Yes, mine has dropped about 2-years' income worth already. It makes me wonder what we pay fund managers for if not to forecast and react to market conditions. Making the right connections at Oxbridge, I expect.
It is a bit brutal for equity investors. My overseas portfolio is down 15% over 6 months, my domestic portfolio about 10%. Both better than the markets, but losing money less quickly isn't much solace.
I am holding for the long term.
My worry for a long time has been all these tech "unicorns". So much money has been piled into all these companies who never make any money with the promise that once they burned through billions that eventually they will dominant the market and make money.
A classic example, all the delivery apps, none of them made any sodding money even during the pandemic when we were all locked in our homes!
The tide is going out and there is going to be a more naked swimmers than your typical nudist beach.
I mostly do "Value Investing" and don't touch companies where I cannot see how they make a profit, or by what means. I have missed a few good buys that way.
My concern is that if we see another repeat of the dot com bust that it causes contagion throughout. So much money has been thrown at seemingly any company who mentions machine learning or AI and that they have an "app" that leverages it (insert any old crap e.g. renting office space), with seemingly no route to profitability.
Perhaps we need a good bust to get rid of those nonsense companies that will never make a profit.
I was considering retiring as I'm not one for spending a lot of money and have accumulated a reasonable amount of savings despite not having a vast income, but it looks like it will all be worthless soon.
I suppose this is the wealth tax that everyone seemed to want...
A Whitehall source says the 'odious' decision referred to by Lord Geidt refers to proposed protections for the UK steel industry, adding: 'We're happy to be judged on that in the Red Wall'
The leaks suggest that Steel policy, and specifically tariffs, are at the heart of this. That Trump era punitive tariffs are no longer justified / legal yet the government is doing them anyway.
So, why would that be a breech of the ministerial code? Feels like someone is making decisions they cannot make under undue / undeclared influence. Again. "I am taking bungs from rich donors to do their bidding" is what he thinks will play well in the red wall is it?
If the trigger is really over a question of tariffs that might be challengeable at the WTO it seems like a confected reason to resign.
It's weird, and surely cannot possibly be left like that. Geidt sounds as though his patience was being tried but the latest enquiry was so totally outrageous that he couldn't bear to be close to anyone who even thought of it, like a someone whose partner has suggested it'd be fun to mate with some goats with a bit of torture thrown in. I work professionally with WTO/tariff issues all the time, and I can't imagine how the Ministerial Code comes into it. But it's clearly not trivial, so surely it must come out?
On another subject, the RSPCA survey here on what people care about is quite interesting. It explains why MPs get more on animal welfare than anything else, though not the care who think it a key issue is much lower. Basically a limited number care intensely, and nearly everyone cares somewhat (and feels the Government should do more). https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/latest/kindnessindex
But the RSPCA are hardly unbiased in this are they? This is a general point of surveys being conducted by interested parities to get more of what they want. Animal welfare (certainly in the sense of government doing something) is never discussed in any social group I go out with - cost of living, brexit, housing, johnsons parties are but not animal welfare
Someone may have the real numbers, but aren't the RSPCA one of the biggest killers of cats and dogs in the country?
Yes, mine has dropped about 2-years' income worth already. It makes me wonder what we pay fund managers for if not to forecast and react to market conditions. Making the right connections at Oxbridge, I expect.
It is a bit brutal for equity investors. My overseas portfolio is down 15% over 6 months, my domestic portfolio about 10%. Both better than the markets, but losing money less quickly isn't much solace.
I am holding for the long term.
My worry for a long time has been all these tech "unicorns". So much money has been piled into all these companies who never make any money with the promise that once they burned through billions that eventually they will dominant the market and make money.
A classic example, all the delivery apps, none of them made any sodding money even during the pandemic when we were all locked in our homes!
The tide is going out and there is going to be a more naked swimmers than your typical nudist beach.
I have never understood delivery apps - exactly how many people will pay the actual cost of someone waiting round to delivery that burger and fries to you from 2 miles away.
A few disabled or drunk people in cities, that’s it.
The whole business model makes no sense at all, unless the business model is to eat through VC cash as fast as possible, shovelling it to the people who work there.
Takeaways have done deliveries for years before smartphones. Centralising that service and charging fees to both the buyer and the seller can be profitable.
It doesn’t scale without huge marketing, that’s the problem.
Your local curry house can deliver because you know them already, it costs them a couple of quid to send one guy out with your £20 or £30 of product, no infrastructure required other than a phone line and a driver.
Paying someone to walk around a supermarket to pick up a can of Coke and a bag of crisps, on the other hand, can never be profitable if you’re paying that person minimum wage. It can be profitable if they’re doing £100 of shopping for you though.
Back in the day, pretty sure most takeaways that did delivery had a minimum order that was certainly more than the cost of a single meal and of course the like of dominos have their crazy pricing structure were its £15 for a pizza if you want it delivered but half that if you walk into the place and order it.
The thing is 3% interest rates by historic standards are on the low end of "normal". The problem is past 15 years (and for a lot of people the whole time they have had a mortgage) have never experienced such rates and planned their finances based upon this abnormally low rates (which in turn has jacked up house prices as everybody thinks they can afford more than they can if rates ever return to normal levels).
There are a hell of a lot of people who have no idea how exposed they are by historic standards. If we had more normal interest rates millions of people would be completely screwed.
Presumably the Bank of England financial models suggest that inflation is only transitory. So as interest rate increases only has an impact on inflation in around 2 years time and that inflation then is back to "normal" it is not worth increasing rates now? The problem is whether the model is correct and whether the risk is on the upside or downside.
34. In the MPC’s central projections in the May Monetary Policy Report, UK GDP growth had been expected to slow sharply over the first half of the forecast period and, although the labour market had been expected to tighten slightly further in the near term, the unemployment rate had been projected to rise to 5½% in three years’ time. CPI inflation had been expected to average slightly over 10% at its peak in 2022 Q4. Conditioned on the rising market-implied path for Bank Rate at that time and the MPC’s forecasting convention for future energy prices, CPI inflation had been projected to fall to a little above the 2% target in two years’ time, largely reflecting the waning influence of external factors, and to be well below the target in three years, mainly reflecting weaker domestic pressures. The risks to the inflation projection had been judged to be skewed to the upside at these points.
6-3 for 0.25% with 3 voting for 0.5%. That's very likely to be the BoE forming the bulk of the majority and the outsiders wanting more radical action.
As inflation bounds ahead the real rate of interest, of course, becomes more and more radically negative. An increase of 0.25% and then a delay of 2 months means that our monetary policy is in fact becoming even looser at a time of very high and increasing inflation. The hope is that these external factors are transitory but in the meantime we will see wages, food prices and pretty much everything else going up. To be blunt, I really cannot follow the logic of the majority.
Bailey doesn't want the blame for crushing the economy with aggressive interest rate increases.
He'd rather let inflation crush it with soaring costs, and avoid the blame.
Either way, its surely going to get crushed eventually, along with every advanced Western economy out there
Yes, mine has dropped about 2-years' income worth already. It makes me wonder what we pay fund managers for if not to forecast and react to market conditions. Making the right connections at Oxbridge, I expect.
It is a bit brutal for equity investors. My overseas portfolio is down 15% over 6 months, my domestic portfolio about 10%. Both better than the markets, but losing money less quickly isn't much solace.
I am holding for the long term.
My worry for a long time has been all these tech "unicorns". So much money has been piled into all these companies who never make any money with the promise that once they burned through billions that eventually they will dominant the market and make money.
A classic example, all the delivery apps, none of them made any sodding money even during the pandemic when we were all locked in our homes!
The tide is going out and there is going to be a more naked swimmers than your typical nudist beach.
I have never understood delivery apps - exactly how many people will pay the actual cost of someone waiting round to delivery that burger and fries to you from 2 miles away.
I would and do, I'll be sad if they cannot make them economically viable as not enough others would.
Relatedly, how do supermarkets make deliveries so cheap? I get an order once a week from Sainsbury and take the cheapest available delivery slot on a wfh day (I don't really care when in a 4-hour range they turn up). It's usually £1. Presumably the deliverers are paid minimum wage (though I've chatted to many of them and they seem genuinely content, more so than shop staff), but unless they're delivering more than an impossible 10 homes an hour, it must be cross-subsidised. I'd happily pay say £3, still worth it compared with paying petrol to go there and trudge around the aisles, and wonder if this - combined with wfh - isn't going to drive out a lot of in-store shopping altogether.
Presumably the Bank of England financial models suggest that inflation is only transitory. So as interest rate increases only has an impact on inflation in around 2 years time and that inflation then is back to "normal" it is not worth increasing rates now? The problem is whether the model is correct and whether the risk is on the upside or downside.
34. In the MPC’s central projections in the May Monetary Policy Report, UK GDP growth had been expected to slow sharply over the first half of the forecast period and, although the labour market had been expected to tighten slightly further in the near term, the unemployment rate had been projected to rise to 5½% in three years’ time. CPI inflation had been expected to average slightly over 10% at its peak in 2022 Q4. Conditioned on the rising market-implied path for Bank Rate at that time and the MPC’s forecasting convention for future energy prices, CPI inflation had been projected to fall to a little above the 2% target in two years’ time, largely reflecting the waning influence of external factors, and to be well below the target in three years, mainly reflecting weaker domestic pressures. The risks to the inflation projection had been judged to be skewed to the upside at these points.
