At least the very worse off are getting a Brexit payrise, though.
Do you have the same chart for Greeks, Germans and other Europeans?
Its entirely possible that people are having both a Brexit payrise and a decline in real wages considering there is huge global inflation - but that the decline in real wages would have been much worse without their Brexit payrise to help cushion the blow.
Inflation is eroding real wages everywhere.
What I can't get my head around is that the median US worker is hardly paid more than thirty years ago, in real terms, despite economic growth over that period. It's worth noting that US growth per head has only been slightly higher than our own, over that period, but a bit more of our growth has filtered down to median workers than in the US.
Yet they will still be far better off than median UK workers for certain
The UK median is dragged down by the turnip eating cretins North of the border.
Probably not as Scottish per capita GDP is around the UK average and higher than in Wales, Northern Ireland and most regions of England outside London and the SE.
But this is being driven by international gilt rates as the dragon of inflation has once again got loose. The ECB has said that it will be increasing rates by 0.75% at its next meeting and the Fed is clearly not finished yet. Even the BoE will get the message after the last couple of weeks. The days of extremely cheap mortgages have come to an end. This is probably a good thing but obviously uncomfortable for those who assumed it would go on forever.
At least the very worse off are getting a Brexit payrise, though.
Do you have the same chart for Greeks, Germans and other Europeans?
Its entirely possible that people are having both a Brexit payrise and a decline in real wages considering there is huge global inflation - but that the decline in real wages would have been much worse without their Brexit payrise to help cushion the blow.
Inflation is eroding real wages everywhere.
What I can't get my head around is that the median US worker is hardly paid more than thirty years ago, in real terms, despite economic growth over that period. It's worth noting that US growth per head has only been slightly higher than our own, over that period, but a bit more of our growth has filtered down to median workers than in the US.
Yet they will still be far better off than median UK workers for certain
The UK median is dragged down by the turnip eating cretins North of the border.
Probably not as Scottish per capita GDP is around the UK average and higher than in Wales, Northern Ireland and most regions of England outside London and the SE.
But this is being driven by international gilt rates as the dragon of inflation has once again got loose. The ECB has said that it will be increasing rates by 0.75% at its next meeting and the Fed is clearly not finished yet. Even the BoE will get the message after the last couple of weeks. The days of extremely cheap mortgages have come to an end. This is probably a good thing but obviously uncomfortable for those who assumed it would go on forever.
You are right. This is a global problem, not a UK one.
The trouble is, when you say "uncomfortable for those who thought this would go on forever" you essentially mean "anyone who has bought a house in the last decade". And that is so many people, its effects on the wider economy will be ruinous. At the very least, it probably means most people aged 30-50 will have approximately zero discretionary income for the foreseeable.
I am fully in agreement with you both that people should use their savings to look after themselves, rather than for inheritance.
But we do want to avoid a situation where Edmund (77 years old, and in increasingly poor health) is pressured by his children to hand over his assets now, so as to avoid the State stripping them from him to pay for care.
We do that by having the capacity to recover the gratuitous alienation to Edmund's voracious offspring. It is perfectly common to do this in the event of insolvency or even transfers made to defeat divorce claims. To a limited extent it exists already.
Mr. Roberts, do you take that view for medical care as well?
No, because care homes and medical care aren't the same thing. Even if there's a connection in dementia.
If someone has eg cancer or cystic fibrosis or whatever and is getting medical treatment but living at home they still need to pay for their own home, their own utility bills, their own food, transportation etc, etc
If someone is in a residential care home, then that is all covered by the care home bills. You don't need your own home if you're never returning to it, your utility bills, food etc are all in the care home fees.
Stopping the home from being sold does nothing whatsoever for the person who used to live in that home. If its to protect an inheritance, well I'm sorry, but the taxpayer should not be on the hook to fund anyone's inheritances.
People who are in a care home for eg two weeks for respite/recovery while discharged from an NHS hospital to free a bed up before returning to their own home, I'd absolutely say should be covered by the NHS.
Borderline fascist disregard for people's feelings there, Bart. For people in homes it is not always cut and dried that they will never return home and even if it is a huge number cling to the illusion that it is not the case that they are only leaving the care home in a coffin.
I'd agree that Hunt's apparent embrace of Osbornian austerity is a bad thing, and that we should still aim at growth. I'm damned if I can see what "the left" has to do with this.
The argument - which is plausible but not decisive IMV - is that in achieving a significant but tactical victory over Truss (forcing her to retreat before the power of the markets), Labour has highlighted the debt challenges the country faces and will make it harder for them to increase public spending as they might otherwise have intended
I think its down to immediate demand, a lot of demand earlier has now left less immediate delivery needs. Futures prices though are not falling quite as fast.
Basically: Europe's storage facilities are nearly full, and therefore demand is much less. As Europe starts drawing down on those stored stocks during winter, the price will sadly rise again.
Also note that there are apparently 35 LNG ships stuck off the cost of Spain, as they cannot get into port to offload...
Yes: I know some people who are being absolutely hammered right now. They'd bet that the weather would be colder, the wind less strong, and that Europe's gas storage would be getting hit.
But it's not turned out that way yet. Right now, Europe is still filling LNG facilities.
It is incredibly infuriating that ED DAVEY allowed the Rough gas storage facility to close, for want of a very small subsidy when he was a Minister. If he had not, the UK could have picked up a couple of cargoes and those ships could be heading back to Qatar and Texas to pick up their next loads. It would have been good for the UK, good for the EU, and good for Ukraine/
I thought Rough was closed in 2017/2018, at least 2 years after the election.
That was when storage contracts came to an end. The decision not to subsidize Rough was Davey's. To be fair, this was a period when there were very serious pressures on every government department to save money.
But this is being driven by international gilt rates as the dragon of inflation has once again got loose. The ECB has said that it will be increasing rates by 0.75% at its next meeting and the Fed is clearly not finished yet. Even the BoE will get the message after the last couple of weeks. The days of extremely cheap mortgages have come to an end. This is probably a good thing but obviously uncomfortable for those who assumed it would go on forever.
You are right. This is a global problem, not a UK one.
The trouble is, when you say "uncomfortable for those who thought this would go on forever" you essentially mean "anyone who has bought a house in the last decade". And that is so many people, its effects on the wider economy will be ruinous. At the very least, it probably means most people aged 30-50 will have approximately zero discretionary income for the foreseeable.
