I think I'm not really convinced that prosecuting a 96 year old women, who was a secretary when she was 18 at Auschwitz, meets the criteria of natural justice.
To emphasise the farcical element the trial was due to be in a juvenile court because of her age at the time.
She was widely reported as attempting to abscond by taxi from her old people's home in September. Trial date then was 19 October but no further reports so either they have seen sense or she has died.
Weekend England booster and 3rd primary update: 569k reported Sat/Sun, down 1% on last weekend. The modest rises we had been seeing recently appear to have stalled.
6.7m total, against 12.6m past 6 months, so a shortfall of 5.9m, up from 2.8m at the start of the month.
The reason house prices are high in SE England is that people like living in SE England. Better climate, better infrastructure, nicer pubs and superior restaurants than any other segment of the UK. And London is the best city in the world. Also, the SE England countryside is woefully underrated by northerners. It is, in many parts, absolutely lovely.
I'm watching you Anabobs! You're not getting away with that. I'll give you climate and infrastructure. I'll even admit your pubs can be as lovely as ours. But you're not getting away with countryside. Many parts of the south east are very pleasant, I'll grant you. But they don't come close to the Lakes, or the Dales. The North is lovelier. And according to the Telegraph and the Spectator all the best ranking restaurants are in the North. I take no view on this personally as don't tend to eat in such loft venues.
We had the nicest meal we've had in years in York yesterday (it was at 31 Castlegate) prior to a show at York Theatre Royal.
Two courses with a bottle of wine for 3 - at a table were we sat for 2 hours with no rush to leave £80 before tip.
As for the difficulty in picking it - it was literally the first random selection (from 40 or so) on Opentable's website. So I wouldn't say there is a lack of good choices up North.
Those that never get beyond the M25 think it is all just desert with fish and chip shops and flat caps and whippets up north.
A Transport Scotland official has vented his frustration as it emerged the agency has halted joint work with the UK Government to bring high-speed rail north of the Border despite ministers clamouring for years for faster progress from Westminster.
The reason house prices are high in SE England is that people like living in SE England. Better climate, better infrastructure, nicer pubs and superior restaurants than any other segment of the UK. And London is the best city in the world. Also, the SE England countryside is woefully underrated by northerners. It is, in many parts, absolutely lovely.
I'm watching you Anabobs! You're not getting away with that. I'll give you climate and infrastructure. I'll even admit your pubs can be as lovely as ours. But you're not getting away with countryside. Many parts of the south east are very pleasant, I'll grant you. But they don't come close to the Lakes, or the Dales. The North is lovelier. And according to the Telegraph and the Spectator all the best ranking restaurants are in the North. I take no view on this personally as don't tend to eat in such loft venues.
We had the nicest meal we've had in years in York yesterday (it was at 31 Castlegate) prior to a show at York Theatre Royal.
Two courses with a bottle of wine for 3 - at a table were we sat for 2 hours with no rush to leave £80 before tip.
As for the difficulty in picking it - it was literally the first random selection (from 40 or so) on Opentable's website. So I wouldn't say there is a lack of good choices up North.
Out of interest (I used to live in York) I just had a look at their website. Looks good. Somebody should tell them, however, that the Google maps on their website directs punters to Castlegate, Lewes, rather than Castlegate, York. Only 200 or so miles out, I guess.
The reason house prices are high in SE England is that people like living in SE England. Better climate, better infrastructure, nicer pubs and superior restaurants than any other segment of the UK. And London is the best city in the world. Also, the SE England countryside is woefully underrated by northerners. It is, in many parts, absolutely lovely.
I'm watching you Anabobs! You're not getting away with that. I'll give you climate and infrastructure. I'll even admit your pubs can be as lovely as ours. But you're not getting away with countryside. Many parts of the south east are very pleasant, I'll grant you. But they don't come close to the Lakes, or the Dales. The North is lovelier. And according to the Telegraph and the Spectator all the best ranking restaurants are in the North. I take no view on this personally as don't tend to eat in such loft venues.
We had the nicest meal we've had in years in York yesterday (it was at 31 Castlegate) prior to a show at York Theatre Royal.
Two courses with a bottle of wine for 3 - at a table were we sat for 2 hours with no rush to leave £80 before tip.
As for the difficulty in picking it - it was literally the first random selection (from 40 or so) on Opentable's website. So I wouldn't say there is a lack of good choices up North.
Those that never get beyond the M25 think it is all just desert with fish and chip shops and flat caps and whippets up north.
I've never seen anyone eating a flat cap, or a whippet.
A Transport Scotland official has vented his frustration as it emerged the agency has halted joint work with the UK Government to bring high-speed rail north of the Border despite ministers clamouring for years for faster progress from Westminster.
The reason house prices are high in SE England is that people like living in SE England. Better climate, better infrastructure, nicer pubs and superior restaurants than any other segment of the UK. And London is the best city in the world. Also, the SE England countryside is woefully underrated by northerners. It is, in many parts, absolutely lovely.
I'm watching you Anabobs! You're not getting away with that. I'll give you climate and infrastructure. I'll even admit your pubs can be as lovely as ours. But you're not getting away with countryside. Many parts of the south east are very pleasant, I'll grant you. But they don't come close to the Lakes, or the Dales. The North is lovelier. And according to the Telegraph and the Spectator all the best ranking restaurants are in the North. I take no view on this personally as don't tend to eat in such loft venues.
We had the nicest meal we've had in years in York yesterday (it was at 31 Castlegate) prior to a show at York Theatre Royal.
Two courses with a bottle of wine for 3 - at a table were we sat for 2 hours with no rush to leave £80 before tip.
As for the difficulty in picking it - it was literally the first random selection (from 40 or so) on Opentable's website. So I wouldn't say there is a lack of good choices up North.
Out of interest (I used to live in York) I just had a look at their website. Looks good. Somebody should tell them, however, that the Google maps on their website directs punters to Castlegate, Lewes, rather than Castlegate, York. Only 200 or so miles out, I guess.
Even allowing for @Anabobazina trying to insist all the best restaurants are in the south, trying to physically relocate one seems a bit OTT.
A Transport Scotland official has vented his frustration as it emerged the agency has halted joint work with the UK Government to bring high-speed rail north of the Border despite ministers clamouring for years for faster progress from Westminster.
Dumped gravy train consultant whinges at trough being closed.
SNP government decides to take toy train away - because they run transport in Scotland so well.....
I would, on a serious point, wonder where you would put HST to Glasgow and Edinburgh.
Presumably the idea would be to extend north from Leeds rather than Manchester, but even there the geography isn't terribly sympathetic.
The only other feasible route is the old Waverley line to Carlisle that they've partially reopened, but while reopening it throughout (and electrifying it) would be sensible I wouldn't call it 'high speed.'
A Transport Scotland official has vented his frustration as it emerged the agency has halted joint work with the UK Government to bring high-speed rail north of the Border despite ministers clamouring for years for faster progress from Westminster.
The reason house prices are high in SE England is that people like living in SE England. Better climate, better infrastructure, nicer pubs and superior restaurants than any other segment of the UK. And London is the best city in the world. Also, the SE England countryside is woefully underrated by northerners. It is, in many parts, absolutely lovely.