6-3 for 0.25% with 3 voting for 0.5%. That's very likely to be the BoE forming the bulk of the majority and the outsiders wanting more radical action.
As inflation bounds ahead the real rate of interest, of course, becomes more and more radically negative. An increase of 0.25% and then a delay of 2 months means that our monetary policy is in fact becoming even looser at a time of very high and increasing inflation. The hope is that these external factors are transitory but in the meantime we will see wages, food prices and pretty much everything else going up. To be blunt, I really cannot follow the logic of the majority.
Bailey doesn't want the blame for crushing the economy with aggressive interest rate increases.
He'd rather let inflation crush it with soaring costs, and avoid the blame.
Either way, its surely going to get crushed eventually, along with every advanced Western economy out there
The problem with that thesis is that his number one task is to keep inflation around 2%. And he has failed miserably to do that. And looks very likely to fail even more. And he will be blamed. As I said down thread, it is really difficult to find a logical explanation for his position that bears even the most superficial analysis.
Yes, mine has dropped about 2-years' income worth already. It makes me wonder what we pay fund managers for if not to forecast and react to market conditions. Making the right connections at Oxbridge, I expect.
It is a bit brutal for equity investors. My overseas portfolio is down 15% over 6 months, my domestic portfolio about 10%. Both better than the markets, but losing money less quickly isn't much solace.
I am holding for the long term.
My worry for a long time has been all these tech "unicorns". So much money has been piled into all these companies who never make any money with the promise that once they burned through billions that eventually they will dominant the market and make money.
A classic example, all the delivery apps, none of them made any sodding money even during the pandemic when we were all locked in our homes!
The tide is going out and there is going to be a more naked swimmers than your typical nudist beach.
I have never understood delivery apps - exactly how many people will pay the actual cost of someone waiting round to delivery that burger and fries to you from 2 miles away.
A few disabled or drunk people in cities, that’s it.
The whole business model makes no sense at all, unless the business model is to eat through VC cash as fast as possible, shovelling it to the people who work there.
Takeaways have done deliveries for years before smartphones. Centralising that service and charging fees to both the buyer and the seller can be profitable.
The problem is that over the years there has been a squeeze on prices, based on loss leading from Deliveroo etc.
A number of sectors have been mucked up like this. A local chap, who owns and runs a "flex" business centre (hire space by the day, one person companies etc etc) says that his biggest problem is that people think that WeWork prices are the proper price....
As I am opening exactly such a flexible working space in a few months time, I know how prices have been squeezed! Not just from WeWork though, some very good independents also have daft prices on the low side.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Yes, mine has dropped about 2-years' income worth already. It makes me wonder what we pay fund managers for if not to forecast and react to market conditions. Making the right connections at Oxbridge, I expect.
It is a bit brutal for equity investors. My overseas portfolio is down 15% over 6 months, my domestic portfolio about 10%. Both better than the markets, but losing money less quickly isn't much solace.
I am holding for the long term.
My worry for a long time has been all these tech "unicorns". So much money has been piled into all these companies who never make any money with the promise that once they burned through billions that eventually they will dominant the market and make money.
A classic example, all the delivery apps, none of them made any sodding money even during the pandemic when we were all locked in our homes!
The tide is going out and there is going to be a more naked swimmers than your typical nudist beach.
I have never understood delivery apps - exactly how many people will pay the actual cost of someone waiting round to delivery that burger and fries to you from 2 miles away.
I would and do, I'll be sad if they cannot make them economically viable as not enough others would.
Relatedly, how do supermarkets make deliveries so cheap? I get an order once a week from Sainsbury and take the cheapest available delivery slot on a wfh day (I don't really care when in a 4-hour range they turn up). It's usually £1. Presumably the deliverers are paid minimum wage (though I've chatted to many of them and they seem genuinely content, more so than shop staff), but unless they're delivering more than an impossible 10 homes an hour, it must be cross-subsidised. I'd happily pay say £3, still worth it compared with paying petrol to go there and trudge around the aisles, and wonder if this - combined with wfh - isn't going to drive out a lot of in-store shopping altogether.
Well firstly a lot of people pay a lot more than the loss leader £1 slot. £5 is pretty standard or you pay equivalent of a type of subscription. But also vast economy of scale and also you aren't ever ordering £5 of shopping, most people are ordering say £100 weekly shop 40 odd weeks of the year, so lots of profit margin in that. Same way as Amazon offer "free" delivery.
Also, the likes of Ocado, the picking is basically all automated by robots in purpose built facilities.
Yes, mine has dropped about 2-years' income worth already. It makes me wonder what we pay fund managers for if not to forecast and react to market conditions. Making the right connections at Oxbridge, I expect.
It is a bit brutal for equity investors. My overseas portfolio is down 15% over 6 months, my domestic portfolio about 10%. Both better than the markets, but losing money less quickly isn't much solace.
I am holding for the long term.
My worry for a long time has been all these tech "unicorns". So much money has been piled into all these companies who never make any money with the promise that once they burned through billions that eventually they will dominant the market and make money.
A classic example, all the delivery apps, none of them made any sodding money even during the pandemic when we were all locked in our homes!
The tide is going out and there is going to be a more naked swimmers than your typical nudist beach.
I have never understood delivery apps - exactly how many people will pay the actual cost of someone waiting round to delivery that burger and fries to you from 2 miles away.
I would and do, I'll be sad if they cannot make them economically viable as not enough others would.
Relatedly, how do supermarkets make deliveries so cheap? I get an order once a week from Sainsbury and take the cheapest available delivery slot on a wfh day (I don't really care when in a 4-hour range they turn up). It's usually £1. Presumably the deliverers are paid minimum wage (though I've chatted to many of them and they seem genuinely content, more so than shop staff), but unless they're delivering more than an impossible 10 homes an hour, it must be cross-subsidised. I'd happily pay say £3, still worth it compared with paying petrol to go there and trudge around the aisles, and wonder if this - combined with wfh - isn't going to drive out a lot of in-store shopping altogether.
Supermarkets make it scale by having minimum orders as well as the delivery price. So if you buy £100 of goods, their margin on that £100 goes towards the cost of delivery. In large cities, they’ll deliver from a warehouse in an industrial area, which is cheaper to operate than a supermarket.
It can’t work for £5 worth of goods though, anyone doing that is making a loss.
Edit: LOL, Mr Urquart makes the same point just above - using the same numbers!
Listening to the vox pops in Tiverton and Honiton on R4 WATO. If a party comes up with removing the franchise from the terminally stupid I'm in. "Boris is doing his best". "Boris has had difficult things like Brexit to deal with".
Yes, mine has dropped about 2-years' income worth already. It makes me wonder what we pay fund managers for if not to forecast and react to market conditions. Making the right connections at Oxbridge, I expect.
It is a bit brutal for equity investors. My overseas portfolio is down 15% over 6 months, my domestic portfolio about 10%. Both better than the markets, but losing money less quickly isn't much solace.
I am holding for the long term.
My worry for a long time has been all these tech "unicorns". So much money has been piled into all these companies who never make any money with the promise that once they burned through billions that eventually they will dominant the market and make money.
A classic example, all the delivery apps, none of them made any sodding money even during the pandemic when we were all locked in our homes!
The tide is going out and there is going to be a more naked swimmers than your typical nudist beach.
I have never understood delivery apps - exactly how many people will pay the actual cost of someone waiting round to delivery that burger and fries to you from 2 miles away.
I would and do, I'll be sad if they cannot make them economically viable as not enough others would.
Relatedly, how do supermarkets make deliveries so cheap? I get an order once a week from Sainsbury and take the cheapest available delivery slot on a wfh day (I don't really care when in a 4-hour range they turn up). It's usually £1. Presumably the deliverers are paid minimum wage (though I've chatted to many of them and they seem genuinely content, more so than shop staff), but unless they're delivering more than an impossible 10 homes an hour, it must be cross-subsidised. I'd happily pay say £3, still worth it compared with paying petrol to go there and trudge around the aisles, and wonder if this - combined with wfh - isn't going to drive out a lot of in-store shopping altogether.
Go for the midweek saver option.
Deliveries in one hour slots Tues-Thur, all it costs is £4 per month/£40 per year with Sainsbury's.
I remember last year when we were assured inflation was just transitory. 11% is eye watering and the BoE have yet again bottled taking the tough decision for pain now, rather opting for worse pain down the line (and hoping Ukraine war ends and other things just turn up).
A not insignificant proportion of us cannot survive 11% intact.
Now is the summer of our discontent?
Or, given that all we can afford is a cheap camping holiday, now is the summer of our discount tent.
If the trigger is really over a question of tariffs that might be challengeable at the WTO it seems like a confected reason to resign.
It's weird, and surely cannot possibly be left like that. Geidt sounds as though his patience was being tried but the latest enquiry was so totally outrageous that he couldn't bear to be close to anyone who even thought of it, like a someone whose partner has suggested it'd be fun to mate with some goats with a bit of torture thrown in. I work professionally with WTO/tariff issues all the time, and I can't imagine how the Ministerial Code comes into it. But it's clearly not trivial, so surely it must come out?