That will depend on the ratio between mortgage costs and increased nominal wages. With inflation at 10% wages are heading in the same direction. When I bought my first property that is what happened to me. It was eye wateringly tight for the first few months but wage increases gradually made the mortgage less significant. My parents, a more extreme example, found their "large" mortgage had been inflated away to such an extent they just paid it off. Consumer spending, and GDP, will be hit for the initial period but new buyers will take out lower multiples and we will adjust.
Per The Times: Hunt will postpone cap on Social Care costs.
Good. The oldies (and their heirs) need to pay their way.
Nah - you should protect against catastrophic risk. Care costs about £50k per year (between about £850 p/w for public funding and can be substantially higher for private).
Most people spend 18-24 months in a home at the outside (people like to spend as long as possible at home). But sad cases - especially Alzheimer’s - can be 10+ years in a home.
It’s reasonable to set a cap (say at £150k) *and* minimum of 2 years at which point the state steps in as insurer of last resort (or you could require people to take out insurance for years 2-5). Otherwise you can end up with people bankrupted through bad luck (in which case the state pays for them anyway).
What's wrong with people getting bankrupted?
If they run out of money, they run out of money, but the taxpayer shouldn't be on the hook to prevent that.
They're at the end of their life and can't take it with them, anyway. And if you have a cap it should be that the final x amount of your savings are protected, not that the first x amount won't be.
It's perverse to say someone with £1mn in assets must only pay £150k to avoid being bankrupted, with the taxpayer then covering their £850k after that, while saying someone with £200k (more than the mean House price in much of the Nort) should also pay £150k.
To step back a bit, bankruptcy in general is a mechanism by which the state absorbs the costs of someone running out of money. It means an individual isn’t pursued in perpetuity for money and can re-build, with the state telling debtors they have to lump it. I wondered if you disapproved of the very concept of bankruptcy, given it’s anti-libertarian?
No. The debtors just have to lump it and should be more careful.
I'm a libertarian not an anarchist, I dont think there should be no state or no rules at all.
I would oppose the state (read: taxpayer) stepping in to pay so the debtors don't lump it.
At least the very worse off are getting a Brexit payrise, though.
Do you have the same chart for Greeks, Germans and other Europeans?
Its entirely possible that people are having both a Brexit payrise and a decline in real wages considering there is huge global inflation - but that the decline in real wages would have been much worse without their Brexit payrise to help cushion the blow.
Inflation is eroding real wages everywhere.
What I can't get my head around is that the median US worker is hardly paid more than thirty years ago, in real terms, despite economic growth over that period. It's worth noting that US growth per head has only been slightly higher than our own, over that period, but a bit more of our growth has filtered down to median workers than in the US.
Yet they will still be far better off than median UK workers for certain
The UK median is dragged down by the turnip eating cretins North of the border.
Probably not as Scottish per capita GDP is around the UK average and higher than in Wales, Northern Ireland and most regions of England outside London and the SE.
At least the very worse off are getting a Brexit payrise, though.
Do you have the same chart for Greeks, Germans and other Europeans?
Its entirely possible that people are having both a Brexit payrise and a decline in real wages considering there is huge global inflation - but that the decline in real wages would have been much worse without their Brexit payrise to help cushion the blow.
Inflation is eroding real wages everywhere.
What I can't get my head around is that the median US worker is hardly paid more than thirty years ago, in real terms, despite economic growth over that period. It's worth noting that US growth per head has only been slightly higher than our own, over that period, but a bit more of our growth has filtered down to median workers than in the US.
Yet they will still be far better off than median UK workers for certain
The UK median is dragged down by the turnip eating cretins North of the border.
Probably not as Scottish per capita GDP is around the UK average and higher than in Wales, Northern Ireland and most regions of England outside London and the SE.
How is it hindsight when everyone including Sunak pointed out the likely consequences ?
It's an idiotic line anyway. Almost as stupid as the Tory drones going round praising the 'bravery' and 'honesty' of Truss in recognising that she was the driver responsible for the car crash - and then saying that makes her the right person to continue as PM.
But this is being driven by international gilt rates as the dragon of inflation has once again got loose. The ECB has said that it will be increasing rates by 0.75% at its next meeting and the Fed is clearly not finished yet. Even the BoE will get the message after the last couple of weeks. The days of extremely cheap mortgages have come to an end. This is probably a good thing but obviously uncomfortable for those who assumed it would go on forever.
I have limited sympathy for those people on variable or short rate deals. Particularly those who would have wondered what on earth I was doing fixing for 10 years (now 5.5 years left at 2.49%) and paying a higher rate as a result. The answer to why is very clear to them now.
House price inflation has been driven by people taking on very large mortgages which were only affordable if rates stayed at historical lows. Unfortunately many people will now get into serious difficulty paying for them. As sorry as I am for them personally they were taking a gamble. That gamble has now come back to bite them.
Personally I think we should have more of a culture of taking out fixed rate mortgages for the duration of them like I believe happens in the US.
At least the very worse off are getting a Brexit payrise, though.
Do you have the same chart for Greeks, Germans and other Europeans?
Its entirely possible that people are having both a Brexit payrise and a decline in real wages considering there is huge global inflation - but that the decline in real wages would have been much worse without their Brexit payrise to help cushion the blow.
Inflation is eroding real wages everywhere.
What I can't get my head around is that the median US worker is hardly paid more than thirty years ago, in real terms, despite economic growth over that period. It's worth noting that US growth per head has only been slightly higher than our own, over that period, but a bit more of our growth has filtered down to median workers than in the US.
Yet they will still be far better off than median UK workers for certain
The UK median is dragged down by the turnip eating cretins North of the border.
Probably not as Scottish per capita GDP is around the UK average and higher than in Wales, Northern Ireland and most regions of England outside London and the SE.
Mr Gove said the role of Ms Truss’s boss was “now a job share between Jeremy Hunt and the bond market”. He also said “we all know now” Ms Truss had the nickname “the human hand grenade”.
Mr Gove said “absolutely right [that Truss will go]”, adding: “The question for any leader is: what happens when the programme or the platform on which you secured the leadership has been shredded.”
He also cited Dante in saying: “After hell comes purgatory and paradise.”
