Top five women in the gammonati shitlist? Contributions invited to make it up to ten.
1. Meghan (obvs) 2. Greta 3. Jacinda 4. Nicola 5. Jack Monroe
Lifetime achievement award to Angela.
NutNut was on there for a while when she was suspected of leading Johnson into an unmanly and unhelpful interest in animal welfare and environmentalism.
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
Good morning! May I gently point out that there is a world of difference between lived inflation - how much the stuff I buy goes up - and paper inflation - the total of how much everyone buys goes up.
The people in the lower deciles spend far more of their meagre cash on the things with the highest rates of inflation. They are already suffering real world inflation well north of the official figure. So your 5% cut would absolutely ream them whether paper inflation comes down or not.
How else can I put this. The price increases in food - so many of which have been multiples higher than even the headline figures - are here to stay and prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down. The idea that lived inflation will stop being a problem this year is disconnected from reality.
I was reading this morning that the price of porridge oats has increased 188% in the last year.
I don't know if it's true - it was a newspaper report - but if true that's extraordinary.
I was particularly thinking about it this morning as I was making porridge, helpfully with some oats I bought a while ago.
Good to see someone saving their oats....
If you don't mind the weevils - which are perfectly safe and merely add protein - it's a good strategy
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
Good morning! May I gently point out that there is a world of difference between lived inflation - how much the stuff I buy goes up - and paper inflation - the total of how much everyone buys goes up.
The people in the lower deciles spend far more of their meagre cash on the things with the highest rates of inflation. They are already suffering real world inflation well north of the official figure. So your 5% cut would absolutely ream them whether paper inflation comes down or not.
How else can I put this. The price increases in food - so many of which have been multiples higher than even the headline figures - are here to stay and prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down. The idea that lived inflation will stop being a problem this year is disconnected from reality.
I was reading this morning that the price of porridge oats has increased 188% in the last year.
I don't know if it's true - it was a newspaper report - but if true that's extraordinary.
I was particularly thinking about it this morning as I was making porridge, helpfully with some oats I bought a while ago.
Good to see someone saving their oats....
If you don't mind the weevils - which are perfectly safe and merely add protein - it's a good strategy
Haven't seen any weevils yet.
Mind you, I have been keeping them in a box with an airtight seal.
Edit - that should read, 'I have been keeping the oats in a box with an airtight seal.' I don't generally keep weevils.
Fuel prices there have come down very significantly since the summer peak (and are if anything now rising again) - the effect in the UK is damped because so much of what we pay is tax.
Heating Oil hasn't. Scottish prices hit a peak of £1.3965 per litre on 15th March 2022. Its now £0.9664 - a drop of 31%. But vs the same time last winter? It was £0.6125 12 months ago, so an increase of 58%. And the price appears to be stable.
A 60% increase in your heating bills is not something thats easy for a lot of people to weather...
I had this vague hope that some sunlight would melt the ice on my car before I had to take it down to Bristol later on this morning. That appears to have been as optimistic as hoping that the DfE would come up with a sensible policy on education.
I may be wrong but I’m not buying Ardern’s reasons for quitting.
She wants to be remembered as the PM who won the huge landslide, going from an outright majority to potentially not winning a plurality in the next parliament (which was looking increasingly possible) would have stung. The tide has turned a little on the covid narratives too which can’t have helped.
On the radio this morning the first report was virtually "progressive hero resigns, nation mourns", until I presume a Kiwi listener sent an email to say that "she's a bit crap".
I can't believe this is actually true. Germany banning the export of tanks to Ukraine unless America sends its own tanks would be absurd. It makes all Europe, not just Germany, look ridiculous. Dispiriting that there hasn't been a denial out of Berlin yet.
Why is it absurd? Given that Germany has no nuclear deterrent of its own and that the provision of MBTs would be a major escalation in the war, it doesn't seem unreasonable for Germany to expect a similar commitment from the US.
Germany has actually donated a greater $/€ value of weapons than the UK but people want to see it done with an air of prideful bellicosity, as exemplified by Baldy Ben, so Germany doesn't get the credit.
"Germany has actually donated a greater $/€ value of weapons than the UK"
As I've said passim, Germany's problem has been twofold: talking about giving, then saying they would not; and agreeing delivery of stuff, but not for years.
Ukraine needs stuff now. Future promises matter little; what matters is the stuff that gets over there today, this week, or this month. Germany also looked really bad in preventing countries with Leopard MBTs from sending them to Ukraine (and as an aside, Switzerland looks really shitty on that mark as well).
And TBF to the UK, we've been delivering. ISTR you were rather negative about the 10,000 training scheme when it was announced?
tbf, according to your link if you include humanitarian and financial assistance "EU institutions" dwarfs both the UK and Germany. You could probably get Germany ahead on that measure if you include the German share of EU contributions.
Whilst that's true, the article as about military aid (the title is 'Ukraine weapons: What military equipment is the world giving?'). And as the biggest power in the EU, Germany can always make sure that the smaller countries pay more.
But that's sorta the point: Germany are behind us in military aid, and the mood music around their 'contributions' has been very harmful, both to Ukraine and themselves. They're doing more than people think, but less than they say. And a lot less than they should ...
Not sure exactly what you mean by "And as the biggest power in the EU, Germany can always make sure that the smaller countries pay more." in this context?
As for "mood music" again not sure precisely what you mean, but maybe it's better this way than the mood music being "Germany are spearheading the arming of Ukraine against Russia" if you think about it. I know you are especially critical of Germany, and no doubt much of the criticism is justified, but it seems a bit strange to complain, as you have done, that they are much worse than France in terms of supporting Ukraine. Or to imply that Germany is much worse than everyone else in Europe, when there are clearly many European countries doing a lot less.
"I know you are especially critical of Germany,"
In this I am critical of them; but I doubt you'd find another post on here where I've been especially critical of them in a general matter. (I know I've mentioned when my wife got racially abuse din Germany).
"ut it seems a bit strange to complain, as you have done, that they are much worse than France in terms of supporting Ukraine. "
Have I mentioned France?
If you look at my posts, I think I've been reasonable in my criticism. Germany are doing more than people think, less than they claim, and much less than they should be doing.
Our politicians have been so substandard for such a long time that we need the politicians in Brussels. Our homegrown fools and inept leaders, unfettered by any restraints, will simply accelerate the speed of the country's decline.
If you think the politicians in Brussels - half of whom were failures in their own countries first - are any better than our lot then I have a bridge to sell you. The decline of political ability and competence is a disease inflicting pretty much the whole of the Western world.
I don't know how many politicians in Brussels you knew/know, Richard? My view, not limited to any particular party, is that the standard of Euro-MPs is distinctinctly better in terms of getting to grips with policy than in Westminster. The reason, I think, is that the system gives backbenchers there a much stronger position - party discipline is weak, and they spend 95% of the time focusing on the issues and only 5% on social work forr constituents. Consequently, they are happy to spend an hour or two learning about an issue and exploring its ramifications, while in Britain you'll get 20 minutes unless they're especially interested.
That’s an argument in favour of reform in the UK rather than just handing over power wholesale to non-domestic politicians.