On another subject, the RSPCA survey here on what people care about is quite interesting. It explains why MPs get more on animal welfare than anything else, though not the care who think it a key issue is much lower. Basically a limited number care intensely, and nearly everyone cares somewhat (and feels the Government should do more). https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/latest/kindnessindex
But the RSPCA are hardly unbiased in this are they? This is a general point of surveys being conducted by interested parities to get more of what they want. Animal welfare (certainly in the sense of government doing something) is never discussed in any social group I go out with - cost of living, brexit, housing, johnsons parties are but not animal welfare
Someone may have the real numbers, but aren't the RSPCA one of the biggest killers of cats and dogs in the country?
Further context is that P&O closed their Hull-Zeebrugge route on 1st January 2021.
This new one might well be the only UK-Zeebrugge route.
Competently killing cats and dogs is not cruel and not at infringement of their welfare. Disney think that it is, is what leads to the "rescue" of dogs at the expense of brown people from Kabul.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Listening to the vox pops in Tiverton and Honiton on R4 WATO. If a party comes up with removing the franchise from the terminally stupid I'm in. "Boris is doing his best". "Boris has had difficult things like Brexit to deal with".
Which numpty landed him with the Brexit problem ? Should never be allowed near office again.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Listening to the vox pops in Tiverton and Honiton on R4 WATO. If a party comes up with removing the franchise from the terminally stupid I'm in. "Boris is doing his best". "Boris has had difficult things like Brexit to deal with".
I'm always suspicious of vox pops. We spoke to 200 people and found 2 points of view, both of which we have represented.
The fact that 198 of those people may have said "he's a bloviating meat sack" and 2 said "he is our new messiah" while on their way to their constituency party meeting is neither here nor there; we represented the opinions presented.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Doleys don't need your sort, they gonna be buying in mortgages cos Boris said so in Blackpool
While they tuck into their wild venison.
There are various breeds of silly conservatives, but the biggest silly conservatives of all are those who think that hanging on to the red wall entails adopting socialism.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
I don't want SKS PM, but the Tories will deserve the mother of all tonkings.
Less concerned about SKS per se, more concerned about his fellow travellers. I hate this government, but the Labour party rarely brings me joy when in government.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
I'm always suspicious of vox pops. We spoke to 200 people and found 2 points of view, both of which we have represented.
The fact that 198 of those people may have said "he's a bloviating meat sack" and 2 said "he is our new messiah" while on their way to their constituency party meeting is neither here nor there; we represented the opinions presented.
One of the most dispiriting things about working briefly at the BBC was being required to treat people like Daniel Hannan as fully qualified counterweights to informed & expert contributors. The damage done to our country by such false equivalence will be with us for generations.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Presumably the Bank of England financial models suggest that inflation is only transitory. So as interest rate increases only has an impact on inflation in around 2 years time and that inflation then is back to "normal" it is not worth increasing rates now? The problem is whether the model is correct and whether the risk is on the upside or downside.
34. In the MPC’s central projections in the May Monetary Policy Report, UK GDP growth had been expected to slow sharply over the first half of the forecast period and, although the labour market had been expected to tighten slightly further in the near term, the unemployment rate had been projected to rise to 5½% in three years’ time. CPI inflation had been expected to average slightly over 10% at its peak in 2022 Q4. Conditioned on the rising market-implied path for Bank Rate at that time and the MPC’s forecasting convention for future energy prices, CPI inflation had been projected to fall to a little above the 2% target in two years’ time, largely reflecting the waning influence of external factors, and to be well below the target in three years, mainly reflecting weaker domestic pressures. The risks to the inflation projection had been judged to be skewed to the upside at these points.
6-3 for 0.25% with 3 voting for 0.5%. That's very likely to be the BoE forming the bulk of the majority and the outsiders wanting more radical action.
As inflation bounds ahead the real rate of interest, of course, becomes more and more radically negative. An increase of 0.25% and then a delay of 2 months means that our monetary policy is in fact becoming even looser at a time of very high and increasing inflation. The hope is that these external factors are transitory but in the meantime we will see wages, food prices and pretty much everything else going up. To be blunt, I really cannot follow the logic of the majority.
Bailey doesn't want the blame for crushing the economy with aggressive interest rate increases.
He'd rather let inflation crush it with soaring costs, and avoid the blame.
Either way, its surely going to get crushed eventually, along with every advanced Western economy out there
The problem with that thesis is that his number one task is to keep inflation around 2%. And he has failed miserably to do that. And looks very likely to fail even more. And he will be blamed. As I said down thread, it is really difficult to find a logical explanation for his position that bears even the most superficial analysis.
They must be confident that the traditional money-inflation transmission mechanism is broken. The first evidence for this will be in the success or otherwise of the RMT strikes achieving a breakthrough in pay awards.
Yes, mine has dropped about 2-years' income worth already. It makes me wonder what we pay fund managers for if not to forecast and react to market conditions. Making the right connections at Oxbridge, I expect.
It is a bit brutal for equity investors. My overseas portfolio is down 15% over 6 months, my domestic portfolio about 10%. Both better than the markets, but losing money less quickly isn't much solace.
I am holding for the long term.
Hard thing is not selling. Was an option a week or two ago and I was tempted but did not do it, all 3 back down again.
This is the first year since I retired in 2017 that my SIPP capital growth hasn’t kept pace with my withdrawals. I was thinking of taking out a bit extra, but as someone once said, now is not the time.
The new renters legislation is once again another headline grabbing policy which falls apart later .
Firstly you cannot be forced to rent to anyone you don’t want to . A landlord just has to say I had quite a few enquiries and had a difficult decision to make ......
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
I'm always suspicious of vox pops. We spoke to 200 people and found 2 points of view, both of which we have represented.
The fact that 198 of those people may have said "he's a bloviating meat sack" and 2 said "he is our new messiah" while on their way to their constituency party meeting is neither here nor there; we represented the opinions presented.
One of the most dispiriting things about working briefly at the BBC was being required to treat people like Daniel Hannan as fully qualified counterweights to informed & expert contributors. The damage done to our country by such false equivalence will be with us for generations.
Listening to the vox pops in Tiverton and Honiton on R4 WATO. If a party comes up with removing the franchise from the terminally stupid I'm in. "Boris is doing his best". "Boris has had difficult things like Brexit to deal with".
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Better affordability for prospective property buyers is also a big silver lining.
Many mortgage payers are in for a nasty shock in the coming months, and I don't see how there won't be some distressed sellers emerging, what with the cost of everything else rocketing.
Given how toothless he has rendered the role, then the answer is probably no, he doesn't need one. And finding anyone stupid enough to accept the role would be a tough task even for the king of persuasive bullshit.
Just filled up the car at the local Esso garage. 185.9p for petrol and 194.9p for diesel. Tanker was in, so will be watching to see if the prices go up again.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Well firstly a lot of people pay a lot more than the loss leader £1 slot. £5 is pretty standard or you pay equivalent of a type of subscription. But also vast economy of scale and also you aren't ever ordering £5 of shopping, most people are ordering say £100 weekly shop 40 odd weeks of the year, so lots of profit margin in that. Same way as Amazon offer "free" delivery.
Also, the likes of Ocado, the picking is basically all automated by robots in purpose built facilities.
There's a minimum purchase of £40 to get the £1 rate (no subscription needed), but it's always available, 7 days a week, if you're not too worried about it coming in the evening. And if it's a loss leader it's a very persistent one - they've been doing it for years now. I think it's just a cross-subsidy, but my point is that it's such a bargain that it will erode supermarkets for physical sale, in the same way that bookshops have been eroded by Amazon.
Sure, if you're in the supermarket you can examine a banana and ponder whether it's green enough, just as in a bookshop you can browse. But busy people choose speed and convenience every time.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Interesting that an ex-Labour MP doesn't know the answer.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
Listening to the vox pops in Tiverton and Honiton on R4 WATO. If a party comes up with removing the franchise from the terminally stupid I'm in. "Boris is doing his best". "Boris has had difficult things like Brexit to deal with".
I'm always suspicious of vox pops. We spoke to 200 people and found 2 points of view, both of which we have represented.
The fact that 198 of those people may have said "he's a bloviating meat sack" and 2 said "he is our new messiah" while on their way to their constituency party meeting is neither here nor there; we represented the opinions presented.
2001, we spoke to 200 people and found 2 points of view, both of which we have represented.198 of those people said "Farage's a bloviating meat sack" and 2 said "he is our new messiah".
Rinse, repeat on a regular basis.
2016, we spoke to 200 people and found 2 points of view, both of which we have represented. 96 of those people said "Farage's a bloviating meat sack" and 104 said "he is our new messiah".
Remember that 15% is the average. Real food inflation on so many products is already way north of that. The problem that many consumers reliant on the value end of the market will have is that these are the first to get a price rise and will see the biggest percentage uplifts.
Value used to be the product range that nobody wanted to manufacture because there just isn't any profit in it. Lower volumes than standard tier, separate ingredients to stock, absurd low retail prices where the retailer still wants to make chunky profit on return.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Interesting that an ex-Labour MP doesn't know the answer.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
Why doesn't that argument apply in Germany. I rented off a private landlord there - and they rented a nicer place off some other private landlord.