Mr Gove later said that [these remarks] had been given under so-called Chatham House rules, which means not to be quoted, but did not dispute their accuracy.
Perhaps Mr. Cleverly could tell us what the focus group said in advance of the mini-budget?
I mean, they did focus group this stuff, didn't they?
What fundamentals were right?
The 2019 Tory Manifesto promised a balanced budget so fundamental 1 has to be a balanced budget. Cutting Corporation tax and the 45% band without confirmation from the OBR that the budget was still balanced doesn't exactly show the fundamentals were right.
At least the very worse off are getting a Brexit payrise, though.
Do you have the same chart for Greeks, Germans and other Europeans?
Its entirely possible that people are having both a Brexit payrise and a decline in real wages considering there is huge global inflation - but that the decline in real wages would have been much worse without their Brexit payrise to help cushion the blow.
Inflation is eroding real wages everywhere.
What I can't get my head around is that the median US worker is hardly paid more than thirty years ago, in real terms, despite economic growth over that period. It's worth noting that US growth per head has only been slightly higher than our own, over that period, but a bit more of our growth has filtered down to median workers than in the US.
Yet they will still be far better off than median UK workers for certain
The UK median is dragged down by the turnip eating cretins North of the border.
Probably not as Scottish per capita GDP is around the UK average and higher than in Wales, Northern Ireland and most regions of England outside London and the SE.
Well, if you'd actually bothered to spend some time on the site recently, I probably would have resisted the urge to tease you.
But no. You'd rather hang out in "real life".
Let me tell you this: real life sucks. Political Betting is so much better. The people are nicer. The conversation more intelligent. Nobody yells at you. Or at least, nobody yells at me, because I can always ban them.
Labour will today use an opposition day debate to force a vote on the immediate publication of the OBR forecasts - rather than waiting another fortnight - as well as government documents on how much a further energy windfall tax could raise https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1582626052366823424
Hunt not ruling out canning the triple lock for a second year running. I think if he does both benefits and state pension benefits by the same number it's unfairly fair.
He also has the opportunity to be completely radical and look at a state pension taper, shifting the burden of wage subsidies onto companies with a big rise in the minimum wage and canning working tax credits entirely.
I really hope that he uses this golden opportunity to rebalance the UK economy away from rentseeking and towards risk taking.
I'd agree that Hunt's apparent embrace of Osbornian austerity is a bad thing, and that we should still aim at growth. I'm damned if I can see what "the left" has to do with this.
The argument - which is plausible but not decisive IMV - is that in achieving a significant but tactical victory over Truss (forcing her to retreat before the power of the markets), Labour has highlighted the debt challenges the country faces and will make it harder for them to increase public spending as they might otherwise have intended
Not really it means you introduce a wealth tax (in replacement of council tax / stamp duty) and that gives them a few years to spend money.
When I was flagging the food price inflation tsunami months ago I recall various posters pooh-poohing it as 'prices in Waitrose are ok' or words to that effect
When I was flagging the food price inflation tsunami months ago I recall various posters pooh-poohing it as 'prices in Waitrose are ok' or words to that effect
14.6% seems rather on the low end for a lot of things actually.
Milk, eggs etc seem to have increased by a third or more.
Per The Times: Hunt will postpone cap on Social Care costs.
Good. The oldies (and their heirs) need to pay their way.
Nah - you should protect against catastrophic risk. Care costs about £50k per year (between about £850 p/w for public funding and can be substantially higher for private).
Most people spend 18-24 months in a home at the outside (people like to spend as long as possible at home). But sad cases - especially Alzheimer’s - can be 10+ years in a home.
It’s reasonable to set a cap (say at £150k) *and* minimum of 2 years at which point the state steps in as insurer of last resort (or you could require people to take out insurance for years 2-5). Otherwise you can end up with people bankrupted through bad luck (in which case the state pays for them anyway).
They won't be bankrupted, but they may need to a cheaper, publicly run home funded by the LA once the money runs out.
But I have never got this about the cap: why is it more important to protect some peoples' (chosen at random) inheritance than the public purse? Why should we pay when there is money left in the estate to pay? The cap was going to be paid by the NI increases, that is by current working people under retirement age so that a very small percentage of them could receive hundreds of thousands of pounds from the family home. If people want to be sure of this they should buy insurance. I don't see why the state becomes "insurer of last resort" for those who choose not to.
In practice the obligation of care means that neither the care hone nor the local authority wants the resident to move homes. Typically it ends up with the LA paying a slightly discounted rate (but not the usual LA rate for fully private homes - for mixed homes they switch straight to the LA rate)
The issue is that the vast majority (high 90s %) of people are under 2 years but that a small number can be very many years. That’s not an insurable risk at an economic price.
The argument for the government providing catastrophe insurance is whether it is good for society that someone who has saved and done all the right things should be bankrupted by bad luck.
That’s why I like the model of first 2 years you pay for yourself, years 3-5 by insurance and >5 by society
Mr Gove said the role of Ms Truss’s boss was “now a job share between Jeremy Hunt and the bond market”. He also said “we all know now” Ms Truss had the nickname “the human hand grenade”.
Mr Gove said “absolutely right [that Truss will go]”, adding: “The question for any leader is: what happens when the programme or the platform on which you secured the leadership has been shredded.”
He also cited Dante in saying: “After hell comes purgatory and paradise.”
Mr Gove later said that [these remarks] had been given under so-called Chatham House rules, which means not to be quoted, but did not dispute their accuracy.
That might be the arrangement of the cantos in the Divine Comedy, but it sure ain't the actual eschatological trajectory. If the soul ends up in Hell, that's it.
When I was flagging the food price inflation tsunami months ago I recall various posters pooh-poohing it as 'prices in Waitrose are ok' or words to that effect
I can confirm that a lot of prices in Waitrose have gone up this year!
Hunt not ruling out canning the triple lock for a second year running. I think if he does both benefits and state pension benefits by the same number it's unfairly fair.
He also has the opportunity to be completely radical and look at a state pension taper, shifting the burden of wage subsidies onto companies with a big rise in the minimum wage and canning working tax credits entirely.
I really hope that he uses this golden opportunity to rebalance the UK economy away from rentseeking and towards risk taking.
Rentseeking is the very essence of old skool Toryism. I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you.