Yes, I was just addressing the narrow point of whether MEPs are better at examining policy than MPs or not - in my experience, yes. The question of whether some decisions should be taken at an EU level is a different one - I'd argue yes, but it's a separate discussion, isn't it?
Our politicians have been so substandard for such a long time that we need the politicians in Brussels. Our homegrown fools and inept leaders, unfettered by any restraints, will simply accelerate the speed of the country's decline.
If you think the politicians in Brussels - half of whom were failures in their own countries first - are any better than our lot then I have a bridge to sell you. The decline of political ability and competence is a disease inflicting pretty much the whole of the Western world.
I don't know how many politicians in Brussels you knew/know, Richard? My view, not limited to any particular party, is that the standard of Euro-MPs is distinctinctly better in terms of getting to grips with policy than in Westminster. The reason, I think, is that the system gives backbenchers there a much stronger position - party discipline is weak, and they spend 95% of the time focusing on the issues and only 5% on social work forr constituents. Consequently, they are happy to spend an hour or two learning about an issue and exploring its ramifications, while in Britain you'll get 20 minutes unless they're especially interested.
That’s an argument in favour of reform in the UK rather than just handing over power wholesale to non-domestic politicians.
Yes, I was just addressing the narrow point of whether MEPs are better at examining policy than MPs or not - in my experience, yes. The question of whether some decisions should be taken at an EU level is a different one - I'd argue yes, but it's a separate discussion, isn't it?
To be honest I wasn't even thinking about the MEPS given they have bugger all power. I was looking more at the Commission hierarchy.
Russia has responded to NATO's tank pledges to Ukraine by introducing T-14 tanks on the battlefield
British intelligence sees this as a high-risk decision likely driven by propaganda purposes
Given the fact that the entire fleet is estimated to be in the low tens and production problems have marred the T-14's rollout, they are unlikely to make a major military impact
But they could move the needle on Germany's deliberations about Leopards to Ukraine
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
Good morning! May I gently point out that there is a world of difference between lived inflation - how much the stuff I buy goes up - and paper inflation - the total of how much everyone buys goes up.
The people in the lower deciles spend far more of their meagre cash on the things with the highest rates of inflation. They are already suffering real world inflation well north of the official figure. So your 5% cut would absolutely ream them whether paper inflation comes down or not.
How else can I put this. The price increases in food - so many of which have been multiples higher than even the headline figures - are here to stay and prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down. The idea that lived inflation will stop being a problem this year is disconnected from reality.
I was reading this morning that the price of porridge oats has increased 188% in the last year.
I don't know if it's true - it was a newspaper report - but if true that's extraordinary.
I was particularly thinking about it this morning as I was making porridge, helpfully with some oats I bought a while ago.
Good to see someone saving their oats....
If you don't mind the weevils - which are perfectly safe and merely add protein - it's a good strategy
Haven't seen any weevils yet.
Mind you, I have been keeping them in a box with an airtight seal.
Edit - that should read, 'I have been keeping the oats in a box with an airtight seal.' I don't generally keep weevils.
Curious bit of history - the location for the naval victualling yard for ship's biscuits etc. in the 18th and 19th centuries, serving the Portsmouth/Spithead base/anchorage, was called Weevil, apparently a complete coincidence so far as anyone can tell.
French citoyens are striking over plans to raise the French pension age to [checks notes] 64, up from 62. The French state pension is more complicated than ours, more generous than ours, and means tested at the top level. It also runs at a profit.
Our state pension pays less, does not start till 67 (soon to be 68) and yet people obsess about the triple lock.
It's a good trick to have a more generous state pension that also runs at a profit. How do the French do that?
Aiui and IANAE the French have a pension investment fund, whereas we pay from taxation.
That must make a massive difference to the effective national savings' rate?
No idea. It is mainly rcs1000 who is obsessed with national savings rates, and possibly even then it is household savings rates. All I know is what comes from discussions with French colleagues; I'm no ChatGPT.
eta You could say that ours is an age-based system whereas theirs is more a retirement-based benefit but remember IANAE or an AI chat bot.
eta2 if this French strike takes off, you'd expect the news media to explain.
A quick search suggests that the French Pension Reserve Fund was only created in 2001, intended to provide long-run finance for the state pension system. It has been funded from surpluses of pre-existing social security funds (suggesting that fund-financing itself pre-dated 2001?), privatisations, mobile phone licenses, and a stock market transaction tax. It looks like the latter has been the most significant.
Payments out from the fund only expected to start in 2020.
The original aim was to have a fund of €150 bn by 2020 - as at 2016 it had €36 bn.
That's a lot of saved/invested money that the UK government will have just spent.
That stock market transaction tax must have killed off the Paris Bourse.
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
Good morning! May I gently point out that there is a world of difference between lived inflation - how much the stuff I buy goes up - and paper inflation - the total of how much everyone buys goes up.
The people in the lower deciles spend far more of their meagre cash on the things with the highest rates of inflation. They are already suffering real world inflation well north of the official figure. So your 5% cut would absolutely ream them whether paper inflation comes down or not.
How else can I put this. The price increases in food - so many of which have been multiples higher than even the headline figures - are here to stay and prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down. The idea that lived inflation will stop being a problem this year is disconnected from reality.
I was reading this morning that the price of porridge oats has increased 188% in the last year.
I don't know if it's true - it was a newspaper report - but if true that's extraordinary.
I was particularly thinking about it this morning as I was making porridge, helpfully with some oats I bought a while ago.
Good to see someone saving their oats....
If you don't mind the weevils - which are perfectly safe and merely add protein - it's a good strategy
Haven't seen any weevils yet.
Mind you, I have been keeping them in a box with an airtight seal.
Edit - that should read, 'I have been keeping the oats in a box with an airtight seal.' I don't generally keep weevils.
Curious bit of history - the location for the naval victualling yard for ship's biscuits etc. in the 18th and 19th centuries, serving the Portsmouth/Spithead base/anchorage, was called Weevil, apparently a complete coincidence so far as anyone can tell.
They said it was small and remote, compared to the Great Weevil yard a few miles away.
But they chose it because in the Navy you always choose the lesser of two weevils.
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
Good morning! May I gently point out that there is a world of difference between lived inflation - how much the stuff I buy goes up - and paper inflation - the total of how much everyone buys goes up.
The people in the lower deciles spend far more of their meagre cash on the things with the highest rates of inflation. They are already suffering real world inflation well north of the official figure. So your 5% cut would absolutely ream them whether paper inflation comes down or not.
How else can I put this. The price increases in food - so many of which have been multiples higher than even the headline figures - are here to stay and prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down. The idea that lived inflation will stop being a problem this year is disconnected from reality.
Food price inflation is forecast to peak early 2023 and start to come down this year.
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
Good morning! May I gently point out that there is a world of difference between lived inflation - how much the stuff I buy goes up - and paper inflation - the total of how much everyone buys goes up.
The people in the lower deciles spend far more of their meagre cash on the things with the highest rates of inflation. They are already suffering real world inflation well north of the official figure. So your 5% cut would absolutely ream them whether paper inflation comes down or not.