Well firstly a lot of people pay a lot more than the loss leader £1 slot. £5 is pretty standard or you pay equivalent of a type of subscription. But also vast economy of scale and also you aren't ever ordering £5 of shopping, most people are ordering say £100 weekly shop 40 odd weeks of the year, so lots of profit margin in that. Same way as Amazon offer "free" delivery.
Also, the likes of Ocado, the picking is basically all automated by robots in purpose built facilities.
There's a minimum purchase of £40 to get the £1 rate (no subscription needed), but it's always available, 7 days a week, if you're not too worried about it coming in the evening. And if it's a loss leader it's a very persistent one - they've been doing it for years now. I think it's just a cross-subsidy, but my point is that it's such a bargain that it will erode supermarkets for physical sale, in the same way that bookshops have been eroded by Amazon.
Sure, if you're in the supermarket you can examine a banana and ponder whether it's green enough, just as in a bookshop you can browse. But busy people choose speed and convenience every time.
You would have thought that a bit like WFH, after massive uptick in online food shopping during COVID, that would led to a similar revolution to Amazon and book stores. I might be wrong, but fairly certain I read that hasn't been the case, as soon as restrictions were lessened / COVID levels dropped, people were steaming back down to the physical locations.
I know food isn't really your thing, but you will be surprised just how many people really do value for instance selecting their own produce, being able to browse the aisles for things they have never seen before, etc.
One thing that online food shopping hasn't really cracked is the fact that they offer massive amount of SKUs and if you try and navigate them online it really is quite a frustrating experience. Sure if you buy the same every week, you just repeat your order, but again a huge number of people really value the experience of food / drink and enjoy the opportunity to explore new options (which is very difficult via current websites).
One big difference with Amazon is you are normally looking for one specific item, and even if you aren't set on exactly what brand that item must be, yes massive choice, but you are going on there looking one thing, so looking through 10 options isn't that troublesome (and Amazon very good at recommendations etc). That is quite different from if you were trying to do the same every week for 100 different food items.
In as far as I can understand it Lord Geidt's resignation isn't much about ethics if all it concerns is protective tariffs for British steel.
Twitter comments seem to point to the ethics in making decisions which have no legal basis - overruling the Tariff authority - to suit the whims of your donors. Which is corruption. Which shouldn't be a shock that this corrupt government is corrupt.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Well firstly a lot of people pay a lot more than the loss leader £1 slot. £5 is pretty standard or you pay equivalent of a type of subscription. But also vast economy of scale and also you aren't ever ordering £5 of shopping, most people are ordering say £100 weekly shop 40 odd weeks of the year, so lots of profit margin in that. Same way as Amazon offer "free" delivery.
Also, the likes of Ocado, the picking is basically all automated by robots in purpose built facilities.
There's a minimum purchase of £40 to get the £1 rate (no subscription needed), but it's always available, 7 days a week, if you're not too worried about it coming in the evening. And if it's a loss leader it's a very persistent one - they've been doing it for years now. I think it's just a cross-subsidy, but my point is that it's such a bargain that it will erode supermarkets for physical sale, in the same way that bookshops have been eroded by Amazon.
Sure, if you're in the supermarket you can examine a banana and ponder whether it's green enough, just as in a bookshop you can browse. But busy people choose speed and convenience every time.
You would have thought that a bit like WFH, after massive uptick in online food shopping during COVID, that would led to a similar revolution to Amazon and book stores. I might be wrong, but fairly certain I read that hasn't been the case, as soon as restrictions were lessened / COVID levels dropped, people were steaming back down to the physical locations.
My wife loves delivery for bulk or dry goods, but always goes to the physical shop for fruit & veg, fresh meat, salads, dairy etc. mostly because the delivery guys pick out the crap or nearly-out-of-date versions of fresh produce.
Swiss central bank surprisingly raises interest rates by 50 basis points.
25pbs from the BoE is going to look like it’s not enough.
Black Wednesday in miniature.
It won’t be that bad, but central banks do seem all rather surprised that the massive amounts of money-printing that went on during the pandemic, have led to inflation down the line.
The next few years are going to be a long ride.
Who knew that keeping interest rates at stupidly low crisis levels for 13 years whilst printing money like they were playing monopoly could be problematic?
Looked at this way - we've been propped up artificially for 15 years and can do it no longer - a big crash is inevitable quite soon.
This is why I don't buy the @MarqueeMark analysis that a change of Conservative Prime Minister achieves a Conservative landslide.
I accept that a honeymoon follows a change of leader, but I can't see it overturning what looks like the worst economic picture since the 1970s.
Fear of Labournomics, cling to nurse effect. Not saying they will happen but they are factors to consider. As is some artificial display of being less in shit than the EU etc
...but aren't we forecast to be the worst performing G7 nation in the foreseeable future.
It may be naïve, but I don't suppose voters could care less about what is going on in France and Germany if they are unable to put food on the table or fuel in the tank in the UK. Incumbency means taking the rough with the smooth.
I think they're planning a full-on culture war election. It'll be horrid to witness for all of sound mind and good character but they're probably right to see this as their best chance to win.
Well firstly a lot of people pay a lot more than the loss leader £1 slot. £5 is pretty standard or you pay equivalent of a type of subscription. But also vast economy of scale and also you aren't ever ordering £5 of shopping, most people are ordering say £100 weekly shop 40 odd weeks of the year, so lots of profit margin in that. Same way as Amazon offer "free" delivery.
Also, the likes of Ocado, the picking is basically all automated by robots in purpose built facilities.
There's a minimum purchase of £40 to get the £1 rate (no subscription needed), but it's always available, 7 days a week, if you're not too worried about it coming in the evening. And if it's a loss leader it's a very persistent one - they've been doing it for years now. I think it's just a cross-subsidy, but my point is that it's such a bargain that it will erode supermarkets for physical sale, in the same way that bookshops have been eroded by Amazon.
Sure, if you're in the supermarket you can examine a banana and ponder whether it's green enough, just as in a bookshop you can browse. But busy people choose speed and convenience every time.
You would have thought that a bit like WFH, after massive uptick in online food shopping during COVID, that would led to a similar revolution to Amazon and book stores. I might be wrong, but fairly certain I read that hasn't been the case, as soon as restrictions were lessened / COVID levels dropped, people were steaming back down to the physical locations.
My wife loves delivery for bulk or dry goods, but always goes to the physical shop for fruit & veg, fresh meat, salads, dairy etc. mostly because the delivery guys pick out the crap or nearly-out-of-date versions of fresh produce.
The other factor is substitutions. There are plenty of things that I have in mind that what I really want to buy is item X - but if they're sold out I'd take item Y, then Z (and possibly then A, then B...). That's something that's difficult even to communicate to a spouse, let alone a random picker on the supermarket shop floor (if they gave you an option. Which they don't).
Well firstly a lot of people pay a lot more than the loss leader £1 slot. £5 is pretty standard or you pay equivalent of a type of subscription. But also vast economy of scale and also you aren't ever ordering £5 of shopping, most people are ordering say £100 weekly shop 40 odd weeks of the year, so lots of profit margin in that. Same way as Amazon offer "free" delivery.
Also, the likes of Ocado, the picking is basically all automated by robots in purpose built facilities.
There's a minimum purchase of £40 to get the £1 rate (no subscription needed), but it's always available, 7 days a week, if you're not too worried about it coming in the evening. And if it's a loss leader it's a very persistent one - they've been doing it for years now. I think it's just a cross-subsidy, but my point is that it's such a bargain that it will erode supermarkets for physical sale, in the same way that bookshops have been eroded by Amazon.
Sure, if you're in the supermarket you can examine a banana and ponder whether it's green enough, just as in a bookshop you can browse. But busy people choose speed and convenience every time.
You would have thought that a bit like WFH, after massive uptick in online food shopping during COVID, that would led to a similar revolution to Amazon and book stores. I might be wrong, but fairly certain I read that hasn't been the case, as soon as restrictions were lessened / COVID levels dropped, people were steaming back down to the physical locations.
I know food isn't really your thing, but you will be surprised just how many people really do value for instance selecting their own produce, being able to browse the aisles, etc. One thing that online food shopping hasn't really cracked is the fact that they offer massive amount of SKUs and if you try and navigate them online it really is quite a frustrating experience. Sure if you buy the same every week, you just repeat your order, but again a huge number of people really value the experience of food / drink and enjoy the opportunity to explore new options (which is very difficult via current websites).
I get around that by getting a standard order on a Sunday and going to the farmer’s market on a Saturday for the special stuff. Going to supermarkets always meant I spent an hour in a place I hated and spent too much money on stuff I didn’t need. This way I support some nice local businesses with the money I save from not accidentally buying my sixth pack of cereal because I couldn’t remember if we had any in the cupboard.
In as far as I can understand it Lord Geidt's resignation isn't much about ethics if all it concerns is protective tariffs for British steel.
Twitter comments seem to point to the ethics in making decisions which have no legal basis - overruling the Tariff authority - to suit the whims of your donors. Which is corruption. Which shouldn't be a shock that this corrupt government is corrupt.