ANALYSIS: It may only be her third PMQs, but today is a huge test for a PM trying to survive. And she’ll have to do it against backdrop of worsening inflation figures & an emerging rebellion over triple lock.
Meanwhile, talks cont amongst MPs on options for removing/replacing Truss. One figure told me y’day there was talk of making the nomination threshold to replace her so high (p/hps even 1/3 parly party) to try land on a unity candidate (Hunt/Mordaunt/Sunak?) All v difficult.. 2/
Per The Times: Hunt will postpone cap on Social Care costs.
Good. The oldies (and their heirs) need to pay their way.
Nah - you should protect against catastrophic risk. Care costs about £50k per year (between about £850 p/w for public funding and can be substantially higher for private).
Most people spend 18-24 months in a home at the outside (people like to spend as long as possible at home). But sad cases - especially Alzheimer’s - can be 10+ years in a home.
It’s reasonable to set a cap (say at £150k) *and* minimum of 2 years at which point the state steps in as insurer of last resort (or you could require people to take out insurance for years 2-5). Otherwise you can end up with people bankrupted through bad luck (in which case the state pays for them anyway).
They won't be bankrupted, but they may need to a cheaper, publicly run home funded by the LA once the money runs out.
But I have never got this about the cap: why is it more important to protect some peoples' (chosen at random) inheritance than the public purse? Why should we pay when there is money left in the estate to pay? The cap was going to be paid by the NI increases, that is by current working people under retirement age so that a very small percentage of them could receive hundreds of thousands of pounds from the family home. If people want to be sure of this they should buy insurance. I don't see why the state becomes "insurer of last resort" for those who choose not to.
In practice the obligation of care means that neither the care hone nor the local authority wants the resident to move homes. Typically it ends up with the LA paying a slightly discounted rate (but not the usual LA rate for fully private homes - for mixed homes they switch straight to the LA rate)
The issue is that the vast majority (high 90s %) of people are under 2 years but that a small number can be very many years. That’s not an insurable risk at an economic price.
The argument for the government providing catastrophe insurance is whether it is good for society that someone who has saved and done all the right things should be bankrupted by bad luck.
That’s why I like the model of first 2 years you pay for yourself, years 3-5 by insurance and >5 by society
Where else is this "catastrophe insurance" you speak of also provided by the taxpayer?
If your uninsured home or business gets flooded in a catastrophe does the taxpayer foot the bill?
If your business goes bankrupt losing you your life savings that you'd put into it, does the taxpayer foot the bill?
Per The Times: Hunt will postpone cap on Social Care costs.
Good. The oldies (and their heirs) need to pay their way.
Nah - you should protect against catastrophic risk. Care costs about £50k per year (between about £850 p/w for public funding and can be substantially higher for private).
Most people spend 18-24 months in a home at the outside (people like to spend as long as possible at home). But sad cases - especially Alzheimer’s - can be 10+ years in a home.
It’s reasonable to set a cap (say at £150k) *and* minimum of 2 years at which point the state steps in as insurer of last resort (or you could require people to take out insurance for years 2-5). Otherwise you can end up with people bankrupted through bad luck (in which case the state pays for them anyway).
What's wrong with people getting bankrupted?
If they run out of money, they run out of money, but the taxpayer shouldn't be on the hook to prevent that.
They're at the end of their life and can't take it with them, anyway. And if you have a cap it should be that the final x amount of your savings are protected, not that the first x amount won't be.
It's perverse to say someone with £1mn in assets must only pay £150k to avoid being bankrupted, with the taxpayer then covering their £850k after that, while saying someone with £200k (more than the mean House price in much of the Nort) should also pay £150k.
To step back a bit, bankruptcy in general is a mechanism by which the state absorbs the costs of someone running out of money. It means an individual isn’t pursued in perpetuity for money and can re-build, with the state telling debtors they have to lump it. I wondered if you disapproved of the very concept of bankruptcy, given it’s anti-libertarian?
No. The debtors just have to lump it and should be more careful.
I'm a libertarian not an anarchist, I dont think there should be no state or no rules at all.
I would oppose the state (read: taxpayer) stepping in to pay so the debtors don't lump it.
But if someone subsequently, post-bankruptcy, makes lots of money, you’re OK with the state telling the debtors that they can’t have any of that?
Senior Tory MPs have told Express.co.uk it is “now common knowledge” that Mr Hunt is organising a reshuffle of Ms Truss’ ministerial team.
Doesn't Truss have to go for her own self-respect now?
It's almost as if she has a different reaction to humiliation than most of the population....
I read on Twitter yesterday (I know, I know) that Brady told her she’d have to go but not until after a replacement was agreed. The internet, esp Twitter, being the infallible place it is, that must be right.
The basic truth here is that, rather than being a seething mass of vipers, Conservative MPs actually hate removing their leaders and only put a letter in when they feel they have no choice. Equally Cabinet Ministers loathe being the first to move, they've seen how the disloyalty tag is bandied.
- Heseltine's resignation, an event now put into history as the beginning of the end, occurred just shy of 5 years before Thatcher's resignation and moves to oust her took around a year to culminate. - It was 8 months from first suggestion of a VoNC to remove IDS. - The timescales for May and Johnson are not dissimilar.
A lot of Tory MPs will be wondering if there is any way of avoiding this. Can a more administrative government settle the polls a bit? It is clear Truss is suffering some b kind of nervous condition, but can she stabilise it? (Johnson also looked terrible at times from very early in his PMship for very different reasons). Can she be the effective front person in an election campaign?
It is the likely negative response to the last question that will determine her fate, but history say it won't be an easy decision for any MP to get there.
I'd agree that Hunt's apparent embrace of Osbornian austerity is a bad thing, and that we should still aim at growth. I'm damned if I can see what "the left" has to do with this.
The argument - which is plausible but not decisive IMV - is that in achieving a significant but tactical victory over Truss (forcing her to retreat before the power of the markets), Labour has highlighted the debt challenges the country faces and will make it harder for them to increase public spending as they might otherwise have intended
Not really it means you introduce a wealth tax (in replacement of council tax / stamp Lduty) and that gives them a few years to spend money.
Doesn’t raise as a much as you think - from memory a 1% rate net of stamp duty and council tax raises about £40-50bn. Meaningful but still less than half the deficit
I am starting to think that Jeremy Hunt really has the best long-term interests of the country at heart, rather than personal popularity.