How else can I put this. The price increases in food - so many of which have been multiples higher than even the headline figures - are here to stay and prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down. The idea that lived inflation will stop being a problem this year is disconnected from reality.
Yep, falling inflation just means prices going up less dramatically.
I can't believe this is actually true. Germany banning the export of tanks to Ukraine unless America sends its own tanks would be absurd. It makes all Europe, not just Germany, look ridiculous. Dispiriting that there hasn't been a denial out of Berlin yet.
Why is it absurd? Given that Germany has no nuclear deterrent of its own and that the provision of MBTs would be a major escalation in the war, it doesn't seem unreasonable for Germany to expect a similar commitment from the US.
{innocent face}
Then what's the Force de frappe for?
The Force de Frappe is to protect France from Germany, which has a proud tradition of invading its southern neighbour, and to boost the late Charles de Gaulle's ego.
The NZ economy (like everywhere) is facing headwinds, and the coming election looks challenging…but hardly terminal. Indeed I would have had Arden and Labour as very modest favourites.
She just can’t be arsed.
To be fair, I've once quit a job I wasn't enjoying and could no longer be arsed with.
Don't see any shame in it. You'll be miserable and your employer won't be happy either.
I don't share Arden's politics but don't necessarily think any less of her for it.
Irrespective of whether or not there are other reasons, arguably what she is showing is leadership... I've also done the same and to be honest I have encountered many people who ought to do the same thing, just quit and do something else (as long as you have got a decent plan in place, which she clearly does).
There is still an issue where people associate this type of 'burnout' with failure, which is not particularly healthy.
I can't believe this is actually true. Germany banning the export of tanks to Ukraine unless America sends its own tanks would be absurd. It makes all Europe, not just Germany, look ridiculous. Dispiriting that there hasn't been a denial out of Berlin yet.
Why is it absurd? Given that Germany has no nuclear deterrent of its own and that the provision of MBTs would be a major escalation in the war, it doesn't seem unreasonable for Germany to expect a similar commitment from the US.
Germany has actually donated a greater $/€ value of weapons than the UK but people want to see it done with an air of prideful bellicosity, as exemplified by Baldy Ben, so Germany doesn't get the credit.
"Germany has actually donated a greater $/€ value of weapons than the UK"
As I've said passim, Germany's problem has been twofold: talking about giving, then saying they would not; and agreeing delivery of stuff, but not for years.
Ukraine needs stuff now. Future promises matter little; what matters is the stuff that gets over there today, this week, or this month. Germany also looked really bad in preventing countries with Leopard MBTs from sending them to Ukraine (and as an aside, Switzerland looks really shitty on that mark as well).
And TBF to the UK, we've been delivering. ISTR you were rather negative about the 10,000 training scheme when it was announced?
tbf, according to your link if you include humanitarian and financial assistance "EU institutions" dwarfs both the UK and Germany. You could probably get Germany ahead on that measure if you include the German share of EU contributions.
Whilst that's true, the article as about military aid (the title is 'Ukraine weapons: What military equipment is the world giving?'). And as the biggest power in the EU, Germany can always make sure that the smaller countries pay more.
But that's sorta the point: Germany are behind us in military aid, and the mood music around their 'contributions' has been very harmful, both to Ukraine and themselves. They're doing more than people think, but less than they say. And a lot less than they should ...
Not sure exactly what you mean by "And as the biggest power in the EU, Germany can always make sure that the smaller countries pay more." in this context?
As for "mood music" again not sure precisely what you mean, but maybe it's better this way than the mood music being "Germany are spearheading the arming of Ukraine against Russia" if you think about it. I know you are especially critical of Germany, and no doubt much of the criticism is justified, but it seems a bit strange to complain, as you have done, that they are much worse than France in terms of supporting Ukraine. Or to imply that Germany is much worse than everyone else in Europe, when there are clearly many European countries doing a lot less.
"I know you are especially critical of Germany,"
In this I am critical of them; but I doubt you'd find another post on here where I've been especially critical of them in a general matter. (I know I've mentioned when my wife got racially abuse din Germany).
"ut it seems a bit strange to complain, as you have done, that they are much worse than France in terms of supporting Ukraine. "
Have I mentioned France?
If you look at my posts, I think I've been reasonable in my criticism. Germany are doing more than people think, less than they claim, and much less than they should be doing.
Not today, but in the past you have compared France (or it might have been Macron) favorably with Germany regarding Ukraine. But also - I recall you writing Germany are doing "much less than they should be doing" or similar on a few occasions, but I don't recall you writing that of any other country - including for example France. Maybe that has always (like today) been in response to others bringing up Germany first.
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
Good morning! May I gently point out that there is a world of difference between lived inflation - how much the stuff I buy goes up - and paper inflation - the total of how much everyone buys goes up.
The people in the lower deciles spend far more of their meagre cash on the things with the highest rates of inflation. They are already suffering real world inflation well north of the official figure. So your 5% cut would absolutely ream them whether paper inflation comes down or not.
How else can I put this. The price increases in food - so many of which have been multiples higher than even the headline figures - are here to stay and prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down. The idea that lived inflation will stop being a problem this year is disconnected from reality.
Came back from holiday yesterday needed some emergency milk. Four pints of skimmed (not Cravendale) were £1.85 at the small Co-op in Llantwit Major. Blimey, I thought isn't that normally £1.15? Still it's a small shop so I'll pay the emergency premium. On my way home from work I looked in at Tesco, priced matched to Aldi at £1.65.
Headline food inflation is way lower than reality. Anecdotal evidence that this is biting consumers, Tesco, Bridgend car park which is normally rammed at 5 pm wasn't even a third full.
I can't believe this is actually true. Germany banning the export of tanks to Ukraine unless America sends its own tanks would be absurd. It makes all Europe, not just Germany, look ridiculous. Dispiriting that there hasn't been a denial out of Berlin yet.
Why is it absurd? Given that Germany has no nuclear deterrent of its own and that the provision of MBTs would be a major escalation in the war, it doesn't seem unreasonable for Germany to expect a similar commitment from the US.
Germany has actually donated a greater $/€ value of weapons than the UK but people want to see it done with an air of prideful bellicosity, as exemplified by Baldy Ben, so Germany doesn't get the credit.
"Germany has actually donated a greater $/€ value of weapons than the UK"
As I've said passim, Germany's problem has been twofold: talking about giving, then saying they would not; and agreeing delivery of stuff, but not for years.
Ukraine needs stuff now. Future promises matter little; what matters is the stuff that gets over there today, this week, or this month. Germany also looked really bad in preventing countries with Leopard MBTs from sending them to Ukraine (and as an aside, Switzerland looks really shitty on that mark as well).
And TBF to the UK, we've been delivering. ISTR you were rather negative about the 10,000 training scheme when it was announced?
tbf, according to your link if you include humanitarian and financial assistance "EU institutions" dwarfs both the UK and Germany. You could probably get Germany ahead on that measure if you include the German share of EU contributions.
Whilst that's true, the article as about military aid (the title is 'Ukraine weapons: What military equipment is the world giving?'). And as the biggest power in the EU, Germany can always make sure that the smaller countries pay more.