I'm watching you Anabobs! You're not getting away with that. I'll give you climate and infrastructure. I'll even admit your pubs can be as lovely as ours. But you're not getting away with countryside. Many parts of the south east are very pleasant, I'll grant you. But they don't come close to the Lakes, or the Dales. The North is lovelier. And according to the Telegraph and the Spectator all the best ranking restaurants are in the North. I take no view on this personally as don't tend to eat in such loft venues.
We had the nicest meal we've had in years in York yesterday (it was at 31 Castlegate) prior to a show at York Theatre Royal.
Two courses with a bottle of wine for 3 - at a table were we sat for 2 hours with no rush to leave £80 before tip.
As for the difficulty in picking it - it was literally the first random selection (from 40 or so) on Opentable's website. So I wouldn't say there is a lack of good choices up North.
Those that never get beyond the M25 think it is all just desert with fish and chip shops and flat caps and whippets up north.
I've never seen anyone eating a flat cap, or a whippet.
The reason house prices are high in SE England is that people like living in SE England. Better climate, better infrastructure, nicer pubs and superior restaurants than any other segment of the UK. And London is the best city in the world. Also, the SE England countryside is woefully underrated by northerners. It is, in many parts, absolutely lovely.
I'm watching you Anabobs! You're not getting away with that. I'll give you climate and infrastructure. I'll even admit your pubs can be as lovely as ours. But you're not getting away with countryside. Many parts of the south east are very pleasant, I'll grant you. But they don't come close to the Lakes, or the Dales. The North is lovelier. And according to the Telegraph and the Spectator all the best ranking restaurants are in the North. I take no view on this personally as don't tend to eat in such loft venues.
We had the nicest meal we've had in years in York yesterday (it was at 31 Castlegate) prior to a show at York Theatre Royal.
Two courses with a bottle of wine for 3 - at a table were we sat for 2 hours with no rush to leave £80 before tip.
As for the difficulty in picking it - it was literally the first random selection (from 40 or so) on Opentable's website. So I wouldn't say there is a lack of good choices up North.
Those that never get beyond the M25 think it is all just desert with fish and chip shops and flat caps and whippets up north.
I've never seen anyone eating a flat cap, or a whippet.
The reason house prices are high in SE England is that people like living in SE England. Better climate, better infrastructure, nicer pubs and superior restaurants than any other segment of the UK. And London is the best city in the world. Also, the SE England countryside is woefully underrated by northerners. It is, in many parts, absolutely lovely.
I'm watching you Anabobs! You're not getting away with that. I'll give you climate and infrastructure. I'll even admit your pubs can be as lovely as ours. But you're not getting away with countryside. Many parts of the south east are very pleasant, I'll grant you. But they don't come close to the Lakes, or the Dales. The North is lovelier. And according to the Telegraph and the Spectator all the best ranking restaurants are in the North. I take no view on this personally as don't tend to eat in such loft venues.
We had the nicest meal we've had in years in York yesterday (it was at 31 Castlegate) prior to a show at York Theatre Royal.
Two courses with a bottle of wine for 3 - at a table were we sat for 2 hours with no rush to leave £80 before tip.
As for the difficulty in picking it - it was literally the first random selection (from 40 or so) on Opentable's website. So I wouldn't say there is a lack of good choices up North.
Those that never get beyond the M25 think it is all just desert with fish and chip shops and flat caps and whippets up north.
I've never seen anyone eating a flat cap, or a whippet.
Or are those euphemisms?
you are being a silly billy again
I was just wondering Malc. You have so many colourful and inventive turns of phrase I didn't want to miss one.
A Transport Scotland official has vented his frustration as it emerged the agency has halted joint work with the UK Government to bring high-speed rail north of the Border despite ministers clamouring for years for faster progress from Westminster.
Dumped gravy train consultant whinges at trough being closed.
SNP government decides to take toy train away - because they run transport in Scotland so well.....
Why wait 30 years for a broken promise when you can plan real projects. The Scottish Government should be planning for an Independent Scotland , the plan is not to be a colony by the time England decides we can get a high speed link in the 22nd century.
Further to the recent discussion on the Channel Islands (non) resistance.
Perhaps assassinating high ranking Nazis and blowing up non-existent trains wasn't practicable, but maybe some of those letters grassing up the Jews to the Third Reich could have been lost in the post?
Does he explain what they should have done? Serious Q.
I've been looking a little into CI History.
It seems that they complied with some instructions, and pushed back on others (eg J on ID cards, no yellow stars on clothes, on Jersey).
What would have happened had the civilian authorities been abolished for non-cooperation? Where was the balance for the CI civilian authorities?
Personally I think I'm not really convinced that prosecuting a 96 year old women, who was a secretary when she was 18 at Auschwitz, meets the criteria of natural justice.
Difficult to image myself being the bailiff of Guernsey in this life or any other, but making the effort I would still apply my retrospective 'which actions would I be proud of and which ashamed in an hypothetical situation' test. “I can assure you there will be no delay, insofar as I am concerned, in furnishing you with the information you require. I have the honour, Sir, to be your obedient servant, Victor Carey” would definitely fall into the latter category.
The question of collaboration often revolves around the varying degrees enthusiasm for it shown by involved parties, and how much pressure they were under to comply. For instance (at the risk of triggering a particular PBer) Laval, chief of the Vichy government, insisted that Jewish children under 16 should be included in deportations despite the Germans giving him permission to spare them.
The reason house prices are high in SE England is that people like living in SE England. Better climate, better infrastructure, nicer pubs and superior restaurants than any other segment of the UK. And London is the best city in the world. Also, the SE England countryside is woefully underrated by northerners. It is, in many parts, absolutely lovely.
I'm watching you Anabobs! You're not getting away with that. I'll give you climate and infrastructure. I'll even admit your pubs can be as lovely as ours. But you're not getting away with countryside. Many parts of the south east are very pleasant, I'll grant you. But they don't come close to the Lakes, or the Dales. The North is lovelier. And according to the Telegraph and the Spectator all the best ranking restaurants are in the North. I take no view on this personally as don't tend to eat in such loft venues.
We had the nicest meal we've had in years in York yesterday (it was at 31 Castlegate) prior to a show at York Theatre Royal.
Two courses with a bottle of wine for 3 - at a table were we sat for 2 hours with no rush to leave £80 before tip.
As for the difficulty in picking it - it was literally the first random selection (from 40 or so) on Opentable's website. So I wouldn't say there is a lack of good choices up North.
Those that never get beyond the M25 think it is all just desert with fish and chip shops and flat caps and whippets up north.
I've never seen anyone eating a flat cap, or a whippet.
Or are those euphemisms?
you are being a silly billy again
I was just wondering Malc. You have so many colourful and inventive turns of phrase I didn't want to miss one.
The reason house prices are high in SE England is that people like living in SE England. Better climate, better infrastructure, nicer pubs and superior restaurants than any other segment of the UK. And London is the best city in the world. Also, the SE England countryside is woefully underrated by northerners. It is, in many parts, absolutely lovely.
I'm watching you Anabobs! You're not getting away with that. I'll give you climate and infrastructure. I'll even admit your pubs can be as lovely as ours. But you're not getting away with countryside. Many parts of the south east are very pleasant, I'll grant you. But they don't come close to the Lakes, or the Dales. The North is lovelier. And according to the Telegraph and the Spectator all the best ranking restaurants are in the North. I take no view on this personally as don't tend to eat in such loft venues.