If so, the surprising thing would be that he's got so far in the party, not that he'd never be elected leader by the members.
Maybe he realises the party’s over at the next election (metaphorically and possibly literally) and wants to clean up some of the mess before the adults get back.
When I was flagging the food price inflation tsunami months ago I recall various posters pooh-poohing it as 'prices in Waitrose are ok' or words to that effect
14.6% seems rather on the low end for a lot of things actually.
Milk, eggs etc seem to have increased by a third or more.
Of course! The previous market price was below cost...
Per The Times: Hunt will postpone cap on Social Care costs.
Good. The oldies (and their heirs) need to pay their way.
Nah - you should protect against catastrophic risk. Care costs about £50k per year (between about £850 p/w for public funding and can be substantially higher for private).
Most people spend 18-24 months in a home at the outside (people like to spend as long as possible at home). But sad cases - especially Alzheimer’s - can be 10+ years in a home.
It’s reasonable to set a cap (say at £150k) *and* minimum of 2 years at which point the state steps in as insurer of last resort (or you could require people to take out insurance for years 2-5). Otherwise you can end up with people bankrupted through bad luck (in which case the state pays for them anyway).
What's wrong with people getting bankrupted?
If they run out of money, they run out of money, but the taxpayer shouldn't be on the hook to prevent that.
They're at the end of their life and can't take it with them, anyway. And if you have a cap it should be that the final x amount of your savings are protected, not that the first x amount won't be.
It's perverse to say someone with £1mn in assets must only pay £150k to avoid being bankrupted, with the taxpayer then covering their £850k after that, while saying someone with £200k (more than the mean House price in much of the Nort) should also pay £150k.
To step back a bit, bankruptcy in general is a mechanism by which the state absorbs the costs of someone running out of money. It means an individual isn’t pursued in perpetuity for money and can re-build, with the state telling debtors they have to lump it. I wondered if you disapproved of the very concept of bankruptcy, given it’s anti-libertarian?
No. The debtors just have to lump it and should be more careful.
I'm a libertarian not an anarchist, I dont think there should be no state or no rules at all.
I would oppose the state (read: taxpayer) stepping in to pay so the debtors don't lump it.
But if someone subsequently, post-bankruptcy, makes lots of money, you’re OK with the state telling the debtors that they can’t have any of that?
He is illiterate on anything to do with economics.
Mr Gove said the role of Ms Truss’s boss was “now a job share between Jeremy Hunt and the bond market”. He also said “we all know now” Ms Truss had the nickname “the human hand grenade”.
Mr Gove said “absolutely right [that Truss will go]”, adding: “The question for any leader is: what happens when the programme or the platform on which you secured the leadership has been shredded.”
He also cited Dante in saying: “After hell comes purgatory and paradise.”
Mr Gove later said that [these remarks] had been given under so-called Chatham House rules, which means not to be quoted, but did not dispute their accuracy.
That might be the arrangement of the cantos in the Divine Comedy, but it sure ain't the actual eschatological trajectory. If the soul ends up in Hell, that's it.
Only until the Eschaton - so there is light at the end of the tunnel
Per The Times: Hunt will postpone cap on Social Care costs.
Good. The oldies (and their heirs) need to pay their way.
Nah - you should protect against catastrophic risk. Care costs about £50k per year (between about £850 p/w for public funding and can be substantially higher for private).
Most people spend 18-24 months in a home at the outside (people like to spend as long as possible at home). But sad cases - especially Alzheimer’s - can be 10+ years in a home.
It’s reasonable to set a cap (say at £150k) *and* minimum of 2 years at which point the state steps in as insurer of last resort (or you could require people to take out insurance for years 2-5). Otherwise you can end up with people bankrupted through bad luck (in which case the state pays for them anyway).
They won't be bankrupted, but they may need to a cheaper, publicly run home funded by the LA once the money runs out.
But I have never got this about the cap: why is it more important to protect some peoples' (chosen at random) inheritance than the public purse? Why should we pay when there is money left in the estate to pay? The cap was going to be paid by the NI increases, that is by current working people under retirement age so that a very small percentage of them could receive hundreds of thousands of pounds from the family home. If people want to be sure of this they should buy insurance. I don't see why the state becomes "insurer of last resort" for those who choose not to.
In practice the obligation of care means that neither the care hone nor the local authority wants the resident to move homes. Typically it ends up with the LA paying a slightly discounted rate (but not the usual LA rate for fully private homes - for mixed homes they switch straight to the LA rate)
The issue is that the vast majority (high 90s %) of people are under 2 years but that a small number can be very many years. That’s not an insurable risk at an economic price.
The argument for the government providing catastrophe insurance is whether it is good for society that someone who has saved and done all the right things should be bankrupted by bad luck.
That’s why I like the model of first 2 years you pay for yourself, years 3-5 by insurance and >5 by society
Where else is this "catastrophe insurance" you speak of also provided by the taxpayer?
If your uninsured home or business gets flooded in a catastrophe does the taxpayer foot the bill?
If your business goes bankrupt losing you your life savings that you'd put into it, does the taxpayer foot the bill?
Earthquakes. Financial services. Nuclear accidents. I’m sure there are others but these are just off the top of my head.
Per The Times: Hunt will postpone cap on Social Care costs.
Good. The oldies (and their heirs) need to pay their way.
Nah - you should protect against catastrophic risk. Care costs about £50k per year (between about £850 p/w for public funding and can be substantially higher for private).
Most people spend 18-24 months in a home at the outside (people like to spend as long as possible at home). But sad cases - especially Alzheimer’s - can be 10+ years in a home.
It’s reasonable to set a cap (say at £150k) *and* minimum of 2 years at which point the state steps in as insurer of last resort (or you could require people to take out insurance for years 2-5). Otherwise you can end up with people bankrupted through bad luck (in which case the state pays for them anyway).
What's wrong with people getting bankrupted?
If they run out of money, they run out of money, but the taxpayer shouldn't be on the hook to prevent that.
They're at the end of their life and can't take it with them, anyway. And if you have a cap it should be that the final x amount of your savings are protected, not that the first x amount won't be.