But that's sorta the point: Germany are behind us in military aid, and the mood music around their 'contributions' has been very harmful, both to Ukraine and themselves. They're doing more than people think, but less than they say. And a lot less than they should ...
Not sure exactly what you mean by "And as the biggest power in the EU, Germany can always make sure that the smaller countries pay more." in this context?
As for "mood music" again not sure precisely what you mean, but maybe it's better this way than the mood music being "Germany are spearheading the arming of Ukraine against Russia" if you think about it. I know you are especially critical of Germany, and no doubt much of the criticism is justified, but it seems a bit strange to complain, as you have done, that they are much worse than France in terms of supporting Ukraine. Or to imply that Germany is much worse than everyone else in Europe, when there are clearly many European countries doing a lot less.
"I know you are especially critical of Germany,"
In this I am critical of them; but I doubt you'd find another post on here where I've been especially critical of them in a general matter. (I know I've mentioned when my wife got racially abuse din Germany).
"ut it seems a bit strange to complain, as you have done, that they are much worse than France in terms of supporting Ukraine. "
Have I mentioned France?
If you look at my posts, I think I've been reasonable in my criticism. Germany are doing more than people think, less than they claim, and much less than they should be doing.
Not today, but in the past you have compared France (or it might have been Macron) favorably with Germany regarding Ukraine. But also - I recall you writing Germany are doing "much less than they should be doing" or similar on a few occasions, but I don't recall you writing that of any other country - including for example France. Maybe that has always (like today) been in response to others bringing up Germany first.
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
Good morning! May I gently point out that there is a world of difference between lived inflation - how much the stuff I buy goes up - and paper inflation - the total of how much everyone buys goes up.
The people in the lower deciles spend far more of their meagre cash on the things with the highest rates of inflation. They are already suffering real world inflation well north of the official figure. So your 5% cut would absolutely ream them whether paper inflation comes down or not.
How else can I put this. The price increases in food - so many of which have been multiples higher than even the headline figures - are here to stay and prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down. The idea that lived inflation will stop being a problem this year is disconnected from reality.
I was reading this morning that the price of porridge oats has increased 188% in the last year.
I don't know if it's true - it was a newspaper report - but if true that's extraordinary.
I was particularly thinking about it this morning as I was making porridge, helpfully with some oats I bought a while ago.
Good to see someone saving their oats....
If you don't mind the weevils - which are perfectly safe and merely add protein - it's a good strategy
Haven't seen any weevils yet.
Mind you, I have been keeping them in a box with an airtight seal.
Edit - that should read, 'I have been keeping the oats in a box with an airtight seal.' I don't generally keep weevils.
Curious bit of history - the location for the naval victualling yard for ship's biscuits etc. in the 18th and 19th centuries, serving the Portsmouth/Spithead base/anchorage, was called Weevil, apparently a complete coincidence so far as anyone can tell.
They said it was small and remote, compared to the Great Weevil yard a few miles away.
But they chose it because in the Navy you always choose the lesser of two weevils.
Just checked my references, delayed by a bowl of porridge (of course). It was brewing that was there in the C18 - the biscuits moved there in the 1820s when they rebuilt the victualling yard, in fact. Still a curious coincidence.
Sturgeon is proud of her image as a ‘progressive’ feminist Nationalist, but she faces a new Unionist coalition of women (and men) on both sides of the border. Self-ID is realigning politics on left and right. Which has left many Scottish Nationalists asking: why did she begin this battle?
Insiders suspect Sturgeon’s real motivation is personal: a kind of career virtue-signalling, calculated to help her secure a post as an LGBT champion in an international body such as the United Nations. It is an open secret that she is already planning her career after politics. The Gender Recognition Reform Bill may bring about that move rather sooner than she thinks.
Angus tweeting with his customary subtlety of a flying peat shovel.
She has only been there 6 years, she could easily have stood again. Just the likely Nationals victory in the New Zealand election later this year put her off I assume.
At least there will be one centre right government in the Anglosphere then if the Conservatives lose the next UK general election in 2024 then
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
Good morning! May I gently point out that there is a world of difference between lived inflation - how much the stuff I buy goes up - and paper inflation - the total of how much everyone buys goes up.
The people in the lower deciles spend far more of their meagre cash on the things with the highest rates of inflation. They are already suffering real world inflation well north of the official figure. So your 5% cut would absolutely ream them whether paper inflation comes down or not.
How else can I put this. The price increases in food - so many of which have been multiples higher than even the headline figures - are here to stay and prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down. The idea that lived inflation will stop being a problem this year is disconnected from reality.
Food price inflation is forecast to peak early 2023 and start to come down this year.
Read the article. Average food price inflation peaking at 17-19%. With most inflationary pressure - in other words increases much higher than the average - coming from "meat, fruit and vegetables, dairy and bread".
And after that the inflationary surge slows. Which means still getting more expensive but at a slower rate. Its not as if the IGD can accurately forecast this - as their own Chief Economist always adds on every presentation this is a media forecast based on a slew of variables. Can also show you previous presentations where he revises his own forecasts as the variables change.
Lets put it like this. I know senior people working across a slew of sectors supplying food and drink into the UK. Nobody is cheerful that their own prices are going to start dropping. The best case scenario is that this year has less cost price increases to push through than last year.
And as I said, the harshest spikes hit the poorest hardest.
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
Good morning! May I gently point out that there is a world of difference between lived inflation - how much the stuff I buy goes up - and paper inflation - the total of how much everyone buys goes up.
The people in the lower deciles spend far more of their meagre cash on the things with the highest rates of inflation. They are already suffering real world inflation well north of the official figure. So your 5% cut would absolutely ream them whether paper inflation comes down or not.
How else can I put this. The price increases in food - so many of which have been multiples higher than even the headline figures - are here to stay and prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down. The idea that lived inflation will stop being a problem this year is disconnected from reality.
Food price inflation is forecast to peak early 2023 and start to come down this year.
Read the article. Average food price inflation peaking at 17-19%. With most inflationary pressure - in other words increases much higher than the average - coming from "meat, fruit and vegetables, dairy and bread".
And after that the inflationary surge slows. Which means still getting more expensive but at a slower rate. Its not as if the IGD can accurately forecast this - as their own Chief Economist always adds on every presentation this is a media forecast based on a slew of variables. Can also show you previous presentations where he revises his own forecasts as the variables change.
Lets put it like this. I know senior people working across a slew of sectors supplying food and drink into the UK. Nobody is cheerful that their own prices are going to start dropping. The best case scenario is that this year has less cost price increases to push through than last year.
And as I said, the harshest spikes hit the poorest hardest.
I'm intrigued. What major food items are not covered by those five groups that they are able to be significantly higher than the average?
Angus tweeting with his customary subtlety of a flying peat shovel.
She has only been there 6 years, she could easily have stood again. Just the likely Nationals victory in the New Zealand election later this year put her off I assume.
At least there will be one centre right government in the Anglosphere then if the Conservatives lose the next UK general election in 2024 then
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
Good morning! May I gently point out that there is a world of difference between lived inflation - how much the stuff I buy goes up - and paper inflation - the total of how much everyone buys goes up.