If the Twitterati are right then perhaps there is an ethical angle. Perhaps Geidt is moving on to let the sunlight in.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Interesting that an ex-Labour MP doesn't know the answer.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
Why doesn't that argument apply in Germany. I rented off a private landlord there - and they rented a nicer place off some other private landlord.
Customary usage. One German chap of my aquaintance has invested heavily in property for his retirement fund. But he still rents his own property. When I asked him why he didn't move into one of the places that he owns - he actually scratched his head at that one for a bit.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Presumably the Bank of England financial models suggest that inflation is only transitory. So as interest rate increases only has an impact on inflation in around 2 years time and that inflation then is back to "normal" it is not worth increasing rates now? The problem is whether the model is correct and whether the risk is on the upside or downside.
34. In the MPC’s central projections in the May Monetary Policy Report, UK GDP growth had been expected to slow sharply over the first half of the forecast period and, although the labour market had been expected to tighten slightly further in the near term, the unemployment rate had been projected to rise to 5½% in three years’ time. CPI inflation had been expected to average slightly over 10% at its peak in 2022 Q4. Conditioned on the rising market-implied path for Bank Rate at that time and the MPC’s forecasting convention for future energy prices, CPI inflation had been projected to fall to a little above the 2% target in two years’ time, largely reflecting the waning influence of external factors, and to be well below the target in three years, mainly reflecting weaker domestic pressures. The risks to the inflation projection had been judged to be skewed to the upside at these points.
6-3 for 0.25% with 3 voting for 0.5%. That's very likely to be the BoE forming the bulk of the majority and the outsiders wanting more radical action.
As inflation bounds ahead the real rate of interest, of course, becomes more and more radically negative. An increase of 0.25% and then a delay of 2 months means that our monetary policy is in fact becoming even looser at a time of very high and increasing inflation. The hope is that these external factors are transitory but in the meantime we will see wages, food prices and pretty much everything else going up. To be blunt, I really cannot follow the logic of the majority.
Bailey doesn't want the blame for crushing the economy with aggressive interest rate increases.
He'd rather let inflation crush it with soaring costs, and avoid the blame.
Either way, its surely going to get crushed eventually, along with every advanced Western economy out there
What a shame if that happens on Boris Johnson's watch and as a consequence he is forced into ignominious retirement.
Swiss central bank surprisingly raises interest rates by 50 basis points.
25pbs from the BoE is going to look like it’s not enough.
Black Wednesday in miniature.
It won’t be that bad, but central banks do seem all rather surprised that the massive amounts of money-printing that went on during the pandemic, have led to inflation down the line.
The next few years are going to be a long ride.
Who knew that keeping interest rates at stupidly low crisis levels for 13 years whilst printing money like they were playing monopoly could be problematic?
Looked at this way - we've been propped up artificially for 15 years and can do it no longer - a big crash is inevitable quite soon.
This is why I don't buy the @MarqueeMark analysis that a change of Conservative Prime Minister achieves a Conservative landslide.
I accept that a honeymoon follows a change of leader, but I can't see it overturning what looks like the worst economic picture since the 1970s.
Fear of Labournomics, cling to nurse effect. Not saying they will happen but they are factors to consider. As is some artificial display of being less in shit than the EU etc
...but aren't we forecast to be the worst performing G7 nation in the foreseeable future.
It may be naïve, but I don't suppose voters could care less about what is going on in France and Germany if they are unable to put food on the table or fuel in the tank in the UK. Incumbency means taking the rough with the smooth.
I think they're planning a full-on culture war election. It'll be horrid to witness for all of sound mind and good character but they're probably right to see this as their best chance to win.
Going off the deep end sometimes works by dragging everyone else in with you.
Listening to the vox pops in Tiverton and Honiton on R4 WATO. If a party comes up with removing the franchise from the terminally stupid I'm in. "Boris is doing his best". "Boris has had difficult things like Brexit to deal with".
I'm always suspicious of vox pops. We spoke to 200 people and found 2 points of view, both of which we have represented.
The fact that 198 of those people may have said "he's a bloviating meat sack" and 2 said "he is our new messiah" while on their way to their constituency party meeting is neither here nor there; we represented the opinions presented.
2001, we spoke to 200 people and found 2 points of view, both of which we have represented.198 of those people said "Farage's a bloviating meat sack" and 2 said "he is our new messiah".
Rinse, repeat on a regular basis.
2016, we spoke to 200 people and found 2 points of view, both of which we have represented. 96 of those people said "Farage's a bloviating meat sack" and 104 said "he is our new messiah".
Absolutely; it is not a party political issue. It's a "journalists not doing their job properly, because management are not framing the problem properly" issue.
Listening to the vox pops in Tiverton and Honiton on R4 WATO. If a party comes up with removing the franchise from the terminally stupid I'm in. "Boris is doing his best". "Boris has had difficult things like Brexit to deal with".
People you don't agree with in other words.
That's about the measure of it.
Do you believe "Boris is doing his best"? Right, I'll add you to the list.
Swiss central bank surprisingly raises interest rates by 50 basis points.
25pbs from the BoE is going to look like it’s not enough.
Black Wednesday in miniature.
It won’t be that bad, but central banks do seem all rather surprised that the massive amounts of money-printing that went on during the pandemic, have led to inflation down the line.
The next few years are going to be a long ride.
Who knew that keeping interest rates at stupidly low crisis levels for 13 years whilst printing money like they were playing monopoly could be problematic?
Looked at this way - we've been propped up artificially for 15 years and can do it no longer - a big crash is inevitable quite soon.
This is why I don't buy the @MarqueeMark analysis that a change of Conservative Prime Minister achieves a Conservative landslide.
I accept that a honeymoon follows a change of leader, but I can't see it overturning what looks like the worst economic picture since the 1970s.
Fear of Labournomics, cling to nurse effect. Not saying they will happen but they are factors to consider. As is some artificial display of being less in shit than the EU etc
...but aren't we forecast to be the worst performing G7 nation in the foreseeable future.
It may be naïve, but I don't suppose voters could care less about what is going on in France and Germany if they are unable to put food on the table or fuel in the tank in the UK. Incumbency means taking the rough with the smooth.
I think they're planning a full-on culture war election. It'll be horrid to witness for all of sound mind and good character but they're probably right to see this as their best chance to win.
I honestly think an autumn election this year is a very real proposition. We know that things are going to get an awful lot worse for people through the winter. We know that this government has no answers and worse than that simply doesn't care.
Further more, Tory plotters aren't going away, and the investigations into Boris and bungs and lies and malfeasance are going on and on and on. Either he will be out on his ear, or they will lose a 2024 election. So screw it, go for broke. Boris works best in campaign mode anyway. Turn up somewhere, make a prat of yourself in front of the cameras, say something populist without much scrutiny, say the opposition want to drown small Afghan children etc etc.
Listening to the vox pops in Tiverton and Honiton on R4 WATO. If a party comes up with removing the franchise from the terminally stupid I'm in. "Boris is doing his best". "Boris has had difficult things like Brexit to deal with".
People you don't agree with in other words.
That's about the measure of it.
Do you believe "Boris is doing his best"? Right, I'll add you to the list.
Presumably the Bank of England financial models suggest that inflation is only transitory. So as interest rate increases only has an impact on inflation in around 2 years time and that inflation then is back to "normal" it is not worth increasing rates now? The problem is whether the model is correct and whether the risk is on the upside or downside.
34. In the MPC’s central projections in the May Monetary Policy Report, UK GDP growth had been expected to slow sharply over the first half of the forecast period and, although the labour market had been expected to tighten slightly further in the near term, the unemployment rate had been projected to rise to 5½% in three years’ time. CPI inflation had been expected to average slightly over 10% at its peak in 2022 Q4. Conditioned on the rising market-implied path for Bank Rate at that time and the MPC’s forecasting convention for future energy prices, CPI inflation had been projected to fall to a little above the 2% target in two years’ time, largely reflecting the waning influence of external factors, and to be well below the target in three years, mainly reflecting weaker domestic pressures. The risks to the inflation projection had been judged to be skewed to the upside at these points.
6-3 for 0.25% with 3 voting for 0.5%. That's very likely to be the BoE forming the bulk of the majority and the outsiders wanting more radical action.
As inflation bounds ahead the real rate of interest, of course, becomes more and more radically negative. An increase of 0.25% and then a delay of 2 months means that our monetary policy is in fact becoming even looser at a time of very high and increasing inflation. The hope is that these external factors are transitory but in the meantime we will see wages, food prices and pretty much everything else going up. To be blunt, I really cannot follow the logic of the majority.
What on Earth do they do, when the Fed adds 75bps more to the US$ base rate next month?
At some point reality will hit them on the arse, and we’ll end up seeing 150bps in one go. That will wake everyone up.
Let's crack on with the 500bp now and then another 500bp if that doesn't work.
We have highest inflation since 1980 and we need a 1980 approach to deal with it 15% interest rates now!
Listening to the vox pops in Tiverton and Honiton on R4 WATO. If a party comes up with removing the franchise from the terminally stupid I'm in. "Boris is doing his best". "Boris has had difficult things like Brexit to deal with".