We had the nicest meal we've had in years in York yesterday (it was at 31 Castlegate) prior to a show at York Theatre Royal.
Two courses with a bottle of wine for 3 - at a table were we sat for 2 hours with no rush to leave £80 before tip.
As for the difficulty in picking it - it was literally the first random selection (from 40 or so) on Opentable's website. So I wouldn't say there is a lack of good choices up North.
Those that never get beyond the M25 think it is all just desert with fish and chip shops and flat caps and whippets up north.
I've never seen anyone eating a flat cap, or a whippet.
Or are those euphemisms?
you are being a silly billy again
I was just wondering Malc. You have so many colourful and inventive turns of phrase I didn't want to miss one.
The reason house prices are high in SE England is that people like living in SE England. Better climate, better infrastructure, nicer pubs and superior restaurants than any other segment of the UK. And London is the best city in the world. Also, the SE England countryside is woefully underrated by northerners. It is, in many parts, absolutely lovely.
I'm watching you Anabobs! You're not getting away with that. I'll give you climate and infrastructure. I'll even admit your pubs can be as lovely as ours. But you're not getting away with countryside. Many parts of the south east are very pleasant, I'll grant you. But they don't come close to the Lakes, or the Dales. The North is lovelier. And according to the Telegraph and the Spectator all the best ranking restaurants are in the North. I take no view on this personally as don't tend to eat in such loft venues.
We had the nicest meal we've had in years in York yesterday (it was at 31 Castlegate) prior to a show at York Theatre Royal.
Two courses with a bottle of wine for 3 - at a table were we sat for 2 hours with no rush to leave £80 before tip.
As for the difficulty in picking it - it was literally the first random selection (from 40 or so) on Opentable's website. So I wouldn't say there is a lack of good choices up North.
Those that never get beyond the M25 think it is all just desert with fish and chip shops and flat caps and whippets up north.
I've never seen anyone eating a flat cap, or a whippet.
Or are those euphemisms?
you are being a silly billy again
I was just wondering Malc. You have so many colourful and inventive turns of phrase I didn't want to miss one.
Did you mean invective or inventive?
He is inventive, especially in terms of invective.
Yes, we get it. Foreigners have problems too so the OBR must be lying when it says the impact of Brexit is even worse than Covid. All hail World King Boris. When do we start to see the economic benefits of Brexit, that will leave Britain hundreds of billions of pounds better off?
The government will be better off if the concerns around the pandemic continue into 2022. Had we not had it, the grief and destruction being imposed by Brexit on many individuals and small businesses would be much higher up the news.
The reason house prices are high in SE England is that people like living in SE England. Better climate, better infrastructure, nicer pubs and superior restaurants than any other segment of the UK. And London is the best city in the world. Also, the SE England countryside is woefully underrated by northerners. It is, in many parts, absolutely lovely.
I'm watching you Anabobs! You're not getting away with that. I'll give you climate and infrastructure. I'll even admit your pubs can be as lovely as ours. But you're not getting away with countryside. Many parts of the south east are very pleasant, I'll grant you. But they don't come close to the Lakes, or the Dales. The North is lovelier. And according to the Telegraph and the Spectator all the best ranking restaurants are in the North. I take no view on this personally as don't tend to eat in such loft venues.
We had the nicest meal we've had in years in York yesterday (it was at 31 Castlegate) prior to a show at York Theatre Royal.
Two courses with a bottle of wine for 3 - at a table were we sat for 2 hours with no rush to leave £80 before tip.
As for the difficulty in picking it - it was literally the first random selection (from 40 or so) on Opentable's website. So I wouldn't say there is a lack of good choices up North.
Out of interest (I used to live in York) I just had a look at their website. Looks good. Somebody should tell them, however, that the Google maps on their website directs punters to Castlegate, Lewes, rather than Castlegate, York. Only 200 or so miles out, I guess.
That's odd. It directs me to the village of Middleton in Cumbria.
Yes, we get it. Foreigners have problems too so the OBR must be lying when it says the impact of Brexit is even worse than Covid. All hail World King Boris. When do we start to see the economic benefits of Brexit, that will leave Britain hundreds of billions of pounds better off?
Yeah, well perhaps if barking FBPE remain didn’t continually bang on about shortages blaming Brexit when it is predominantly global supply chain issued people wouldn’t need to post such articles to offer some balance.
Yes, we get it. Foreigners have problems too so the OBR must be lying when it says the impact of Brexit is even worse than Covid. All hail World King Boris. When do we start to see the economic benefits of Brexit, that will leave Britain hundreds of billions of pounds better off?
The bizarre thing about Carlotta's sarcasm is that absolutely no one denies that the UK's labour shortages are the result of Brexit. Even Boris himself proclaims that they're a benign and intended consequence that will lead to wage increases for the natives.
That 'we mustn't deflect from the importance of COP26' thing is going well. I thought the hot PB take was that it was Macron keeping the fire burning cos politics?
The reason house prices are high in SE England is that people like living in SE England. Better climate, better infrastructure, nicer pubs and superior restaurants than any other segment of the UK. And London is the best city in the world. Also, the SE England countryside is woefully underrated by northerners. It is, in many parts, absolutely lovely.
I'm watching you Anabobs! You're not getting away with that. I'll give you climate and infrastructure. I'll even admit your pubs can be as lovely as ours. But you're not getting away with countryside. Many parts of the south east are very pleasant, I'll grant you. But they don't come close to the Lakes, or the Dales. The North is lovelier. And according to the Telegraph and the Spectator all the best ranking restaurants are in the North. I take no view on this personally as don't tend to eat in such loft venues.
We had the nicest meal we've had in years in York yesterday (it was at 31 Castlegate) prior to a show at York Theatre Royal.
Two courses with a bottle of wine for 3 - at a table were we sat for 2 hours with no rush to leave £80 before tip.
As for the difficulty in picking it - it was literally the first random selection (from 40 or so) on Opentable's website. So I wouldn't say there is a lack of good choices up North.
Those that never get beyond the M25 think it is all just desert with fish and chip shops and flat caps and whippets up north.
I've never seen anyone eating a flat cap, or a whippet.
Or are those euphemisms?
you are being a silly billy again
I was just wondering Malc. You have so many colourful and inventive turns of phrase I didn't want to miss one.
I just about see a crazy eating a fried Mars bar but a fried flat cap or whippet is a step too far.
The reason house prices are high in SE England is that people like living in SE England. Better climate, better infrastructure, nicer pubs and superior restaurants than any other segment of the UK. And London is the best city in the world. Also, the SE England countryside is woefully underrated by northerners. It is, in many parts, absolutely lovely.
I'm watching you Anabobs! You're not getting away with that. I'll give you climate and infrastructure. I'll even admit your pubs can be as lovely as ours. But you're not getting away with countryside. Many parts of the south east are very pleasant, I'll grant you. But they don't come close to the Lakes, or the Dales. The North is lovelier. And according to the Telegraph and the Spectator all the best ranking restaurants are in the North. I take no view on this personally as don't tend to eat in such loft venues.
We had the nicest meal we've had in years in York yesterday (it was at 31 Castlegate) prior to a show at York Theatre Royal.
Two courses with a bottle of wine for 3 - at a table were we sat for 2 hours with no rush to leave £80 before tip.
As for the difficulty in picking it - it was literally the first random selection (from 40 or so) on Opentable's website. So I wouldn't say there is a lack of good choices up North.