The people in the lower deciles spend far more of their meagre cash on the things with the highest rates of inflation. They are already suffering real world inflation well north of the official figure. So your 5% cut would absolutely ream them whether paper inflation comes down or not.
How else can I put this. The price increases in food - so many of which have been multiples higher than even the headline figures - are here to stay and prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down. The idea that lived inflation will stop being a problem this year is disconnected from reality.
Yep, falling inflation just means prices going up less dramatically.
And if the Tories start crowing about falling inflation, exploiting that common misunderstanding, then it will bite them even harder as people are unable to reconcile that spurious optimism with their everyday life, and their inadequate pay rises. That has permanently damaged them, like the Labour governments of the 1970s. I remember a local Tory activist telling me that I should not vote for Mr Blair because Labour would lead to high inflation ...
Angus tweeting with his customary subtlety of a flying peat shovel.
She has only been there 6 years, she could easily have stood again. Just the likely Nationals victory in the New Zealand election later this year put her off I assume.
At least there will be one centre right government in the Anglosphere then if the Conservatives lose the next UK general election in 2024 then
By any normal definition Biden is centre right.
In this country he'd actually be right of the centre right, surely? I mean, not in a Mogg or Truss sense but you'd reasonably compare him to Gove or Osborne politically.
I fear for my mental capacity - I really don't get that pun. Could someone please put me out of my misery and explain?
Not a pun but MacNeil is in the 'disagrees with the SNP leadership but is too fond of his career as an MP to join Alba' section of the party. He'd love to see Sturgeon do a Jacinda and be replaced by a fruit rather than fish based nomenclature at the helm.
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
Good morning! May I gently point out that there is a world of difference between lived inflation - how much the stuff I buy goes up - and paper inflation - the total of how much everyone buys goes up.
The people in the lower deciles spend far more of their meagre cash on the things with the highest rates of inflation. They are already suffering real world inflation well north of the official figure. So your 5% cut would absolutely ream them whether paper inflation comes down or not.
How else can I put this. The price increases in food - so many of which have been multiples higher than even the headline figures - are here to stay and prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down. The idea that lived inflation will stop being a problem this year is disconnected from reality.
I was reading this morning that the price of porridge oats has increased 188% in the last year.
I don't know if it's true - it was a newspaper report - but if true that's extraordinary.
I was particularly thinking about it this morning as I was making porridge, helpfully with some oats I bought a while ago.
Good to see someone saving their oats....
If you don't mind the weevils - which are perfectly safe and merely add protein - it's a good strategy
Haven't seen any weevils yet.
Mind you, I have been keeping them in a box with an airtight seal.
Edit - that should read, 'I have been keeping the oats in a box with an airtight seal.' I don't generally keep weevils.
We just keep our porridge oats in the box they come in, I've often wondered if we are at risk of weevils.
I fear for my mental capacity - I really don't get that pun. Could someone please put me out of my misery and explain?
Not a pun but MacNeil is in the 'disagrees with the SNP leadership but is too fond of his career as an MP to join Alba' section of the party. He'd love to see Sturgeon do a Jacinda and be replaced by a fruit rather than fish based nomenclature at the helm.
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
Good morning! May I gently point out that there is a world of difference between lived inflation - how much the stuff I buy goes up - and paper inflation - the total of how much everyone buys goes up.
The people in the lower deciles spend far more of their meagre cash on the things with the highest rates of inflation. They are already suffering real world inflation well north of the official figure. So your 5% cut would absolutely ream them whether paper inflation comes down or not.
How else can I put this. The price increases in food - so many of which have been multiples higher than even the headline figures - are here to stay and prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down. The idea that lived inflation will stop being a problem this year is disconnected from reality.
Top end inflation, such as holidays has quite marked inflation too:
Strikes in France over Macron's plans to raise the retirement age from 62 to 64. The President has had to work with the centre right Les Republicains to get the plans through the Assemblee Nationale amidst leftwing opposition
I fear for my mental capacity - I really don't get that pun. Could someone please put me out of my misery and explain?
Not a pun but MacNeil is in the 'disagrees with the SNP leadership but is too fond of his career as an MP to join Alba' section of the party. He'd love to see Sturgeon do a Jacinda and be replaced by a fruit rather than fish based nomenclature at the helm.
Thank you. I was thinking his 'Ardeen' rather than Ardern was conveying some sort joke (?)
Must go now, time for my community sing-song therapy.
Angus tweeting with his customary subtlety of a flying peat shovel.
She has only been there 6 years, she could easily have stood again. Just the likely Nationals victory in the New Zealand election later this year put her off I assume.
At least there will be one centre right government in the Anglosphere then if the Conservatives lose the next UK general election in 2024 then
Angus tweeting with his customary subtlety of a flying peat shovel.
She has only been there 6 years, she could easily have stood again. Just the likely Nationals victory in the New Zealand election later this year put her off I assume.
At least there will be one centre right government in the Anglosphere then if the Conservatives lose the next UK general election in 2024 then
By any normal definition Biden is centre right.
In this country he'd actually be right of the centre right, surely? I mean, not in a Mogg or Truss sense but you'd reasonably compare him to Gove or Osborne politically.
Biden is little different to Starmer on most issues
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
Good morning! May I gently point out that there is a world of difference between lived inflation - how much the stuff I buy goes up - and paper inflation - the total of how much everyone buys goes up.
The people in the lower deciles spend far more of their meagre cash on the things with the highest rates of inflation. They are already suffering real world inflation well north of the official figure. So your 5% cut would absolutely ream them whether paper inflation comes down or not.
How else can I put this. The price increases in food - so many of which have been multiples higher than even the headline figures - are here to stay and prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down. The idea that lived inflation will stop being a problem this year is disconnected from reality.
Food price inflation is forecast to peak early 2023 and start to come down this year.
Read the article. Average food price inflation peaking at 17-19%. With most inflationary pressure - in other words increases much higher than the average - coming from "meat, fruit and vegetables, dairy and bread".
And after that the inflationary surge slows. Which means still getting more expensive but at a slower rate. Its not as if the IGD can accurately forecast this - as their own Chief Economist always adds on every presentation this is a media forecast based on a slew of variables. Can also show you previous presentations where he revises his own forecasts as the variables change.
Lets put it like this. I know senior people working across a slew of sectors supplying food and drink into the UK. Nobody is cheerful that their own prices are going to start dropping. The best case scenario is that this year has less cost price increases to push through than last year.
And as I said, the harshest spikes hit the poorest hardest.
I'm intrigued. What major food items are not covered by those five groups that they are able to be significantly higher than the average?
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
Good morning! May I gently point out that there is a world of difference between lived inflation - how much the stuff I buy goes up - and paper inflation - the total of how much everyone buys goes up.
The people in the lower deciles spend far more of their meagre cash on the things with the highest rates of inflation. They are already suffering real world inflation well north of the official figure. So your 5% cut would absolutely ream them whether paper inflation comes down or not.
How else can I put this. The price increases in food - so many of which have been multiples higher than even the headline figures - are here to stay and prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down. The idea that lived inflation will stop being a problem this year is disconnected from reality.
Yep, falling inflation just means prices going up less dramatically.