People you don't agree with in other words.
That's about the measure of it.
Do you believe "Boris is doing his best"? Right, I'll add you to the list.
He may actually be doing his best... unfortunately, his best is utterly terrible.
Well firstly a lot of people pay a lot more than the loss leader £1 slot. £5 is pretty standard or you pay equivalent of a type of subscription. But also vast economy of scale and also you aren't ever ordering £5 of shopping, most people are ordering say £100 weekly shop 40 odd weeks of the year, so lots of profit margin in that. Same way as Amazon offer "free" delivery.
Also, the likes of Ocado, the picking is basically all automated by robots in purpose built facilities.
There's a minimum purchase of £40 to get the £1 rate (no subscription needed), but it's always available, 7 days a week, if you're not too worried about it coming in the evening. And if it's a loss leader it's a very persistent one - they've been doing it for years now. I think it's just a cross-subsidy, but my point is that it's such a bargain that it will erode supermarkets for physical sale, in the same way that bookshops have been eroded by Amazon.
Sure, if you're in the supermarket you can examine a banana and ponder whether it's green enough, just as in a bookshop you can browse. But busy people choose speed and convenience every time.
You would have thought that a bit like WFH, after massive uptick in online food shopping during COVID, that would led to a similar revolution to Amazon and book stores. I might be wrong, but fairly certain I read that hasn't been the case, as soon as restrictions were lessened / COVID levels dropped, people were steaming back down to the physical locations.
My wife loves delivery for bulk or dry goods, but always goes to the physical shop for fruit & veg, fresh meat, salads, dairy etc. mostly because the delivery guys pick out the crap or nearly-out-of-date versions of fresh produce.
We will compete alongside the grocers, butchers, fishmongers and delis, not replace them.
I'm always suspicious of vox pops. We spoke to 200 people and found 2 points of view, both of which we have represented.
The fact that 198 of those people may have said "he's a bloviating meat sack" and 2 said "he is our new messiah" while on their way to their constituency party meeting is neither here nor there; we represented the opinions presented.
One of the most dispiriting things about working briefly at the BBC was being required to treat people like Daniel Hannan as fully qualified counterweights to informed & expert contributors. The damage done to our country by such false equivalence will be with us for generations.
Listening to the vox pops in Tiverton and Honiton on R4 WATO. If a party comes up with removing the franchise from the terminally stupid I'm in. "Boris is doing his best". "Boris has had difficult things like Brexit to deal with".
People you don't agree with in other words.
That's about the measure of it.
Do you believe "Boris is doing his best"? Right, I'll add you to the list.
It's possible to believe that Johnson is, in fact, doing his absolute best; we can expect no more from him.
And also to believe that he is a bloviating meat sack.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Interesting that an ex-Labour MP doesn't know the answer.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
Why doesn't that argument apply in Germany. I rented off a private landlord there - and they rented a nicer place off some other private landlord.
Customary usage. One German chap of my aquaintance has invested heavily in property for his retirement fund. But he still rents his own property. When I asked him why he didn't move into one of the places that he owns - he actually scratched his head at that one for a bit.
It may be discrimination with respect to benefits people, but I reckon a ton of landlords are gonna pull out of this now. More hassle than worth. There will be consolidation with the bigger boys i reckon as someone mentioned.
Well firstly a lot of people pay a lot more than the loss leader £1 slot. £5 is pretty standard or you pay equivalent of a type of subscription. But also vast economy of scale and also you aren't ever ordering £5 of shopping, most people are ordering say £100 weekly shop 40 odd weeks of the year, so lots of profit margin in that. Same way as Amazon offer "free" delivery.
Also, the likes of Ocado, the picking is basically all automated by robots in purpose built facilities.
There's a minimum purchase of £40 to get the £1 rate (no subscription needed), but it's always available, 7 days a week, if you're not too worried about it coming in the evening. And if it's a loss leader it's a very persistent one - they've been doing it for years now. I think it's just a cross-subsidy, but my point is that it's such a bargain that it will erode supermarkets for physical sale, in the same way that bookshops have been eroded by Amazon.
Sure, if you're in the supermarket you can examine a banana and ponder whether it's green enough, just as in a bookshop you can browse. But busy people choose speed and convenience every time.
You would have thought that a bit like WFH, after massive uptick in online food shopping during COVID, that would led to a similar revolution to Amazon and book stores. I might be wrong, but fairly certain I read that hasn't been the case, as soon as restrictions were lessened / COVID levels dropped, people were steaming back down to the physical locations.
My wife loves delivery for bulk or dry goods, but always goes to the physical shop for fruit & veg, fresh meat, salads, dairy etc. mostly because the delivery guys pick out the crap or nearly-out-of-date versions of fresh produce.
Indeed. Back to the days of the old veg stall - you were/are always wise to pick your own.
Bulk ordering dry/canned goods without substitutions is where online shopping works. Which is rather close to the Amazon model, really.
Well firstly a lot of people pay a lot more than the loss leader £1 slot. £5 is pretty standard or you pay equivalent of a type of subscription. But also vast economy of scale and also you aren't ever ordering £5 of shopping, most people are ordering say £100 weekly shop 40 odd weeks of the year, so lots of profit margin in that. Same way as Amazon offer "free" delivery.
Also, the likes of Ocado, the picking is basically all automated by robots in purpose built facilities.
There's a minimum purchase of £40 to get the £1 rate (no subscription needed), but it's always available, 7 days a week, if you're not too worried about it coming in the evening. And if it's a loss leader it's a very persistent one - they've been doing it for years now. I think it's just a cross-subsidy, but my point is that it's such a bargain that it will erode supermarkets for physical sale, in the same way that bookshops have been eroded by Amazon.
Sure, if you're in the supermarket you can examine a banana and ponder whether it's green enough, just as in a bookshop you can browse. But busy people choose speed and convenience every time.
You would have thought that a bit like WFH, after massive uptick in online food shopping during COVID, that would led to a similar revolution to Amazon and book stores. I might be wrong, but fairly certain I read that hasn't been the case, as soon as restrictions were lessened / COVID levels dropped, people were steaming back down to the physical locations.
My wife loves delivery for bulk or dry goods, but always goes to the physical shop for fruit & veg, fresh meat, salads, dairy etc. mostly because the delivery guys pick out the crap or nearly-out-of-date versions of fresh produce.
The other factor is substitutions. There are plenty of things that I have in mind that what I really want to buy is item X - but if they're sold out I'd take item Y, then Z (and possibly then A, then B...). That's something that's difficult even to communicate to a spouse, let alone a random picker on the supermarket shop floor (if they gave you an option. Which they don't).
Substitutions is the absolute worst thing about online food shopping. You literally don't know until it arrives and you might have been really needing something (or looking forward to it) and then they don't have it. I think that really sours a lot of people's experience.
Any other online shopping experience doing that, they wouldn't survive.
I'm always suspicious of vox pops. We spoke to 200 people and found 2 points of view, both of which we have represented.
The fact that 198 of those people may have said "he's a bloviating meat sack" and 2 said "he is our new messiah" while on their way to their constituency party meeting is neither here nor there; we represented the opinions presented.
One of the most dispiriting things about working briefly at the BBC was being required to treat people like Daniel Hannan as fully qualified counterweights to informed & expert contributors. The damage done to our country by such false equivalence will be with us for generations.
Its funny, but Professor Robert Winston on Question Time asserted that biologically speaking there are two distinct sexes and only two, but that I guess is not a 'received scientific wisdom' O'Brien is likely to be affirming any time soon.
Not when O'Brien can advance the cause of the uninformed, that there are hundreds of sexes.
Listening to the vox pops in Tiverton and Honiton on R4 WATO. If a party comes up with removing the franchise from the terminally stupid I'm in. "Boris is doing his best". "Boris has had difficult things like Brexit to deal with".
People you don't agree with in other words.
That's about the measure of it.
Do you believe "Boris is doing his best"? Right, I'll add you to the list.
It's possible to believe that Johnson is, in fact, doing his absolute best; we can expect no more from him.
And also to believe that he is a bloviating meat sack.
I love how three people made the same point.
The issue is that if the bar for voting for someone is “they’re doing their best” then I genuinely doubt that this country is ever going to be well governed.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Interesting that an ex-Labour MP doesn't know the answer.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
Why doesn't that argument apply in Germany. I rented off a private landlord there - and they rented a nicer place off some other private landlord.
Customary usage. One German chap of my aquaintance has invested heavily in property for his retirement fund. But he still rents his own property. When I asked him why he didn't move into one of the places that he owns - he actually scratched his head at that one for a bit.
It may be discrimination with respect to benefits people, but I reckon a ton of landlords are gonna pull out of this now. More hassle than worth. There will be consolidation with the bigger boys i reckon as someone mentioned.
Maybe they'll build some decent 1920s and 30s style council housing stock for those of that cant afford to buy to rent for life. With some outside space and communal shops and services. Fantasy post of the day
Presumably the Bank of England financial models suggest that inflation is only transitory. So as interest rate increases only has an impact on inflation in around 2 years time and that inflation then is back to "normal" it is not worth increasing rates now? The problem is whether the model is correct and whether the risk is on the upside or downside.