Those that never get beyond the M25 think it is all just desert with fish and chip shops and flat caps and whippets up north.
I've never seen anyone eating a flat cap, or a whippet.
Or are those euphemisms?
you are being a silly billy again
I was just wondering Malc. You have so many colourful and inventive turns of phrase I didn't want to miss one.
That was a terrible morning, we've been stuck at Waterloo for over 2h waiting for a train to Guildford to go to a wedding (to which we are now late). The infrastructure in this country is a joke.
The reason house prices are high in SE England is that people like living in SE England. Better climate, better infrastructure, nicer pubs and superior restaurants than any other segment of the UK. And London is the best city in the world. Also, the SE England countryside is woefully underrated by northerners. It is, in many parts, absolutely lovely.
I'm watching you Anabobs! You're not getting away with that. I'll give you climate and infrastructure. I'll even admit your pubs can be as lovely as ours. But you're not getting away with countryside. Many parts of the south east are very pleasant, I'll grant you. But they don't come close to the Lakes, or the Dales. The North is lovelier. And according to the Telegraph and the Spectator all the best ranking restaurants are in the North. I take no view on this personally as don't tend to eat in such loft venues.
We had the nicest meal we've had in years in York yesterday (it was at 31 Castlegate) prior to a show at York Theatre Royal.
Two courses with a bottle of wine for 3 - at a table were we sat for 2 hours with no rush to leave £80 before tip.
As for the difficulty in picking it - it was literally the first random selection (from 40 or so) on Opentable's website. So I wouldn't say there is a lack of good choices up North.
Those that never get beyond the M25 think it is all just desert with fish and chip shops and flat caps and whippets up north.
I've never seen anyone eating a flat cap, or a whippet.
Or are those euphemisms?
you are being a silly billy again
I was just wondering Malc. You have so many colourful and inventive turns of phrase I didn't want to miss one.
I just about see a crazy eating a fried Mars bar but a fried flat cap or whippet is a step too far.
The reason house prices are high in SE England is that people like living in SE England. Better climate, better infrastructure, nicer pubs and superior restaurants than any other segment of the UK. And London is the best city in the world. Also, the SE England countryside is woefully underrated by northerners. It is, in many parts, absolutely lovely.
I'm watching you Anabobs! You're not getting away with that. I'll give you climate and infrastructure. I'll even admit your pubs can be as lovely as ours. But you're not getting away with countryside. Many parts of the south east are very pleasant, I'll grant you. But they don't come close to the Lakes, or the Dales. The North is lovelier. And according to the Telegraph and the Spectator all the best ranking restaurants are in the North. I take no view on this personally as don't tend to eat in such loft venues.
We had the nicest meal we've had in years in York yesterday (it was at 31 Castlegate) prior to a show at York Theatre Royal.
Two courses with a bottle of wine for 3 - at a table were we sat for 2 hours with no rush to leave £80 before tip.
As for the difficulty in picking it - it was literally the first random selection (from 40 or so) on Opentable's website. So I wouldn't say there is a lack of good choices up North.
Those that never get beyond the M25 think it is all just desert with fish and chip shops and flat caps and whippets up north.
Those who never get beyond the M25 need to stay there
Of course now that Mayor Sadiq is charging some of them hundreds of millions a year extra to take their cars down the road it may happen...
Yes, we get it. Foreigners have problems too so the OBR must be lying when it says the impact of Brexit is even worse than Covid. All hail World King Boris. When do we start to see the economic benefits of Brexit, that will leave Britain hundreds of billions of pounds better off?
The government will be better off if the concerns around the pandemic continue into 2022. Had we not had it, the grief and destruction being imposed by Brexit on many individuals and small businesses would be much higher up the news.
Tbh I'm not sure it matters if voters are worse off due to Brexit, Covid or petrol prices. They will still be worse off. And there is always a chance the Brexiteers were right and we will be rolling in it.
I admit the fall of the Roman Empire is not necessarily my strong point, but I hadn't been aware that it was uncontrolled immigration that fucked it up.
“When the Roman Empire fell, it was largely as a result of uncontrolled immigration. The empire could no longer control its borders, people came in…and Europe went into a dark ages that lasted a very long time. The point is that it can happen again”
Said a few days ago that the WCML being disrupted due to bad weather would be an appropriate symbolic opener to Cop 26. Didn't bank on the Environment Minister being late.
That was a terrible morning, we've been stuck at Waterloo for over 2h waiting for a train to Guildford to go to a wedding (to which we are now late). The infrastructure in this country is a joke.
Anabozina has been regaling us about the wonderful infrastructure in the south east, the great world beating City of London , etc and how the north is a pile of crap. How is it possible you cannot get a train.
That was a terrible morning, we've been stuck at Waterloo for over 2h waiting for a train to Guildford to go to a wedding (to which we are now late). The infrastructure in this country is a joke.
You voted for Brexit so there's no point moaning about it now.
That was a terrible morning, we've been stuck at Waterloo for over 2h waiting for a train to Guildford to go to a wedding (to which we are now late). The infrastructure in this country is a joke.
You voted for Brexit so there's no point moaning about it now.
I think our infrastructure woes go well beyond that. It'd be nice if that is all it was.
Yes, we get it. Foreigners have problems too so the OBR must be lying when it says the impact of Brexit is even worse than Covid. All hail World King Boris. When do we start to see the economic benefits of Brexit, that will leave Britain hundreds of billions of pounds better off?
The bizarre thing about Carlotta's sarcasm is that absolutely no one denies that the UK's labour shortages are the result of Brexit. Even Boris himself proclaims that they're a benign and intended consequence that will lead to wage increases for the natives.
I think I denied it upthread. It is clearly a worldwide phenomenon, and I think one of declining worker productivity secondary to covid dislocation. We won't see what the effect of Brexit is for some years, and the evidence between 2016 and 2020 is that we just switched to non EU immigrants from EU, with little change in immigration numbers overall.
The reason house prices are high in SE England is that people like living in SE England. Better climate, better infrastructure, nicer pubs and superior restaurants than any other segment of the UK. And London is the best city in the world. Also, the SE England countryside is woefully underrated by northerners. It is, in many parts, absolutely lovely.
utter bollox , there are hundreds of better places to live around the UK
We've just had some people come from Cambridge. They sat in their car looking at the view, going "Wow..."
Not many places that happens in SE England. And yes I have seen most of it, having birded areas most in the SE have never visited. Places with decent pubs that might get an "Ooh....that's nice."
Further to the recent discussion on the Channel Islands (non) resistance.
Perhaps assassinating high ranking Nazis and blowing up non-existent trains wasn't practicable, but maybe some of those letters grassing up the Jews to the Third Reich could have been lost in the post?