And if the Tories start crowing about falling inflation, exploiting that common misunderstanding, then it will bite them even harder as people are unable to reconcile that spurious optimism with their everyday life, and their inadequate pay rises. That has permanently damaged them, like the Labour governments of the 1970s. I remember a local Tory activist telling me that I should not vote for Mr Blair because Labour would lead to high inflation ...
Of course some of the PB Tory rampers haven't twigged yet that the effect of inflation is cumulative.
Sad to see Jacinda go, she was a great leader who showed how a modern left-wing party could win and win big in this day and age. Much for UK Labour to learn.
Fuel prices there have come down very significantly since the summer peak (and are if anything now rising again) - the effect in the UK is damped because so much of what we pay is tax.
Heating Oil hasn't. Scottish prices hit a peak of £1.3965 per litre on 15th March 2022. Its now £0.9664 - a drop of 31%. But vs the same time last winter? It was £0.6125 12 months ago, so an increase of 58%. And the price appears to be stable.
A 60% increase in your heating bills is not something thats easy for a lot of people to weather...
I was under the impression that some government money was coming to those of us that use heating oil (myself included), but I can't say I've seen anything about it, nor how the government would know who uses oil.
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
Good morning! May I gently point out that there is a world of difference between lived inflation - how much the stuff I buy goes up - and paper inflation - the total of how much everyone buys goes up.
The people in the lower deciles spend far more of their meagre cash on the things with the highest rates of inflation. They are already suffering real world inflation well north of the official figure. So your 5% cut would absolutely ream them whether paper inflation comes down or not.
How else can I put this. The price increases in food - so many of which have been multiples higher than even the headline figures - are here to stay and prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down. The idea that lived inflation will stop being a problem this year is disconnected from reality.
I was reading this morning that the price of porridge oats has increased 188% in the last year.
I don't know if it's true - it was a newspaper report - but if true that's extraordinary.
I was particularly thinking about it this morning as I was making porridge, helpfully with some oats I bought a while ago.
Good to see someone saving their oats....
If you don't mind the weevils - which are perfectly safe and merely add protein - it's a good strategy
Haven't seen any weevils yet.
Mind you, I have been keeping them in a box with an airtight seal.
Edit - that should read, 'I have been keeping the oats in a box with an airtight seal.' I don't generally keep weevils.
They make nice pets, but you will get reported to the RSPCA if you keep them in an airtight box
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
Good morning! May I gently point out that there is a world of difference between lived inflation - how much the stuff I buy goes up - and paper inflation - the total of how much everyone buys goes up.
The people in the lower deciles spend far more of their meagre cash on the things with the highest rates of inflation. They are already suffering real world inflation well north of the official figure. So your 5% cut would absolutely ream them whether paper inflation comes down or not.
How else can I put this. The price increases in food - so many of which have been multiples higher than even the headline figures - are here to stay and prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down. The idea that lived inflation will stop being a problem this year is disconnected from reality.
Top end inflation, such as holidays has quite marked inflation too:
I fear for my mental capacity - I really don't get that pun. Could someone please put me out of my misery and explain?
Not a pun but MacNeil is in the 'disagrees with the SNP leadership but is too fond of his career as an MP to join Alba' section of the party. He'd love to see Sturgeon do a Jacinda and be replaced by a fruit rather than fish based nomenclature at the helm.
Does the SNP have other fishy-sounding candidates, after Salmon(d) and Sturgeon, to take the helm?
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
Good morning! May I gently point out that there is a world of difference between lived inflation - how much the stuff I buy goes up - and paper inflation - the total of how much everyone buys goes up.
The people in the lower deciles spend far more of their meagre cash on the things with the highest rates of inflation. They are already suffering real world inflation well north of the official figure. So your 5% cut would absolutely ream them whether paper inflation comes down or not.
How else can I put this. The price increases in food - so many of which have been multiples higher than even the headline figures - are here to stay and prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down. The idea that lived inflation will stop being a problem this year is disconnected from reality.
Food price inflation is forecast to peak early 2023 and start to come down this year.
Read the article. Average food price inflation peaking at 17-19%. With most inflationary pressure - in other words increases much higher than the average - coming from "meat, fruit and vegetables, dairy and bread".
And after that the inflationary surge slows. Which means still getting more expensive but at a slower rate. Its not as if the IGD can accurately forecast this - as their own Chief Economist always adds on every presentation this is a media forecast based on a slew of variables. Can also show you previous presentations where he revises his own forecasts as the variables change.
Lets put it like this. I know senior people working across a slew of sectors supplying food and drink into the UK. Nobody is cheerful that their own prices are going to start dropping. The best case scenario is that this year has less cost price increases to push through than last year.
And as I said, the harshest spikes hit the poorest hardest.
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
Good morning! May I gently point out that there is a world of difference between lived inflation - how much the stuff I buy goes up - and paper inflation - the total of how much everyone buys goes up.
The people in the lower deciles spend far more of their meagre cash on the things with the highest rates of inflation. They are already suffering real world inflation well north of the official figure. So your 5% cut would absolutely ream them whether paper inflation comes down or not.
How else can I put this. The price increases in food - so many of which have been multiples higher than even the headline figures - are here to stay and prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down. The idea that lived inflation will stop being a problem this year is disconnected from reality.
Food price inflation is forecast to peak early 2023 and start to come down this year.
Read the article. Average food price inflation peaking at 17-19%. With most inflationary pressure - in other words increases much higher than the average - coming from "meat, fruit and vegetables, dairy and bread".
And after that the inflationary surge slows. Which means still getting more expensive but at a slower rate. Its not as if the IGD can accurately forecast this - as their own Chief Economist always adds on every presentation this is a media forecast based on a slew of variables. Can also show you previous presentations where he revises his own forecasts as the variables change.
Lets put it like this. I know senior people working across a slew of sectors supplying food and drink into the UK. Nobody is cheerful that their own prices are going to start dropping. The best case scenario is that this year has less cost price increases to push through than last year.
And as I said, the harshest spikes hit the poorest hardest.
Ha ha, all a bit ‘do you know who I am’ . You’re not the only one who works with the food industry. Your arguing against points I haven’t made. I don’t think prices will come down and no forecast I have seen says that. Merely they just rise less quickly.
not disputing that price increases affect the poorest the most either.
I’m just disputing your claim inflation in food wasn’t peaking this year. It most likely will.
Sad to see Jacinda go, she was a great leader who showed how a modern left-wing party could win and win big in this day and age. Much for UK Labour to learn.
She won big in 2017 and seemed a reasonably pleasant person but was a bit of a lightweight, locked down too long and is now trailing in the polls
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
Good morning! May I gently point out that there is a world of difference between lived inflation - how much the stuff I buy goes up - and paper inflation - the total of how much everyone buys goes up.
The people in the lower deciles spend far more of their meagre cash on the things with the highest rates of inflation. They are already suffering real world inflation well north of the official figure. So your 5% cut would absolutely ream them whether paper inflation comes down or not.
How else can I put this. The price increases in food - so many of which have been multiples higher than even the headline figures - are here to stay and prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down. The idea that lived inflation will stop being a problem this year is disconnected from reality.