It's perverse to say someone with £1mn in assets must only pay £150k to avoid being bankrupted, with the taxpayer then covering their £850k after that, while saying someone with £200k (more than the mean House price in much of the Nort) should also pay £150k.
To step back a bit, bankruptcy in general is a mechanism by which the state absorbs the costs of someone running out of money. It means an individual isn’t pursued in perpetuity for money and can re-build, with the state telling debtors they have to lump it. I wondered if you disapproved of the very concept of bankruptcy, given it’s anti-libertarian?
No. The debtors just have to lump it and should be more careful.
I'm a libertarian not an anarchist, I dont think there should be no state or no rules at all.
I would oppose the state (read: taxpayer) stepping in to pay so the debtors don't lump it.
But if someone subsequently, post-bankruptcy, makes lots of money, you’re OK with the state telling the debtors that they can’t have any of that?
Yes. People should be able to rebuild their lives and the fact they have shouldn't mean that debtors who made bad choices investing in them before they did shouldn't be able to evade the consequences of their own choices.
The basic truth here is that, rather than being a seething mass of vipers, Conservative MPs actually hate removing their leaders and only put a letter in when they feel they have no choice. Equally Cabinet Ministers loathe being the first to move, they've seen how the disloyalty tag is bandied.
- Heseltine's resignation, an event now put into history as the beginning of the end, occurred just shy of 5 years before Thatcher's resignation and moves to oust her took around a year to culminate. - It was 8 months from first suggestion of a VoNC to remove IDS. - The timescales for May and Johnson are not dissimilar.
A lot of Tory MPs will be wondering if there is any way of avoiding this. Can a more administrative government settle the polls a bit? It is clear Truss is suffering some b kind of nervous condition, but can she stabilise it? (Johnson also looked terrible at times from very early in his PMship for very different reasons). Can she be the effective front person in an election campaign?
It is the likely negative response to the last question that will determine her fate, but history say it won't be an easy decision for any MP to get there.
Why should the Party consider only what is good for the party? I don't want a mentally or physically unstable person as Prime Minister. Edit: As a general principle. It's not aimed at Ms Truss specifically at all. Indeed, one thinks of Harold Wilson - who had the guts to pull the chain when he realised he was going mentally, AIUI.
Per The Times: Hunt will postpone cap on Social Care costs.
Good. The oldies (and their heirs) need to pay their way.
Nah - you should protect against catastrophic risk. Care costs about £50k per year (between about £850 p/w for public funding and can be substantially higher for private).
Most people spend 18-24 months in a home at the outside (people like to spend as long as possible at home). But sad cases - especially Alzheimer’s - can be 10+ years in a home.
It’s reasonable to set a cap (say at £150k) *and* minimum of 2 years at which point the state steps in as insurer of last resort (or you could require people to take out insurance for years 2-5). Otherwise you can end up with people bankrupted through bad luck (in which case the state pays for them anyway).
They won't be bankrupted, but they may need to a cheaper, publicly run home funded by the LA once the money runs out.
But I have never got this about the cap: why is it more important to protect some peoples' (chosen at random) inheritance than the public purse? Why should we pay when there is money left in the estate to pay? The cap was going to be paid by the NI increases, that is by current working people under retirement age so that a very small percentage of them could receive hundreds of thousands of pounds from the family home. If people want to be sure of this they should buy insurance. I don't see why the state becomes "insurer of last resort" for those who choose not to.
In practice the obligation of care means that neither the care hone nor the local authority wants the resident to move homes. Typically it ends up with the LA paying a slightly discounted rate (but not the usual LA rate for fully private homes - for mixed homes they switch straight to the LA rate)
The issue is that the vast majority (high 90s %) of people are under 2 years but that a small number can be very many years. That’s not an insurable risk at an economic price.
The argument for the government providing catastrophe insurance is whether it is good for society that someone who has saved and done all the right things should be bankrupted by bad luck.
That’s why I like the model of first 2 years you pay for yourself, years 3-5 by insurance and >5 by society
Where else is this "catastrophe insurance" you speak of also provided by the taxpayer?
If your uninsured home or business gets flooded in a catastrophe does the taxpayer foot the bill?
If your business goes bankrupt losing you your life savings that you'd put into it, does the taxpayer foot the bill?
Earthquakes. Financial services. Nuclear accidents. I’m sure there are others but these are just off the top of my head.
Per The Times: Hunt will postpone cap on Social Care costs.
Good. The oldies (and their heirs) need to pay their way.
Nah - you should protect against catastrophic risk. Care costs about £50k per year (between about £850 p/w for public funding and can be substantially higher for private).
Most people spend 18-24 months in a home at the outside (people like to spend as long as possible at home). But sad cases - especially Alzheimer’s - can be 10+ years in a home.
It’s reasonable to set a cap (say at £150k) *and* minimum of 2 years at which point the state steps in as insurer of last resort (or you could require people to take out insurance for years 2-5). Otherwise you can end up with people bankrupted through bad luck (in which case the state pays for them anyway).
They won't be bankrupted, but they may need to a cheaper, publicly run home funded by the LA once the money runs out.
But I have never got this about the cap: why is it more important to protect some peoples' (chosen at random) inheritance than the public purse? Why should we pay when there is money left in the estate to pay? The cap was going to be paid by the NI increases, that is by current working people under retirement age so that a very small percentage of them could receive hundreds of thousands of pounds from the family home. If people want to be sure of this they should buy insurance. I don't see why the state becomes "insurer of last resort" for those who choose not to.
In practice the obligation of care means that neither the care hone nor the local authority wants the resident to move homes. Typically it ends up with the LA paying a slightly discounted rate (but not the usual LA rate for fully private homes - for mixed homes they switch straight to the LA rate)
The issue is that the vast majority (high 90s %) of people are under 2 years but that a small number can be very many years. That’s not an insurable risk at an economic price.
The argument for the government providing catastrophe insurance is whether it is good for society that someone who has saved and done all the right things should be bankrupted by bad luck.
That’s why I like the model of first 2 years you pay for yourself, years 3-5 by insurance and >5 by society
Where else is this "catastrophe insurance" you speak of also provided by the taxpayer?
If your uninsured home or business gets flooded in a catastrophe does the taxpayer foot the bill?
If your business goes bankrupt losing you your life savings that you'd put into it, does the taxpayer foot the bill?