Had an interesting Twitter response from a Cambridge Academic who is studying it:
------------ Dr Gilly Carr @CarrGilly 1. I’m an expert on the German occupation of the Channel Islands and its victims of Nazism. Three non-British Jews deported from Guernsey died in Auschwitz. Three more with British citizenship deported to Compiegne for 3 months en route to German civilian internment camps. 2. They survived. They were with 2,200 other islanders in German internment camps. One Hungarian Jew was deported for spreading bbc news. She ended up a camp policewoman in Ravensbrück. She survived. 3. From Jersey, in Feb 1943, 3 were deported to Germany, 2 of whom (the women) were with the 128-odd Islanders in Compiègne transit camp for 3 months on the way. They survived. But the man, John Finkelstein, was plucked out of his civilian internment camp. 4. He was sent to Buchenwald then Theresienstadt. He survived. Archival evidence does not show that Coutanche of Jersey behaved in the same way as Carey of Guernsey. 5. Out of this combined number, the only ones sent to Auschwitz and the only ones to die were those 3 women without British nationality deported from Guernsey. British nationality was a strongly protective thing for Jews in the Channel Islands. 6. But I’m a stickler for historical accuracy. I’d like to know which document Dominic Lawson is quoting as it doesn’t ring a bell. I’m not challenging it’s veracity, but there are stolen archival docs out there. I’d like to know where this came from.
I admit the fall of the Roman Empire is not necessarily my strong point, but I hadn't been aware that it was uncontrolled immigration that fucked it up.
“When the Roman Empire fell, it was largely as a result of uncontrolled immigration. The empire could no longer control its borders, people came in…and Europe went into a dark ages that lasted a very long time. The point is that it can happen again”
Well, I suppose that's one way of looking at the barbarian incursions.
Not that it's especially accurate. 'The dark ages' is a singularly unhelpful and inaccurate term, for a start, that really only applies to Britain and is much briefer than is generally supposed.
That was a terrible morning, we've been stuck at Waterloo for over 2h waiting for a train to Guildford to go to a wedding (to which we are now late). The infrastructure in this country is a joke.
You voted for Brexit so there's no point moaning about it now.
Nazi Germany never Brexited. And their trains ran on time.....
The reason house prices are high in SE England is that people like living in SE England. Better climate, better infrastructure, nicer pubs and superior restaurants than any other segment of the UK. And London is the best city in the world. Also, the SE England countryside is woefully underrated by northerners. It is, in many parts, absolutely lovely.
I'm watching you Anabobs! You're not getting away with that. I'll give you climate and infrastructure. I'll even admit your pubs can be as lovely as ours. But you're not getting away with countryside. Many parts of the south east are very pleasant, I'll grant you. But they don't come close to the Lakes, or the Dales. The North is lovelier. And according to the Telegraph and the Spectator all the best ranking restaurants are in the North. I take no view on this personally as don't tend to eat in such loft venues.
We had the nicest meal we've had in years in York yesterday (it was at 31 Castlegate) prior to a show at York Theatre Royal.
Two courses with a bottle of wine for 3 - at a table were we sat for 2 hours with no rush to leave £80 before tip.
As for the difficulty in picking it - it was literally the first random selection (from 40 or so) on Opentable's website. So I wouldn't say there is a lack of good choices up North.
Those that never get beyond the M25 think it is all just desert with fish and chip shops and flat caps and whippets up north.
I've never seen anyone eating a flat cap, or a whippet.
Or are those euphemisms?
you are being a silly billy again
I was just wondering Malc. You have so many colourful and inventive turns of phrase I didn't want to miss one.
I just about see a crazy eating a fried Mars bar but a fried flat cap or whippet is a step too far.
At the Codfather in Ryde they proudly boast that they will batter and deep-fry anything. You would probably have to bring your own flat cap and whippet though.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
Indeed. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only way to fix the economy is to have a housing crash. And if people end up in negative equity then that's a case of caveat emptor.
Investments can go down as well as up.
And wipes out most of the banks in the process
If they were foolish enough to inflate the market enough that a correction in the market wipes them out then they deserve to be wiped out too. Again caveat emptor applies, if the banks have put their money into tulips then keeping tulips at an extremely high cost to save the banks is a moral hazard we shouldn't engage in.
The problem is that if you wipe out the banks, it's not going to 'fix' the economy. It would instead annihilate it by instantly making capital and even current account running expenses unavailable. So, to take only the most obvious point, all food distribution would stop at once.
Now that could lead to the creation of a different economy (although in practice I suspect the political turmoil would see a totalitarian government come to power minded to seize all assets for themselves) but to put it mildly it would be a very bumpy transition.
Philip does not even understand economics for Dummies. I suspect he needs someone to do the shopping for him and pay his bills.
So the Tories have turned into Anti Capitalist loons, Johnson was serious when he said "F&%k Business". Opening up a big gap in the market for the Lib Dems.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
Indeed. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only way to fix the economy is to have a housing crash. And if people end up in negative equity then that's a case of caveat emptor.
Investments can go down as well as up.
And wipes out most of the banks in the process
If they were foolish enough to inflate the market enough that a correction in the market wipes them out then they deserve to be wiped out too. Again caveat emptor applies, if the banks have put their money into tulips then keeping tulips at an extremely high cost to save the banks is a moral hazard we shouldn't engage in.
The problem is that if you wipe out the banks, it's not going to 'fix' the economy. It would instead annihilate it by instantly making capital and even current account running expenses unavailable. So, to take only the most obvious point, all food distribution would stop at once.
Now that could lead to the creation of a different economy (although in practice I suspect the political turmoil would see a totalitarian government come to power minded to seize all assets for themselves) but to put it mildly it would be a very bumpy transition.
Philip does not even understand economics for Dummies. I suspect he needs someone to do the shopping for him and pay his bills.
So the Tories have turned into Anti Capitalist loons, Johnson was serious when he said "F&%k Business". Opening up a big gap in the market for the Lib Dems.
Bit of a shame it's not a small gap to match their current size.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
Indeed. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only way to fix the economy is to have a housing crash. And if people end up in negative equity then that's a case of caveat emptor.
Investments can go down as well as up.
And wipes out most of the banks in the process
If they were foolish enough to inflate the market enough that a correction in the market wipes them out then they deserve to be wiped out too. Again caveat emptor applies, if the banks have put their money into tulips then keeping tulips at an extremely high cost to save the banks is a moral hazard we shouldn't engage in.
The problem is that if you wipe out the banks, it's not going to 'fix' the economy. It would instead annihilate it by instantly making capital and even current account running expenses unavailable. So, to take only the most obvious point, all food distribution would stop at once.
Now that could lead to the creation of a different economy (although in practice I suspect the political turmoil would see a totalitarian government come to power minded to seize all assets for themselves) but to put it mildly it would be a very bumpy transition.
No if the banks are wiped out it'd be like 2008 again. Those who hold equity in the bank's would lose everything but the system would be nationalised to ensure that the banking system still worked.
If people have made bad investments then I don't see why we should rig the market to prevent them from facing the consequences of their choices.
Everyone who has ever made an investment should have been informed that prices can go down as well as up.
You're the economist, not me. But my understanding is that banks can only take deposits and lend in proportion to the capital they have. How do they do either if they have no capital?
Or in your scenario, would the government assign a notional capital value to them based on deposits?
Have a look at how the world rebounded post 2008. Especially look at Iceland.
Iceland allowed their banks to fail, only ensuring that deposit guarantees etc were honoured. Everyone with deposits that weren't guaranteed, like Brits that had put their cash into high interest Icelandic banks, lost their cash instead.
No moral hazard, the system worked as it should. The banks were restructured and within a few years of the crash the economy was growing again, the deficit was eliminated and debt to GDP was falling again.
The way Iceland simply let the market work rather than seeking to save the world, nationalising only what was required and letting everyone else lose what they'd invested worked much better than what we and the rest of Europe did.