I was reading this morning that the price of porridge oats has increased 188% in the last year.
I don't know if it's true - it was a newspaper report - but if true that's extraordinary.
I was particularly thinking about it this morning as I was making porridge, helpfully with some oats I bought a while ago.
Good to see someone saving their oats....
If you don't mind the weevils - which are perfectly safe and merely add protein - it's a good strategy
Haven't seen any weevils yet.
Mind you, I have been keeping them in a box with an airtight seal.
Edit - that should read, 'I have been keeping the oats in a box with an airtight seal.' I don't generally keep weevils.
They make nice pets, but you will get reported to the RSPCA if you keep them in an airtight box
Is this the moment to ask if weevils count as animals...
I can't believe this is actually true. Germany banning the export of tanks to Ukraine unless America sends its own tanks would be absurd. It makes all Europe, not just Germany, look ridiculous. Dispiriting that there hasn't been a denial out of Berlin yet.
Why is it absurd? Given that Germany has no nuclear deterrent of its own and that the provision of MBTs would be a major escalation in the war, it doesn't seem unreasonable for Germany to expect a similar commitment from the US.
Germany has actually donated a greater $/€ value of weapons than the UK but people want to see it done with an air of prideful bellicosity, as exemplified by Baldy Ben, so Germany doesn't get the credit.
"Germany has actually donated a greater $/€ value of weapons than the UK"
As I've said passim, Germany's problem has been twofold: talking about giving, then saying they would not; and agreeing delivery of stuff, but not for years.
Ukraine needs stuff now. Future promises matter little; what matters is the stuff that gets over there today, this week, or this month. Germany also looked really bad in preventing countries with Leopard MBTs from sending them to Ukraine (and as an aside, Switzerland looks really shitty on that mark as well).
And TBF to the UK, we've been delivering. ISTR you were rather negative about the 10,000 training scheme when it was announced?
tbf, according to your link if you include humanitarian and financial assistance "EU institutions" dwarfs both the UK and Germany. You could probably get Germany ahead on that measure if you include the German share of EU contributions.
Whilst that's true, the article as about military aid (the title is 'Ukraine weapons: What military equipment is the world giving?'). And as the biggest power in the EU, Germany can always make sure that the smaller countries pay more.
But that's sorta the point: Germany are behind us in military aid, and the mood music around their 'contributions' has been very harmful, both to Ukraine and themselves. They're doing more than people think, but less than they say. And a lot less than they should ...
Not sure exactly what you mean by "And as the biggest power in the EU, Germany can always make sure that the smaller countries pay more." in this context?
As for "mood music" again not sure precisely what you mean, but maybe it's better this way than the mood music being "Germany are spearheading the arming of Ukraine against Russia" if you think about it. I know you are especially critical of Germany, and no doubt much of the criticism is justified, but it seems a bit strange to complain, as you have done, that they are much worse than France in terms of supporting Ukraine. Or to imply that Germany is much worse than everyone else in Europe, when there are clearly many European countries doing a lot less.
"I know you are especially critical of Germany,"
In this I am critical of them; but I doubt you'd find another post on here where I've been especially critical of them in a general matter. (I know I've mentioned when my wife got racially abuse din Germany).
"ut it seems a bit strange to complain, as you have done, that they are much worse than France in terms of supporting Ukraine. "
Have I mentioned France?
If you look at my posts, I think I've been reasonable in my criticism. Germany are doing more than people think, less than they claim, and much less than they should be doing.
Not today, but in the past you have compared France (or it might have been Macron) favorably with Germany regarding Ukraine. But also - I recall you writing Germany are doing "much less than they should be doing" or similar on a few occasions, but I don't recall you writing that of any other country - including for example France. Maybe that has always (like today) been in response to others bringing up Germany first.
France isn’t blocking arms supplies to Ukraine
It also isn't supplying its main battle tanks to Ukraine (which Ukraine has also asked for). Whether Germany will in fact block Leopards remains to be seen, I'm not sure whether a decision has been taken, and no actual requests have been made yet.
I think Germany has for months indicated it wouldn't supply tanks to Ukraine without the US also supplying tanks, so the quickest way to get Leopard tanks to Ukraine would be to get the US to announce it will supply Abrams tanks to Ukraine. See also: Marders.
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
Good morning! May I gently point out that there is a world of difference between lived inflation - how much the stuff I buy goes up - and paper inflation - the total of how much everyone buys goes up.
The people in the lower deciles spend far more of their meagre cash on the things with the highest rates of inflation. They are already suffering real world inflation well north of the official figure. So your 5% cut would absolutely ream them whether paper inflation comes down or not.
How else can I put this. The price increases in food - so many of which have been multiples higher than even the headline figures - are here to stay and prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down. The idea that lived inflation will stop being a problem this year is disconnected from reality.
Yep, falling inflation just means prices going up less dramatically.
And if the Tories start crowing about falling inflation, exploiting that common misunderstanding, then it will bite them even harder as people are unable to reconcile that spurious optimism with their everyday life, and their inadequate pay rises. That has permanently damaged them, like the Labour governments of the 1970s. I remember a local Tory activist telling me that I should not vote for Mr Blair because Labour would lead to high inflation ...
Of course some of the PB Tory rampers haven't twigged yet that the effect of inflation is cumulative.
We need Rachel Reeves in a coffee shop explaining the difference between first and second derivatives of average prices
I fear for my mental capacity - I really don't get that pun. Could someone please put me out of my misery and explain?
Not a pun but MacNeil is in the 'disagrees with the SNP leadership but is too fond of his career as an MP to join Alba' section of the party. He'd love to see Sturgeon do a Jacinda and be replaced by a fruit rather than fish based nomenclature at the helm.
Does the SNP have other fishy-sounding candidates, after Salmon(d) and Sturgeon, to take the helm?
There's a Gougeon but not a likely leadership candidate.
Edit: and Salmond is now persona non grata with the SNP. Never say never, but Eck coming back to the SNP is something I would put in the Never folder.
Angus tweeting with his customary subtlety of a flying peat shovel.
She has only been there 6 years, she could easily have stood again. Just the likely Nationals victory in the New Zealand election later this year put her off I assume.
At least there will be one centre right government in the Anglosphere then if the Conservatives lose the next UK general election in 2024 then
Do you never take stuff on face value. It is refreshing that people move on and let fresh ideas come forth. It is why many roles are term limited.
Sad to see Jacinda go, she was a great leader who showed how a modern left-wing party could win and win big in this day and age. Much for UK Labour to learn.
Ah, but did she get all of the big calls right like BigDog?
(Some on here would say she got COVID very wrong whilst the Dog did somewhat better, only not as well as living-with-COVID poster boy, Jair Bolsonaro).
Having your economic policy described as "stupid" by a leading advocate for Brexit... lol.
I like his comment regarding WFH:
"Dyson said the government’s failure to get workers back to the office after the pandemic had “badly damaged the country’s work ethic”, arguing face-to-face interaction was important, including for the training of new and young employees."
Since the start of the year two major companies that we deal with including a massive housing association have told their employees that they must now return to the office. I think mass WFH is coming to an end, mainly because people don't work.