Earthquakes. Financial services. Nuclear accidents. I’m sure there are others but these are just off the top of my head.
Per The Times: Hunt will postpone cap on Social Care costs.
Good. The oldies (and their heirs) need to pay their way.
Nah - you should protect against catastrophic risk. Care costs about £50k per year (between about £850 p/w for public funding and can be substantially higher for private).
Most people spend 18-24 months in a home at the outside (people like to spend as long as possible at home). But sad cases - especially Alzheimer’s - can be 10+ years in a home.
It’s reasonable to set a cap (say at £150k) *and* minimum of 2 years at which point the state steps in as insurer of last resort (or you could require people to take out insurance for years 2-5). Otherwise you can end up with people bankrupted through bad luck (in which case the state pays for them anyway).
What's wrong with people getting bankrupted?
If they run out of money, they run out of money, but the taxpayer shouldn't be on the hook to prevent that.
They're at the end of their life and can't take it with them, anyway. And if you have a cap it should be that the final x amount of your savings are protected, not that the first x amount won't be.
It's perverse to say someone with £1mn in assets must only pay £150k to avoid being bankrupted, with the taxpayer then covering their £850k after that, while saying someone with £200k (more than the mean House price in much of the Nort) should also pay £150k.
To step back a bit, bankruptcy in general is a mechanism by which the state absorbs the costs of someone running out of money. It means an individual isn’t pursued in perpetuity for money and can re-build, with the state telling debtors they have to lump it. I wondered if you disapproved of the very concept of bankruptcy, given it’s anti-libertarian?
No. The debtors just have to lump it and should be more careful.
I'm a libertarian not an anarchist, I dont think there should be no state or no rules at all.
I would oppose the state (read: taxpayer) stepping in to pay so the debtors don't lump it.
But if someone subsequently, post-bankruptcy, makes lots of money, you’re OK with the state telling the debtors that they can’t have any of that?
Yes. People should be able to rebuild their lives and the fact they have shouldn't mean that debtors who made bad choices investing in them before they did shouldn't be able to evade the consequences of their own choices.
Per The Times: Hunt will postpone cap on Social Care costs.
Good. The oldies (and their heirs) need to pay their way.
Nah - you should protect against catastrophic risk. Care costs about £50k per year (between about £850 p/w for public funding and can be substantially higher for private).
Most people spend 18-24 months in a home at the outside (people like to spend as long as possible at home). But sad cases - especially Alzheimer’s - can be 10+ years in a home.
It’s reasonable to set a cap (say at £150k) *and* minimum of 2 years at which point the state steps in as insurer of last resort (or you could require people to take out insurance for years 2-5). Otherwise you can end up with people bankrupted through bad luck (in which case the state pays for them anyway).
They won't be bankrupted, but they may need to a cheaper, publicly run home funded by the LA once the money runs out.
But I have never got this about the cap: why is it more important to protect some peoples' (chosen at random) inheritance than the public purse? Why should we pay when there is money left in the estate to pay? The cap was going to be paid by the NI increases, that is by current working people under retirement age so that a very small percentage of them could receive hundreds of thousands of pounds from the family home. If people want to be sure of this they should buy insurance. I don't see why the state becomes "insurer of last resort" for those who choose not to.
In practice the obligation of care means that neither the care hone nor the local authority wants the resident to move homes. Typically it ends up with the LA paying a slightly discounted rate (but not the usual LA rate for fully private homes - for mixed homes they switch straight to the LA rate)
The issue is that the vast majority (high 90s %) of people are under 2 years but that a small number can be very many years. That’s not an insurable risk at an economic price.
The argument for the government providing catastrophe insurance is whether it is good for society that someone who has saved and done all the right things should be bankrupted by bad luck.
That’s why I like the model of first 2 years you pay for yourself, years 3-5 by insurance and >5 by society
Where else is this "catastrophe insurance" you speak of also provided by the taxpayer?
If your uninsured home or business gets flooded in a catastrophe does the taxpayer foot the bill?
If your business goes bankrupt losing you your life savings that you'd put into it, does the taxpayer foot the bill?
Earthquakes. Financial services. Nuclear accidents. I’m sure there are others but these are just off the top of my head.
Riot. Illness.
One other point - home care not being insurable at an economic price. It may depend on the case. A friend's mother went down with MS when quite elderly, and the family took out an annuity for her care costs in a decent home. In the end she survived a lot longer than expected.
Per The Times: Hunt will postpone cap on Social Care costs.
Good. The oldies (and their heirs) need to pay their way.
Nah - you should protect against catastrophic risk. Care costs about £50k per year (between about £850 p/w for public funding and can be substantially higher for private).
Most people spend 18-24 months in a home at the outside (people like to spend as long as possible at home). But sad cases - especially Alzheimer’s - can be 10+ years in a home.
It’s reasonable to set a cap (say at £150k) *and* minimum of 2 years at which point the state steps in as insurer of last resort (or you could require people to take out insurance for years 2-5). Otherwise you can end up with people bankrupted through bad luck (in which case the state pays for them anyway).
They won't be bankrupted, but they may need to a cheaper, publicly run home funded by the LA once the money runs out.
But I have never got this about the cap: why is it more important to protect some peoples' (chosen at random) inheritance than the public purse? Why should we pay when there is money left in the estate to pay? The cap was going to be paid by the NI increases, that is by current working people under retirement age so that a very small percentage of them could receive hundreds of thousands of pounds from the family home. If people want to be sure of this they should buy insurance. I don't see why the state becomes "insurer of last resort" for those who choose not to.
In practice the obligation of care means that neither the care hone nor the local authority wants the resident to move homes. Typically it ends up with the LA paying a slightly discounted rate (but not the usual LA rate for fully private homes - for mixed homes they switch straight to the LA rate)
The issue is that the vast majority (high 90s %) of people are under 2 years but that a small number can be very many years. That’s not an insurable risk at an economic price.
The argument for the government providing catastrophe insurance is whether it is good for society that someone who has saved and done all the right things should be bankrupted by bad luck.
That’s why I like the model of first 2 years you pay for yourself, years 3-5 by insurance and >5 by society
Where else is this "catastrophe insurance" you speak of also provided by the taxpayer?
If your uninsured home or business gets flooded in a catastrophe does the taxpayer foot the bill?