If you invest in tulips and lose out, then that's your fault.
But the UK government had to borrow more than a trillion pounds to deal with the fallout, and had barely recovered by the time of the following crisis a dozen years later.
Somewhere between static house prices and a 5% annual fall in money terms, accompanied by 3-4% annual CPI inflation, generates a soft landing that doesn’t see millions of people wiped out.
It wasn't the recession in 2008 that destroyed our fiscal position it was the fact that Gordon Brown completely trashed the public finances.
As I said, Iceland is a very good comparator. They had a bigger recession than us, were relatively more exposed to the financial sector than us. And yet within a few years of the crash they were growing again, had eliminated their budget deficit (while we still had a huge one) and had debt to GDP peak below 60%
A Transport Scotland official has vented his frustration as it emerged the agency has halted joint work with the UK Government to bring high-speed rail north of the Border despite ministers clamouring for years for faster progress from Westminster.
Dumped gravy train consultant whinges at trough being closed.
SNP government decides to take toy train away - because they run transport in Scotland so well.....
I would, on a serious point, wonder where you would put HST to Glasgow and Edinburgh.
Presumably the idea would be to extend north from Leeds rather than Manchester, but even there the geography isn't terribly sympathetic.
The only other feasible route is the old Waverley line to Carlisle that they've partially reopened, but while reopening it throughout (and electrifying it) would be sensible I wouldn't call it 'high speed.'
I think it is going to be logical to take HS2 to one or the other of Glasgow / Edinburgh - partly to increase a shift from domestic aviation.
The reason house prices are high in SE England is that people like living in SE England. Better climate, better infrastructure, nicer pubs and superior restaurants than any other segment of the UK. And London is the best city in the world. Also, the SE England countryside is woefully underrated by northerners. It is, in many parts, absolutely lovely.
utter bollox , there are hundreds of better places to live around the UK
We've just had some people come from Cambridge. They sat in their car looking at the view, going "Wow..."
Not many places that happens in SE England. And yes I have seen most of it, having birded areas most in the SE have never visited. Places with decent pubs that might get an "Ooh....that's nice."
But a "Wow..."? Nah....
It all depends on what floats your boat. There are areas in the Fens which are fairly wow-worthy. 360 degree flatness, black soil meeting blue sky all the way around the horizon. That can be really breathtaking.
Or the first sight of Ely Cathedral, rising above the Fens as you walk along the Ouse from the south.
And views are just one aspect. I don't rate the SWCP very highly, for instance: yes, the scenery can be superb, but there're too many towns and cities along it; and far too many people, even in winter (when I walked it). Pembrokeshire is far nicer IMO. But then again, I prefer the north coast of Devon/Cornwall to the south, so I guess I just like rugged scenery ...
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
Indeed. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only way to fix the economy is to have a housing crash. And if people end up in negative equity then that's a case of caveat emptor.
Investments can go down as well as up.
And wipes out most of the banks in the process
If they were foolish enough to inflate the market enough that a correction in the market wipes them out then they deserve to be wiped out too. Again caveat emptor applies, if the banks have put their money into tulips then keeping tulips at an extremely high cost to save the banks is a moral hazard we shouldn't engage in.
The problem is that if you wipe out the banks, it's not going to 'fix' the economy. It would instead annihilate it by instantly making capital and even current account running expenses unavailable. So, to take only the most obvious point, all food distribution would stop at once.
Now that could lead to the creation of a different economy (although in practice I suspect the political turmoil would see a totalitarian government come to power minded to seize all assets for themselves) but to put it mildly it would be a very bumpy transition.
No if the banks are wiped out it'd be like 2008 again. Those who hold equity in the bank's would lose everything but the system would be nationalised to ensure that the banking system still worked.
If people have made bad investments then I don't see why we should rig the market to prevent them from facing the consequences of their choices.
Everyone who has ever made an investment should have been informed that prices can go down as well as up.
You're the economist, not me. But my understanding is that banks can only take deposits and lend in proportion to the capital they have. How do they do either if they have no capital?
Or in your scenario, would the government assign a notional capital value to them based on deposits?
Have a look at how the world rebounded post 2008. Especially look at Iceland.
Iceland allowed their banks to fail, only ensuring that deposit guarantees etc were honoured. Everyone with deposits that weren't guaranteed, like Brits that had put their cash into high interest Icelandic banks, lost their cash instead.
No moral hazard, the system worked as it should. The banks were restructured and within a few years of the crash the economy was growing again, the deficit was eliminated and debt to GDP was falling again.
The way Iceland simply let the market work rather than seeking to save the world, nationalising only what was required and letting everyone else lose what they'd invested worked much better than what we and the rest of Europe did.
If you invest in tulips and lose out, then that's your fault.
But the UK government had to borrow more than a trillion pounds to deal with the fallout, and had barely recovered by the time of the following crisis a dozen years later.
Somewhere between static house prices and a 5% annual fall in money terms, accompanied by 3-4% annual CPI inflation, generates a soft landing that doesn’t see millions of people wiped out.
It wasn't the recession in 2008 that destroyed our fiscal position it was the fact that Gordon Brown completely trashed the public finances.
As I said, Iceland is a very good comparator. They had a bigger recession than us, were relatively more exposed to the financial sector than us. And yet within a few years of the crash they were growing again, had eliminated their budget deficit (while we still had a huge one) and had debt to GDP peak below 60%
I think the population difference undermines that analogy.
Iceland has a smaller population than Stoke-on-Trent.
I admit the fall of the Roman Empire is not necessarily my strong point, but I hadn't been aware that it was uncontrolled immigration that fucked it up.
“When the Roman Empire fell, it was largely as a result of uncontrolled immigration. The empire could no longer control its borders, people came in…and Europe went into a dark ages that lasted a very long time. The point is that it can happen again”
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
Indeed. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only way to fix the economy is to have a housing crash. And if people end up in negative equity then that's a case of caveat emptor.
Investments can go down as well as up.
And wipes out most of the banks in the process
If they were foolish enough to inflate the market enough that a correction in the market wipes them out then they deserve to be wiped out too. Again caveat emptor applies, if the banks have put their money into tulips then keeping tulips at an extremely high cost to save the banks is a moral hazard we shouldn't engage in.
The problem is that if you wipe out the banks, it's not going to 'fix' the economy. It would instead annihilate it by instantly making capital and even current account running expenses unavailable. So, to take only the most obvious point, all food distribution would stop at once.
Now that could lead to the creation of a different economy (although in practice I suspect the political turmoil would see a totalitarian government come to power minded to seize all assets for themselves) but to put it mildly it would be a very bumpy transition.
No if the banks are wiped out it'd be like 2008 again. Those who hold equity in the bank's would lose everything but the system would be nationalised to ensure that the banking system still worked.
If people have made bad investments then I don't see why we should rig the market to prevent them from facing the consequences of their choices.
Everyone who has ever made an investment should have been informed that prices can go down as well as up.
You're the economist, not me. But my understanding is that banks can only take deposits and lend in proportion to the capital they have. How do they do either if they have no capital?
Or in your scenario, would the government assign a notional capital value to them based on deposits?
Have a look at how the world rebounded post 2008. Especially look at Iceland.
Iceland allowed their banks to fail, only ensuring that deposit guarantees etc were honoured. Everyone with deposits that weren't guaranteed, like Brits that had put their cash into high interest Icelandic banks, lost their cash instead.