34. In the MPC’s central projections in the May Monetary Policy Report, UK GDP growth had been expected to slow sharply over the first half of the forecast period and, although the labour market had been expected to tighten slightly further in the near term, the unemployment rate had been projected to rise to 5½% in three years’ time. CPI inflation had been expected to average slightly over 10% at its peak in 2022 Q4. Conditioned on the rising market-implied path for Bank Rate at that time and the MPC’s forecasting convention for future energy prices, CPI inflation had been projected to fall to a little above the 2% target in two years’ time, largely reflecting the waning influence of external factors, and to be well below the target in three years, mainly reflecting weaker domestic pressures. The risks to the inflation projection had been judged to be skewed to the upside at these points.
6-3 for 0.25% with 3 voting for 0.5%. That's very likely to be the BoE forming the bulk of the majority and the outsiders wanting more radical action.
As inflation bounds ahead the real rate of interest, of course, becomes more and more radically negative. An increase of 0.25% and then a delay of 2 months means that our monetary policy is in fact becoming even looser at a time of very high and increasing inflation. The hope is that these external factors are transitory but in the meantime we will see wages, food prices and pretty much everything else going up. To be blunt, I really cannot follow the logic of the majority.
What on Earth do they do, when the Fed adds 75bps more to the US$ base rate next month?
At some point reality will hit them on the arse, and we’ll end up seeing 150bps in one go. That will wake everyone up.
Let's crack on with the 500bp now and then another 500bp if that doesn't work.
We have highest inflation since 1980 and we need a 1980 approach to deal with it 15% interest rates now!
...says a man with no mortgage!
(And presumably, with no income source dependent on people with mortgages!)
Presumably the Bank of England financial models suggest that inflation is only transitory. So as interest rate increases only has an impact on inflation in around 2 years time and that inflation then is back to "normal" it is not worth increasing rates now? The problem is whether the model is correct and whether the risk is on the upside or downside.
34. In the MPC’s central projections in the May Monetary Policy Report, UK GDP growth had been expected to slow sharply over the first half of the forecast period and, although the labour market had been expected to tighten slightly further in the near term, the unemployment rate had been projected to rise to 5½% in three years’ time. CPI inflation had been expected to average slightly over 10% at its peak in 2022 Q4. Conditioned on the rising market-implied path for Bank Rate at that time and the MPC’s forecasting convention for future energy prices, CPI inflation had been projected to fall to a little above the 2% target in two years’ time, largely reflecting the waning influence of external factors, and to be well below the target in three years, mainly reflecting weaker domestic pressures. The risks to the inflation projection had been judged to be skewed to the upside at these points.
6-3 for 0.25% with 3 voting for 0.5%. That's very likely to be the BoE forming the bulk of the majority and the outsiders wanting more radical action.
As inflation bounds ahead the real rate of interest, of course, becomes more and more radically negative. An increase of 0.25% and then a delay of 2 months means that our monetary policy is in fact becoming even looser at a time of very high and increasing inflation. The hope is that these external factors are transitory but in the meantime we will see wages, food prices and pretty much everything else going up. To be blunt, I really cannot follow the logic of the majority.
Bailey doesn't want the blame for crushing the economy with aggressive interest rate increases.
He'd rather let inflation crush it with soaring costs, and avoid the blame.
Either way, its surely going to get crushed eventually, along with every advanced Western economy out there
What a shame if that happens on Boris Johnson's watch and as a consequence he is forced into ignominious retirement.
The giant cloud inside that silver lining for you is what happens after Biden.
Well firstly a lot of people pay a lot more than the loss leader £1 slot. £5 is pretty standard or you pay equivalent of a type of subscription. But also vast economy of scale and also you aren't ever ordering £5 of shopping, most people are ordering say £100 weekly shop 40 odd weeks of the year, so lots of profit margin in that. Same way as Amazon offer "free" delivery.
Also, the likes of Ocado, the picking is basically all automated by robots in purpose built facilities.
There's a minimum purchase of £40 to get the £1 rate (no subscription needed), but it's always available, 7 days a week, if you're not too worried about it coming in the evening. And if it's a loss leader it's a very persistent one - they've been doing it for years now. I think it's just a cross-subsidy, but my point is that it's such a bargain that it will erode supermarkets for physical sale, in the same way that bookshops have been eroded by Amazon.
Sure, if you're in the supermarket you can examine a banana and ponder whether it's green enough, just as in a bookshop you can browse. But busy people choose speed and convenience every time.
You would have thought that a bit like WFH, after massive uptick in online food shopping during COVID, that would led to a similar revolution to Amazon and book stores. I might be wrong, but fairly certain I read that hasn't been the case, as soon as restrictions were lessened / COVID levels dropped, people were steaming back down to the physical locations.
My wife loves delivery for bulk or dry goods, but always goes to the physical shop for fruit & veg, fresh meat, salads, dairy etc. mostly because the delivery guys pick out the crap or nearly-out-of-date versions of fresh produce.
The other factor is substitutions. There are plenty of things that I have in mind that what I really want to buy is item X - but if they're sold out I'd take item Y, then Z (and possibly then A, then B...). That's something that's difficult even to communicate to a spouse, let alone a random picker on the supermarket shop floor (if they gave you an option. Which they don't).
Substitutions is the absolute worst thing about online food shopping. You literally don't know until it arrives and you might have been really needing something (or looking forward to it) and then they don't have it. I think that really sours a lot of people's experience.
Any other online shopping experience doing that, they wouldn't survive.
You can always send the substitution back.
Or try Waitrose: no substitutions again yesterday in our weekly delivery.
Swiss central bank surprisingly raises interest rates by 50 basis points.
25pbs from the BoE is going to look like it’s not enough.
Black Wednesday in miniature.
It won’t be that bad, but central banks do seem all rather surprised that the massive amounts of money-printing that went on during the pandemic, have led to inflation down the line.
The next few years are going to be a long ride.
Who knew that keeping interest rates at stupidly low crisis levels for 13 years whilst printing money like they were playing monopoly could be problematic?
Looked at this way - we've been propped up artificially for 15 years and can do it no longer - a big crash is inevitable quite soon.
This is why I don't buy the @MarqueeMark analysis that a change of Conservative Prime Minister achieves a Conservative landslide.
I accept that a honeymoon follows a change of leader, but I can't see it overturning what looks like the worst economic picture since the 1970s.
Fear of Labournomics, cling to nurse effect. Not saying they will happen but they are factors to consider. As is some artificial display of being less in shit than the EU etc
...but aren't we forecast to be the worst performing G7 nation in the foreseeable future.
It may be naïve, but I don't suppose voters could care less about what is going on in France and Germany if they are unable to put food on the table or fuel in the tank in the UK. Incumbency means taking the rough with the smooth.
I think they're planning a full-on culture war election. It'll be horrid to witness for all of sound mind and good character but they're probably right to see this as their best chance to win.
We can year down every statue of Cecil Rhodes, dress up as drag queens, and no one will care whilst their children are developing rickets and the Kia is repossessed.
Well firstly a lot of people pay a lot more than the loss leader £1 slot. £5 is pretty standard or you pay equivalent of a type of subscription. But also vast economy of scale and also you aren't ever ordering £5 of shopping, most people are ordering say £100 weekly shop 40 odd weeks of the year, so lots of profit margin in that. Same way as Amazon offer "free" delivery.
Also, the likes of Ocado, the picking is basically all automated by robots in purpose built facilities.
There's a minimum purchase of £40 to get the £1 rate (no subscription needed), but it's always available, 7 days a week, if you're not too worried about it coming in the evening. And if it's a loss leader it's a very persistent one - they've been doing it for years now. I think it's just a cross-subsidy, but my point is that it's such a bargain that it will erode supermarkets for physical sale, in the same way that bookshops have been eroded by Amazon.
Sure, if you're in the supermarket you can examine a banana and ponder whether it's green enough, just as in a bookshop you can browse. But busy people choose speed and convenience every time.
You would have thought that a bit like WFH, after massive uptick in online food shopping during COVID, that would led to a similar revolution to Amazon and book stores. I might be wrong, but fairly certain I read that hasn't been the case, as soon as restrictions were lessened / COVID levels dropped, people were steaming back down to the physical locations.
My wife loves delivery for bulk or dry goods, but always goes to the physical shop for fruit & veg, fresh meat, salads, dairy etc. mostly because the delivery guys pick out the crap or nearly-out-of-date versions of fresh produce.
The other factor is substitutions. There are plenty of things that I have in mind that what I really want to buy is item X - but if they're sold out I'd take item Y, then Z (and possibly then A, then B...). That's something that's difficult even to communicate to a spouse, let alone a random picker on the supermarket shop floor (if they gave you an option. Which they don't).
Substitutions is the absolute worst thing about online food shopping. You literally don't know until it arrives and you might have been really needing something (or looking forward to it) and then they don't have it. I think that really sours a lot of people's experience.
Any other online shopping experience doing that, they wouldn't survive.
You can always send the substitution back.
Or try Waitrose: no substitutions again yesterday in our weekly delivery.
Sure, the point is it a hassle for people and sours the experience, hence why I don't see physical stores going the way of the bookshop anytime soon.
