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.
Which is why proportionally they were even more exposed to the crash than the UK was. In 2009 the received wisdom was that Iceland where the biggest loser's proportionally of the crash as they'd been unable to bail out the banks and had seen them go to the wall.
But by doing that they were set to undergo the correction needed and didn't create the moral hazard or the decade long hangover that we had.
Sometimes if a crash is required just getting through it and to the other side is the best option. Dragging out the pain and trying to save failed businesses doesn't work. It's the same lesson we learnt in the 80s.
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”
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”
That's a bit like saying the reason the Titanic sank was that it couldn't support a column of water 3km deep sitting on top of it.
Let me be totally clear about this: Boris Johnson does not know what he's talking about here.
The stupidest part is he is trying to make a point which is legitimate, about how things and whole civilizations can go into reverse, but his example is, well, poorly chosen.
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.
It’s worth beating in mind that “ I have the honour, Sir, to be your obedient servant” is just dated language. My bank used to write to most customers* like that until the mid 1990s. It sounds obsequious (and it is) but I don’t think you can determine whether someone is collaborating based on that tone
* as the son of a partner they signed their letters to me with “yours affectionately”
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 can see the sense in that.
TBH I was half-expecting Boris to latch onto something like that as part of his 'preserve the Union' agenda.
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?
TBF, France withdrawing their threats *would* be a deescalation.
In the way that abject surrender leads to an end of conflict
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."
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”
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”
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.
My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius, commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions and loyal servant to the TRUE emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife. Can I see your passport please?
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.
The Flow Country is fascinating. Lots of interesting species. And the landscape is also spectacular in a way, if unchanging over short distances. The Lewis peatlands are less interesting, perhaps, particularly west of Stornoway and where the wind turbines dominate.
But, no, I'd go for the agri-desert of the Lincolnshire flatlands (Humber or Wash). I have done some surveys near to the OS 'Blank square' between the Trent and the Ouse and I'd definitely put that at the bottom of any of my lists of places to go for a walk.
Most of the UK countryside is well worth visiting, in contrast with some countries which vary between endless boredom and full wilderness (thinking US here).
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.
My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius, commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions and loyal servant to the TRUE emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife. Can I see your passport please?
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”
That's a bit like saying the reason the Titanic sank was that it couldn't support a column of water 3km deep sitting on top of it.
Let me be totally clear about this: Boris Johnson does not know what he's talking about here.
To be fair, uncontrolled hordes of barbarians with big swords did enter Roman territory with the intention of remaining regardless of the views of the authorities
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.
It’s worth beating in mind that “ I have the honour, Sir, to be your obedient servant” is just dated language. My bank used to write to most customers* like that until the mid 1990s. It sounds obsequious (and it is) but I don’t think you can determine whether someone is collaborating based on that tone
* as the son of a partner they signed their letters to me with “yours affectionately”
the printed forms we had at the Land Registry still had that on a few of them in the early 1980s. The addition of the word 'humble' might be indicative of a genuine oiliness - otherwise it would just have been standard form.
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”
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”
That's a bit like saying the reason the Titanic sank was that it couldn't support a column of water 3km deep sitting on top of it.
Let me be totally clear about this: Boris Johnson does not know what he's talking about here.
To be fair, uncontrolled hordes of barbarians with big swords did enter Roman territory with the intention of remaining regardless of the views of the authorities
Most warriors of the time fought with spears rather than swords.
And the presence of barbarian hordes within Rome's territory was caused by a mix of factors. Declining power, inflation, corruption, the overuse of mercenaries, the denial of citizenship rights to certain ethnic groups inside Rome's borders, and, yes, external population pressures.
The attribution of the fall of the Western half of the empire to any one of those factors is arrant nonsense, since the Roman Empire and the Republic before it faced each of the above pressures at one time or another and always met the challenge. It was not strong enough to combat them all at once, though.
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.
The Flow Country is fascinating. Lots of interesting species. And the landscape is also spectacular in a way, if unchanging over short distances. The Lewis peatlands are less interesting, perhaps, particularly west of Stornoway and where the wind turbines dominate.
But, no, I'd go for the agri-desert of the Lincolnshire flatlands (Humber or Wash). I have done some surveys near to the OS 'Blank square' between the Trent and the Ouse and I'd definitely put that at the bottom of any of my lists of places to go for a walk.
Most of the UK countryside is well worth visiting, in contrast with some countries which vary between endless boredom and full wilderness (thinking US here).
When I was on my walk, I typed notes on an old Psion 5 for uploading onto my website. Every time I typed 'Lincolnshire', I would accidentally type 'Lincolnshite'. Which summed it up for me. The horrors of Mablethorpe. Skegness. Grimsby. Immingham.
It's the only county I'd make the mistake for.
The Essex coast can also be rather bland - mile upon mile of seabanks - though I love ?St Peters? at Bradwell.
Agree that most of the UK countryside is worth visiting - especially if it's not well-known and therefore not filled with grockles. The Lleyn Peninsula was a surprise and welcome find.
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.
I assume weathed related? We attended an off road race this morning 20 odd miles South. Biblical rainfall had left huge hazards, and impassable bits on the road. It was head west to east, so an impact on Guildford area is quite possible.
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
But by doing that they were set to undergo the correction needed and didn't create the moral hazard or the decade long hangover that we had.
Sometimes if a crash is required just getting through it and to the other side is the best option. Dragging out the pain and trying to save failed businesses doesn't work. It's the same lesson we learnt in the 80s.
It really isn't a good comparison at all.
* as the son of a partner they signed their letters to me with “yours affectionately”
NEW THREAD
TBH I was half-expecting Boris to latch onto something like that as part of his 'preserve the Union' agenda.
In the way that abject surrender leads to an end of conflict
Outrage on Twitter. Radio 4 found a “devastated” customer who reported that he “had to go shopping an extra time this week”
But, no, I'd go for the agri-desert of the Lincolnshire flatlands (Humber or Wash). I have done some surveys near to the OS 'Blank square' between the Trent and the Ouse and I'd definitely put that at the bottom of any of my lists of places to go for a walk.
Most of the UK countryside is well worth visiting, in contrast with some countries which vary between endless boredom and full wilderness (thinking US here).
And the presence of barbarian hordes within Rome's territory was caused by a mix of factors. Declining power, inflation, corruption, the overuse of mercenaries, the denial of citizenship rights to certain ethnic groups inside Rome's borders, and, yes, external population pressures.
The attribution of the fall of the Western half of the empire to any one of those factors is arrant nonsense, since the Roman Empire and the Republic before it faced each of the above pressures at one time or another and always met the challenge. It was not strong enough to combat them all at once, though.
It's the only county I'd make the mistake for.
The Essex coast can also be rather bland - mile upon mile of seabanks - though I love ?St Peters? at Bradwell.
Agree that most of the UK countryside is worth visiting - especially if it's not well-known and therefore not filled with grockles. The Lleyn Peninsula was a surprise and welcome find.