No moral hazard, the system worked as it should. The banks were restructured and within a few years of the crash the economy was growing again, the deficit was eliminated and debt to GDP was falling again.
The way Iceland simply let the market work rather than seeking to save the world, nationalising only what was required and letting everyone else lose what they'd invested worked much better than what we and the rest of Europe did.
If you invest in tulips and lose out, then that's your fault.
But the UK government had to borrow more than a trillion pounds to deal with the fallout, and had barely recovered by the time of the following crisis a dozen years later.
Somewhere between static house prices and a 5% annual fall in money terms, accompanied by 3-4% annual CPI inflation, generates a soft landing that doesn’t see millions of people wiped out.
It wasn't the recession in 2008 that destroyed our fiscal position it was the fact that Gordon Brown completely trashed the public finances.
As I said, Iceland is a very good comparator. They had a bigger recession than us, were relatively more exposed to the financial sector than us. And yet within a few years of the crash they were growing again, had eliminated their budget deficit (while we still had a huge one) and had debt to GDP peak below 60%
A Transport Scotland official has vented his frustration as it emerged the agency has halted joint work with the UK Government to bring high-speed rail north of the Border despite ministers clamouring for years for faster progress from Westminster.
Dumped gravy train consultant whinges at trough being closed.
SNP government decides to take toy train away - because they run transport in Scotland so well.....
I would, on a serious point, wonder where you would put HST to Glasgow and Edinburgh.
Presumably the idea would be to extend north from Leeds rather than Manchester, but even there the geography isn't terribly sympathetic.
The only other feasible route is the old Waverley line to Carlisle that they've partially reopened, but while reopening it throughout (and electrifying it) would be sensible I wouldn't call it 'high speed.'
I think it is going to be logical to take HS2 to one or the other of Glasgow / Edinburgh - partly to increase a shift from domestic aviation.
Speaking personally I would like to see it go all the way to Aberdeen. I'm just mindful of the engineering challenges in the way and how costly they will be. The government's already apparently spooked at the thought of he cost of sixty miles of line linking Nottingham to Clayton that would be straightforward by comparison.
I admit the fall of the Roman Empire is not necessarily my strong point, but I hadn't been aware that it was uncontrolled immigration that fucked it up.
“When the Roman Empire fell, it was largely as a result of uncontrolled immigration. The empire could no longer control its borders, people came in…and Europe went into a dark ages that lasted a very long time. The point is that it can happen again”
Comments
If people have made bad investments then I don't see why we should rig the market to prevent them from facing the consequences of their choices.
Everyone who has ever made an investment should have been informed that prices can go down as well as up.
In Nevil Shute's In The Wet, such a crisis led to the government deliberately removing the roofs of empty houses in order to keep up the value of the others, to the princely sum of £5.
Time will tell.
Or in your scenario, would the government assign a notional capital value to them based on deposits?
Impossible to argue with that. Not because you have a good case. Just impossible to argue.
What we actually need is for house prices to grow at less than wages for an extended period of time, but without a crash. Modest increases in interest rates are part of that.
It could be that a bunch of famous people were included in the protections in the settlement agreement. I don’t know and you don’t know. But it is certainly been an argument for a while that the settlement agreement was comprehensive. Perhaps she has found a way through that and can sue other individuals. Perhaps she hasn’t.
Edit: and just to comment on your offensive jab at the end. A Bradford gang should have exactly the same rights as Prince Andrew. But I suspect they wouldn’t be in the position because they don’t have money to go after or a reputation to damage. So aren’t a good target for a shakedown.
Yes, if the UK wishes to, for example, suspend checks on intra-UK movements of agricultural produce.
Perhaps assassinating high ranking Nazis and blowing up non-existent trains wasn't practicable, but maybe some of those letters grassing up the Jews to the Third Reich could have been lost in the post?
And according to the Telegraph and the Spectator all the best ranking restaurants are in the North. I take no view on this personally as don't tend to eat in such loft venues.
Iceland allowed their banks to fail, only ensuring that deposit guarantees etc were honoured. Everyone with deposits that weren't guaranteed, like Brits that had put their cash into high interest Icelandic banks, lost their cash instead.
No moral hazard, the system worked as it should. The banks were restructured and within a few years of the crash the economy was growing again, the deficit was eliminated and debt to GDP was falling again.
The way Iceland simply let the market work rather than seeking to save the world, nationalising only what was required and letting everyone else lose what they'd invested worked much better than what we and the rest of Europe did.
If you invest in tulips and lose out, then that's your fault.
EDIT: PS post 2008 the banks are supposed to have restructured to be less vulnerable anyway. If they fail because tulips collapse in overinflated value then they've failed to do what they were supposed to do.
Somewhere between static house prices and a 5% annual fall in money terms, accompanied by 3-4% annual CPI inflation, generates a soft landing that doesn’t see millions of people wiped out.
As for countryside, nowhere did I claim that the southern countryside was “better” than the north. Merely that it is woefully underrated by many northerners (you clearly excepted), an allegation I stand by!
Two courses with a bottle of wine for 3 - at a table were we sat for 2 hours with no rush to leave £80 before tip.
As for the difficulty in picking it - it was literally the first random selection (from 40 or so) on Opentable's website. So I wouldn't say there is a lack of good choices up North.
On the whole, leftists are tolerant of wealth inequality if nearly everyone feels life is getting better every year - it's a right-wing fallacy that most leftists are consumed by envy. The clearest example is China, where the gap between rural farmers and metropolitan capitalists is enormous, but even rural farmers reckon that things are amazingly better than in their parents' and grandparents' days, so mostly (according to anecdote) they feel the country is well-run. I've no time for the oppressive paranoia of the Chinese leadership, but it's hard to deny that they've been successful economically and make an effort to avoid having areas who feel totally left behind.
Life is generally pretty good in Sweden, so it's hard to get very worked up about some people being super-rich, especially as the culture is very dismissive of flashy one-upmanship - OK, you own a large house on an island, or even the whole island, but you don't boast about it and your summer holidays there are not that obviously different from Fred Svensson in his little summer cottage. The identification of the left with public ownership varies a lot by country - in Scandinavia it's never been much of a thing. Mandatory standards laid down by the state but carried out by competing private companies is the way they approach it.
I doubt that pubs vary much across the country.
You'll find pubs of various types and ages anywhere you go.
Now more expensive pubs I could believe.
As to 'superior restaurants' I doubt that varies much either nor that there are many people who can appreciate what differences there might be.
That's assuming they have the time, means or inclination to go to restaurants.
Better infrastructure ? Well it wasn't northerners queuing to buy petrol was it
The weather ? Possibly but is it more than half a degree and who wants to be in the urban heat island of London in summer ?
The countryside you're right about - people often underrate anywhere which isn't in a national park.
Each to their own though - the country is better having a variety of places and people should be able to find one which suits their work, interests and lifestyle.
But my point stands. A modest house now ludicrously unaffordable and outside the SE of England.
Michael Jackson just played on Desert Island Discs.
(Not as good as the North's, obviously!).
Where in Britain is the least pleasant countryside? I would cautiously venture the flow country of Caithness, or, for similar reasons, the Isle of Lewis. Though even bleakness has a certain fascination.