My elderly parents do online shopping, plus popping to the local Co-Op and that works great for them, but it isn't really a hassle if there is something missing and to walk down the road and pick it up whenever as they aren't at work, don't have kids around the house to sort out, etc.
Presumably the Bank of England financial models suggest that inflation is only transitory. So as interest rate increases only has an impact on inflation in around 2 years time and that inflation then is back to "normal" it is not worth increasing rates now? The problem is whether the model is correct and whether the risk is on the upside or downside.
34. In the MPC’s central projections in the May Monetary Policy Report, UK GDP growth had been expected to slow sharply over the first half of the forecast period and, although the labour market had been expected to tighten slightly further in the near term, the unemployment rate had been projected to rise to 5½% in three years’ time. CPI inflation had been expected to average slightly over 10% at its peak in 2022 Q4. Conditioned on the rising market-implied path for Bank Rate at that time and the MPC’s forecasting convention for future energy prices, CPI inflation had been projected to fall to a little above the 2% target in two years’ time, largely reflecting the waning influence of external factors, and to be well below the target in three years, mainly reflecting weaker domestic pressures. The risks to the inflation projection had been judged to be skewed to the upside at these points.
6-3 for 0.25% with 3 voting for 0.5%. That's very likely to be the BoE forming the bulk of the majority and the outsiders wanting more radical action.
As inflation bounds ahead the real rate of interest, of course, becomes more and more radically negative. An increase of 0.25% and then a delay of 2 months means that our monetary policy is in fact becoming even looser at a time of very high and increasing inflation. The hope is that these external factors are transitory but in the meantime we will see wages, food prices and pretty much everything else going up. To be blunt, I really cannot follow the logic of the majority.
What on Earth do they do, when the Fed adds 75bps more to the US$ base rate next month?
At some point reality will hit them on the arse, and we’ll end up seeing 150bps in one go. That will wake everyone up.
Let's crack on with the 500bp now and then another 500bp if that doesn't work.
We have highest inflation since 1980 and we need a 1980 approach to deal with it 15% interest rates now!
...says a man with no mortgage!
(And presumably, with no income source dependent on people with mortgages!)
Correct no mortgage. Paid it off a long time ago. Never paid less than 6% interest.
Current borrowing rates are Fantasy Island. There needs to be a readjustment to ensure that borrowers pay real positive interest rates.
But I will settle for a 5% interest rate increase for the time being 👍
Headline: Scotland to Europe ferry link 'to return in 2023'
Body: 'A statement of intent released by DFDS and Ptarmigan Shipping reads: “Ptarmigan Shipping and DFDS have signed an agreement with the intention to further investigate the possibility for a new ferry route between Rosyth and Zeebrugge"... SNP MP Douglas Chapman... [said] "I am hugely excited by this announcement of further investigating the possibility to start a direct freight service between Rosyth and Zeebrugge in 2023"'
If Dougie is hugely excited by an agreement to investigate the possibility of doing something, Dunfermline and West Fife must be duller than I'd anticipated.
Ever been there? It's not been the same since the mines closed, not to mention the naval dockyard. Or the paper mill. Amazon is almost as good as it gets.
I'm actually surprised it's not to run from Leith, but there may be some technical issue of which I am unaware. And of course Rosyth is mcuh easier of access, just off the M-way, than the middle ofr a large conurbation, even if the seaside road is relatively clear by Edinburgh standards - having two road bridges is a big help.
Comments
I was considering retiring as I'm not one for spending a lot of money and have accumulated a reasonable amount of savings despite not having a vast income, but it looks like it will all be worthless soon.
I suppose this is the wealth tax that everyone seemed to want...
So, why would that be a breech of the ministerial code? Feels like someone is making decisions they cannot make under undue / undeclared influence. Again. "I am taking bungs from rich donors to do their bidding" is what he thinks will play well in the red wall is it?
This new one might well be the only UK-Zeebrugge route.
He'd rather let inflation crush it with soaring costs, and avoid the blame.
Either way, its surely going to get crushed eventually, along with every advanced Western economy out there
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/buy-to-let/landlords-must-stop-no-fault-evictions-house-benefit-claimants/
Also, the likes of Ocado, the picking is basically all automated by robots in purpose built facilities.
It can’t work for £5 worth of goods though, anyone doing that is making a loss.
Edit: LOL, Mr Urquart makes the same point just above - using the same numbers!
Deliveries in one hour slots Tues-Thur, all it costs is £4 per month/£40 per year with Sainsbury's.
think that it is, is what leads to the "rescue" of dogs at the expense of brown people from Kabul.
Should never be allowed near office again.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
The fact that 198 of those people may have said "he's a bloviating meat sack" and 2 said "he is our new messiah" while on their way to their constituency party meeting is neither here nor there; we represented the opinions presented.
I write as a good socialist.
No commitment to hire a replacement.
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1537406806443671553
I warned specifically about the danger of treating people like Hannan as valid contributors to political discourse over four years ago. And here we are. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2018/03/media-impartiality-problem-when-ignorance-given-same-weight-expertise
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
The Govt should really consider bringing back the UC uplift to help the poorest in society.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/food-inflation-to-get-worse-over-summer-and-prices-to-stay-high-shoppers-warned/ar-AAYwF7q?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=15ed9741d22e40409492a2db26e58daf
Firstly you cannot be forced to rent to anyone you don’t want to . A landlord just has to say I had quite a few enquiries and had a difficult decision to make ......
https://www.propublica.org/article/georgia-dei-crt-schools-parents
Many mortgage payers are in for a nasty shock in the coming months, and I don't see how there won't be some distressed sellers emerging, what with the cost of everything else rocketing.
And finding anyone stupid enough to accept the role would be a tough task even for the king of persuasive bullshit.
Sure, if you're in the supermarket you can examine a banana and ponder whether it's green enough, just as in a bookshop you can browse. But busy people choose speed and convenience every time.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
Phonetic pun.
Rinse, repeat on a regular basis.
2016, we spoke to 200 people and found 2 points of view, both of which we have represented. 96 of those people said "Farage's a bloviating meat sack" and 104 said "he is our new messiah".
Value used to be the product range that nobody wanted to manufacture because there just isn't any profit in it. Lower volumes than standard tier, separate ingredients to stock, absurd low retail prices where the retailer still wants to make chunky profit on return.
I rented off a private landlord there - and they rented a nicer place off some other private landlord.
I know food isn't really your thing, but you will be surprised just how many people really do value for instance selecting their own produce, being able to browse the aisles for things they have never seen before, etc.
One thing that online food shopping hasn't really cracked is the fact that they offer massive amount of SKUs and if you try and navigate them online it really is quite a frustrating experience. Sure if you buy the same every week, you just repeat your order, but again a huge number of people really value the experience of food / drink and enjoy the opportunity to explore new options (which is very difficult via current websites).
One big difference with Amazon is you are normally looking for one specific item, and even if you aren't set on exactly what brand that item must be, yes massive choice, but you are going on there looking one thing, so looking through 10 options isn't that troublesome (and Amazon very good at recommendations etc). That is quite different from if you were trying to do the same every week for 100 different food items.
Do you believe "Boris is doing his best"? Right, I'll add you to the list.
Further more, Tory plotters aren't going away, and the investigations into Boris and bungs and lies and malfeasance are going on and on and on. Either he will be out on his ear, or they will lose a 2024 election. So screw it, go for broke. Boris works best in campaign mode anyway. Turn up somewhere, make a prat of yourself in front of the cameras, say something populist without much scrutiny, say the opposition want to drown small Afghan children etc etc.
We have highest inflation since 1980 and we need a 1980 approach to deal with it 15% interest rates now!
We're good at this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHVVKAKWXcg
And also to believe that he is a bloviating meat sack.
Bulk ordering dry/canned goods without substitutions is where online shopping works. Which is rather close to the Amazon model, really.
Any other online shopping experience doing that, they wouldn't survive.
Not when O'Brien can advance the cause of the uninformed, that there are hundreds of sexes.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/16/olaf-scholz-cant-deliver-promises-ukraine-giving-germany-credibility/
The issue is that if the bar for voting for someone is “they’re doing their best” then I genuinely doubt that this country is ever going to be well governed.
Fantasy post of the day
(And presumably, with no income source dependent on people with mortgages!)
Or try Waitrose: no substitutions again yesterday in our weekly delivery.
My elderly parents do online shopping, plus popping to the local Co-Op and that works great for them, but it isn't really a hassle if there is something missing and to walk down the road and pick it up whenever as they aren't at work, don't have kids around the house to sort out, etc.
Current borrowing rates are Fantasy Island. There needs to be a readjustment to ensure that borrowers pay real positive interest rates.
But I will settle for a 5% interest rate increase for the time being 👍
That Remainer worldview in full....
Not standing by Ukraine and doing deals to carve up the country with Putin..........Germany BAD!!!
Dragging Britain through the courts on the Northern Ireland Protocol......Germany GOOD!!!
I'm actually surprised it's not to run from Leith, but there may be some technical issue of which I am unaware. And of course Rosyth is mcuh easier of access, just off the M-way, than the middle ofr a large conurbation, even if the seaside road is relatively clear by Edinburgh standards - having two road bridges is a big help.