If your business goes bankrupt losing you your life savings that you'd put into it, does the taxpayer foot the bill?
Earthquakes. Financial services. Nuclear accidents. I’m sure there are others but these are just off the top of my head.
Riot. Illness.
The Bill for social care Cap has received royal assent. In fact, in a sense it has been passed twice. Once by Cameron and once by Johnson. The trials for the Cap start in next couple of months.
It is beyond a disgrace that this is once again going to be abandoned.
Plus, the reform is about other issues than just the Cap.
Unless you have direct day-to-day experience of the social care system (I have) you have no idea how broken and not fit for purpose it is. And getting worse all the time.
I’m sure overstretched households up and down this country take great comfort in that. 🙄
They should. Had it not been for our glorious Brexit, the EUSSR would be forcing nasty straight European bananas on us and demanding a 30% price premium.
Comments
Kwarteng of course not even worth including in the comparison.
The trouble is, when you say "uncomfortable for those who thought this would go on forever" you essentially mean "anyone who has bought a house in the last decade". And that is so many people, its effects on the wider economy will be ruinous. At the very least, it probably means most people aged 30-50 will have approximately zero discretionary income for the foreseeable.
I'm a libertarian not an anarchist, I dont think there should be no state or no rules at all.
I would oppose the state (read: taxpayer) stepping in to pay so the debtors don't lump it.
It's an idiotic line anyway.
Almost as stupid as the Tory drones going round praising the 'bravery' and 'honesty' of Truss in recognising that she was the driver responsible for the car crash - and then saying that makes her the right person to continue as PM.
📈 Inflation is 10.1%, BUT
🍲 food inflation has hit 14.6% - THE HIGHEST IN 42 YEARS https://twitter.com/PGMcNamara/status/1582618775639425024/photo/1
House price inflation has been driven by people taking on very large mortgages which were only affordable if rates stayed at historical lows. Unfortunately many people will now get into serious difficulty paying for them. As sorry as I am for them personally they were taking a gamble. That gamble has now come back to bite them.
Personally I think we should have more of a culture of taking out fixed rate mortgages for the duration of them like I believe happens in the US.
I mean, they did focus group this stuff, didn't they?
Better to take over with the changes already a fait accompli rather than be associated with the initial decisions.
The same goes for Starmer as well.
Mr Gove said the role of Ms Truss’s boss was “now a job share between Jeremy Hunt and the bond market”. He also said “we all know now” Ms Truss had the nickname “the human hand grenade”.
Mr Gove said “absolutely right [that Truss will go]”, adding: “The question for any leader is: what happens when the programme or the platform on which you secured the leadership has been shredded.”
He also cited Dante in saying: “After hell comes purgatory and paradise.”
Mr Gove later said that [these remarks] had been given under so-called Chatham House rules, which means not to be quoted, but did not dispute their accuracy.
Insert obligatory link to The Thick of It focus group episode here...
The 2019 Tory Manifesto promised a balanced budget so fundamental 1 has to be a balanced budget. Cutting Corporation tax and the 45% band without confirmation from the OBR that the budget was still balanced doesn't exactly show the fundamentals were right.
But no. You'd rather hang out in "real life".
Let me tell you this: real life sucks. Political Betting is so much better. The people are nicer. The conversation more intelligent. Nobody yells at you. Or at least, nobody yells at me, because I can always ban them.
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1582626052366823424
He also has the opportunity to be completely radical and look at a state pension taper, shifting the burden of wage subsidies onto companies with a big rise in the minimum wage and canning working tax credits entirely.
I really hope that he uses this golden opportunity to rebalance the UK economy away from rentseeking and towards risk taking.
👿👿👿
Ah.....
Milk, eggs etc seem to have increased by a third or more.
The issue is that the vast majority (high 90s %) of people are under 2 years but that a small number can be very many years. That’s not an insurable risk at an economic price.
The argument for the government providing catastrophe insurance is whether it is good for society that someone who has saved and done all the right things should be bankrupted by bad luck.
That’s why I like the model of first 2 years you pay for yourself, years 3-5 by insurance and >5 by society
Ireland are about to ruin Scotland's hopes.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/60117841
This government has really screwed over the country.
Bloody exchange rates.
Ed: I wondered if you were blaming the DUP on the Scots!
How did that happen? Amazing.
https://news.sky.com/story/wednesdays-pmqs-is-a-huge-test-for-a-prime-minister-trying-to-survive-from-one-day-to-the-next-12724202 https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1582623451638292480/photo/1
Meanwhile, talks cont amongst MPs on options for removing/replacing Truss. One figure told me y’day there was talk of making the nomination threshold to replace her so high (p/hps even 1/3 parly party) to try land on a unity candidate (Hunt/Mordaunt/Sunak?) All v difficult.. 2/
If your uninsured home or business gets flooded in a catastrophe does the taxpayer foot the bill?
If your business goes bankrupt losing you your life savings that you'd put into it, does the taxpayer foot the bill?
Damn you Ireland.
Revolting Tories.
- Heseltine's resignation, an event now put into history as the beginning of the end, occurred just shy of 5 years before Thatcher's resignation and moves to oust her took around a year to culminate.
- It was 8 months from first suggestion of a VoNC to remove IDS.
- The timescales for May and Johnson are not dissimilar.
A lot of Tory MPs will be wondering if there is any way of avoiding this. Can a more administrative government settle the polls a bit? It is clear Truss is suffering some b kind of nervous condition, but can she stabilise it? (Johnson also looked terrible at times from very early in his PMship for very different reasons). Can she be the effective front person in an election campaign?
It is the likely negative response to the last question that will determine her fate, but history say it won't be an easy decision for any MP to get there.
History may record it as a leftfield good call. Perhaps the only one she'll make as PM.
He didn't take Truss's calls as he thought it was a prank. No10 had to then contact his constituency office.
Responsibility cuts both ways.
He wasn’t expecting this!
It was just an observation, it wasn't supposed to comfort people.
Which month's figures are used for determining the rise in phone/broadband contract prices?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Damage_Commission
It is beyond a disgrace that this is once again going to be abandoned.
Plus, the reform is about other issues than just the Cap.
Unless you have direct day-to-day experience of the social care system (I have) you have no idea how broken and not fit for purpose it is. And getting worse all the time.