When I saw Sunak's Covid hardship programme I panicked. I saw it as inflationary. Philip Thompson told me not to worry. And now we have inflation. If we have a sustained 5% inflation rate, interest rates and mortgage rates will follow to what? 3%.
Now compared to my mortgage rate of 18% circa 1992/3 that is small fry, but if you are used to dealing in fractions of one percent this could be a big blow.
You have to bear in mind my mental economics text book was written around 1980 so it may be way out of date.
Still, he continues, “The Italian population is exhausted. People can’t wait to leave the pandemic behind. The great part of the population, 80 per cent per cent, is vaccinated and I think they will adopt cautious behaviour.” Social distancing measures have been kept in place and masks remain mandatory indoors.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/572c381a-3971-11ec-869f-027d769ad087?shareToken=2ce2ebc17d4ed0a629e599f9761cf20e
Freedom in theory seems to appeal to some. I don't understand the criticism.
Doesn't sound like a recipe for a happy and harmonious society, but I can see how the rentier class and their political representatives can make it work for them.
@andrew_lilico
·
1h
+What will be the trigger for ceasing mass random testing of kids this half-term? Or is the plan to keep testing almost all of them at random even when virtually all of them have had covid & virtually none of them are catching it anew (which will happen well before term ends)?
As far as I can see its coming from energy, food and entertainment. The former cases are all supply / international demand side driven, its only entertainment where prices are being driven by local demand and increasing local (staffing) costs.
https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/malaysia-faces-manpower-shortage-in-critical-sectors-amid-high-unemployment
As climate anxiety and woke politics take hold, young people are turning against human life altogether
Zoe Strimpel"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2021/10/31/women-sterilising-save-planet-essence-totalitarianism/
I've been looking a little into CI History.
It seems that they complied with some instructions, and pushed back on others (eg J on ID cards, no yellow stars on clothes, on Jersey).
What would have happened had the civilian authorities been abolished for non-cooperation? Where was the balance for the CI civilian authorities?
Personally I think I'm not really convinced that prosecuting a 96 year old women, who was a secretary when she was 18 at Auschwitz, meets the criteria of natural justice.
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/transport/transport-scotland-official-in-extraordinary-outburst-at-agency-halting-high-speed-rail-work-3438198
An SNP minister was handed a prime speaking spot to promote his book at a literary festival funded through the Scottish Government department he runs.
But Angus Robertson cancelled his appearance last night – after the Sunday Mail started asking about the £30,000 handed to it by a group under his remit.
The Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture had been due to appear at the Borders Book Festival to plug Vienna – The International Capital.
The event was awarded the significant grant in August from Creative Scotland – a government- funded and accountable body falling under Robertson’s brief.
He has now cancelled the lecture and an advert was quickly removed from the festival website after this newspaper began asking questions about it.
It had previously described Vienna – which costs £25 – as a “beautifully written, rich and extraordinary story” in an advert for the £11-a-ticket talk.
Cyril Radici, general secretary of heating company representatives Synasav, told Le Figaro: “Right now it is taking from two to three months to replace a boiler in the best case scenario, compared to 48 hours in normal circumstances.”
https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/Which-products-are-or-could-be-hit-by-stock-shortages-in-France
She was widely reported as attempting to abscond by taxi from her old people's home in September. Trial date then was 19 October but no further reports so either they have seen sense or she has died.
569k reported Sat/Sun, down 1% on last weekend. The modest rises we had been seeing recently appear to have stalled.
6.7m total, against 12.6m past 6 months, so a shortfall of 5.9m, up from 2.8m at the start of the month.
https://twitter.com/john_actuary/status/1454776234966200321?s=20
Or are those euphemisms?
Presumably the idea would be to extend north from Leeds rather than Manchester, but even there the geography isn't terribly sympathetic.
The only other feasible route is the old Waverley line to Carlisle that they've partially reopened, but while reopening it throughout (and electrifying it) would be sensible I wouldn't call it 'high speed.'
The question of collaboration often revolves around the varying degrees enthusiasm for it shown by involved parties, and how much pressure they were under to comply. For instance (at the risk of triggering a particular PBer) Laval, chief of the Vichy government, insisted that Jewish children under 16 should be included in deportations despite the Germans giving him permission to spare them.
Does that cover it?
Of course now that Mayor Sadiq is charging some of them hundreds of millions a year extra to take their cars down the road it may happen...
(Did I just say that out loud?)
“When the Roman Empire fell, it was largely as a result of uncontrolled immigration. The empire could no longer control its borders, people came in…and Europe went into a dark ages that lasted a very long time. The point is that it can happen again”
https://twitter.com/profdanhicks/status/1454779291850493955?s=20
Didn't bank on the Environment Minister being late.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/31/bad-weather-causes-delays-on-train-route-to-glasgow-cop26-talks
But here we are.
https://twitter.com/ReutersUK/status/1454804126051840006?s=20
'A Reuters reporter on a cancelled train service said several passengers had changed their travel plans'
Not many places that happens in SE England. And yes I have seen most of it, having birded areas most in the SE have never visited. Places with decent pubs that might get an "Ooh....that's nice."
But a "Wow..."? Nah....
------------
Dr Gilly Carr
@CarrGilly
1. I’m an expert on the German occupation of the Channel Islands and its victims of Nazism. Three non-British Jews deported from Guernsey died in Auschwitz. Three more with British citizenship deported to Compiegne for 3 months en route to German civilian internment camps.
2. They survived. They were with 2,200 other islanders in German internment camps. One Hungarian Jew was deported for spreading bbc news. She ended up a camp policewoman in Ravensbrück. She survived.
3. From Jersey, in Feb 1943, 3 were deported to Germany, 2 of whom (the women) were with the 128-odd Islanders in Compiègne transit camp for 3 months on the way. They survived. But the man, John Finkelstein, was plucked out of his civilian internment camp.
4. He was sent to Buchenwald then Theresienstadt. He survived. Archival evidence does not show that Coutanche of Jersey behaved in the same way as Carey of Guernsey.
5. Out of this combined number, the only ones sent to Auschwitz and the only ones to die were those 3 women without British nationality deported from Guernsey. British nationality was a strongly protective thing for Jews in the Channel Islands.
6. But I’m a stickler for historical accuracy. I’d like to know which document Dominic Lawson is quoting as it doesn’t ring a bell. I’m not challenging it’s veracity, but there are stolen archival docs out there. I’d like to know where this came from.
Not that it's especially accurate. 'The dark ages' is a singularly unhelpful and inaccurate term, for a start, that really only applies to Britain and is much briefer than is generally supposed.
As I said, Iceland is a very good comparator. They had a bigger recession than us, were relatively more exposed to the financial sector than us. And yet within a few years of the crash they were growing again, had eliminated their budget deficit (while we still had a huge one) and had debt to GDP peak below 60%
Or the first sight of Ely Cathedral, rising above the Fens as you walk along the Ouse from the south.
And views are just one aspect. I don't rate the SWCP very highly, for instance: yes, the scenery can be superb, but there're too many towns and cities along it; and far too many people, even in winter (when I walked it). Pembrokeshire is far nicer IMO. But then again, I prefer the north coast of Devon/Cornwall to the south, so I guess I just like rugged scenery ...
(Runs for cover.)
Iceland has a smaller population than Stoke-on-Trent.
Let me be totally clear about this: Boris Johnson does not know what he's talking about here.