Sad to see Jacinda go, she was a great leader who showed how a modern left-wing party could win and win big in this day and age. Much for UK Labour to learn.
Also a model for how labour would have kept the country in perma-lockdown.
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
Good morning! May I gently point out that there is a world of difference between lived inflation - how much the stuff I buy goes up - and paper inflation - the total of how much everyone buys goes up.
The people in the lower deciles spend far more of their meagre cash on the things with the highest rates of inflation. They are already suffering real world inflation well north of the official figure. So your 5% cut would absolutely ream them whether paper inflation comes down or not.
How else can I put this. The price increases in food - so many of which have been multiples higher than even the headline figures - are here to stay and prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down. The idea that lived inflation will stop being a problem this year is disconnected from reality.
I was reading this morning that the price of porridge oats has increased 188% in the last year.
I don't know if it's true - it was a newspaper report - but if true that's extraordinary.
I was particularly thinking about it this morning as I was making porridge, helpfully with some oats I bought a while ago.
Good to see someone saving their oats....
If you don't mind the weevils - which are perfectly safe and merely add protein - it's a good strategy
Haven't seen any weevils yet.
Mind you, I have been keeping them in a box with an airtight seal.
Edit - that should read, 'I have been keeping the oats in a box with an airtight seal.' I don't generally keep weevils.
They make nice pets, but you will get reported to the RSPCA if you keep them in an airtight box
Is this the moment to ask if weevils count as animals...
You do realise that 90% of people reading that post won't have a clue why you made it don't you? Still it got a like and more importantly a smile from me.
-On 26 January 2022 the EHRC wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government, setting out our position on reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. As the bill was introduced we exchanged further correspondence with the Cabinet Secretary. - The EHRC supported the Equality, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee’s scrutiny of the proposed bill. We appeared before the committee to give evidence and wrote to the Convener. - On 20 September 2022 the EHRC wrote to the Scottish and UK governments to set out the implications of the proposed legislation for the operation of the Equality Act 2010. At this time we met with MSPs from various political parties, as well as the Cabinet Secretary, to brief them on our advice. - On 14 November 2022 the EHRC shared a written briefing with all MSPs, to assist them as they considered the detail of the Bill and amendments at Stage 2. We shared this briefing with all MSPs again at Stage 3. - On 22 December 2022 the EHRC wrote to the Minister for Women and Equalities to summarise the potential impact of the new legislation.
Having your economic policy described as "stupid" by a leading advocate for Brexit... lol.
I like his comment regarding WFH:
"Dyson said the government’s failure to get workers back to the office after the pandemic had “badly damaged the country’s work ethic”, arguing face-to-face interaction was important, including for the training of new and young employees."
Since the start of the year two major companies that we deal with including a massive housing association have told their employees that they must now return to the office. I think mass WFH is coming to an end, mainly because people don't work.
WFH is a tool/methodology. As with all tools and methodologies, it works and is useful in some cases. And in other cases is a fucking disaster.
Sending everyone home with a small, shitty laptop is WFH, in the sense that burning a building down to collect the insurance money is a business plan.
WFH needs support, company and team structure and is applicable in some situations.
It works great for software development, in the middle phase of the project - stable team, tasks with lots of background, use Agile so each task is a well defined, independent piece.
The biggest point missed about WFH is that it needs to be flexible both ways - at the start of projects or when new team members join, you may need to do 5 days a week in the office.
Sad to see Jacinda go, she was a great leader who showed how a modern left-wing party could win and win big in this day and age. Much for UK Labour to learn.
It's refreshing to see power relinquished in this fashion. It's normally clasped tight till the bitter end. She's the dead opposite of the Donald Trumps of this world - the actual, the wannabees, the admirers, the apologists - and that's a good way to be.
I fear for my mental capacity - I really don't get that pun. Could someone please put me out of my misery and explain?
Not a pun but MacNeil is in the 'disagrees with the SNP leadership but is too fond of his career as an MP to join Alba' section of the party. He'd love to see Sturgeon do a Jacinda and be replaced by a fruit rather than fish based nomenclature at the helm.
Does the SNP have other fishy-sounding candidates, after Salmon(d) and Sturgeon, to take the helm?
There's a Gougeon but not a likely leadership candidate.
Edit: and Salmond is now persona non grata with the SNP. Never say never, but Eck coming back to the SNP is something I would put in the Never folder.
Having your economic policy described as "stupid" by a leading advocate for Brexit... lol.
I like his comment regarding WFH:
"Dyson said the government’s failure to get workers back to the office after the pandemic had “badly damaged the country’s work ethic”, arguing face-to-face interaction was important, including for the training of new and young employees."
Since the start of the year two major companies that we deal with including a massive housing association have told their employees that they must now return to the office. I think mass WFH is coming to an end, mainly because people don't work.
Maybe but there is also the suspicion that some firms use it as a way to trigger resignations; downsizing without the hassle and expense of redundancy. Like the global financial crisis, it started in America.
Fuel prices there have come down very significantly since the summer peak (and are if anything now rising again) - the effect in the UK is damped because so much of what we pay is tax.
Heating Oil hasn't. Scottish prices hit a peak of £1.3965 per litre on 15th March 2022. Its now £0.9664 - a drop of 31%. But vs the same time last winter? It was £0.6125 12 months ago, so an increase of 58%. And the price appears to be stable.
A 60% increase in your heating bills is not something thats easy for a lot of people to weather...
I was under the impression that some government money was coming to those of us that use heating oil (myself included), but I can't say I've seen anything about it, nor how the government would know who uses oil.
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
I agree with you G, the amounts they are asking for is just stupid. Will be precious few in private sector getting bumper pay rises , inflation or not. No way can the public purse afford stupid numbers but Government should make a reasonable offer and say that is it take it or go get another job.
Having your economic policy described as "stupid" by a leading advocate for Brexit... lol.
I like his comment regarding WFH:
"Dyson said the government’s failure to get workers back to the office after the pandemic had “badly damaged the country’s work ethic”, arguing face-to-face interaction was important, including for the training of new and young employees."
Since the start of the year two major companies that we deal with including a massive housing association have told their employees that they must now return to the office. I think mass WFH is coming to an end, mainly because people don't work.
WFH is a tool/methodology. As with all tools and methodologies, it works and is useful in some cases. And in other cases is a fucking disaster.
Sending everyone home with a small, shitty laptop is WFH, in the sense that burning a building down to collect the insurance money is a business plan.
WFH needs support, company and team structure and is applicable in some situations.
It works great for software development, in the middle phase of the project - stable team, tasks with lots of background, use Agile so each task is a well defined, independent piece.
The biggest point missed about WFH is that it needs to be flexible both ways - at the start of projects or when new team members join, you may need to do 5 days a week in the office.
The main problem with WFH is that its humans doing it, if I was doing it I would sit and watch racing all day, humans need a regulated work environment or they will do something they enjoy more..
Sad to see Jacinda go, she was a great leader who showed how a modern left-wing party could win and win big in this day and age. Much for UK Labour to learn.
Also a model for how labour would have kept the country in perma-lockdown.
NZ restrictions were rather less strict than ours for most of the period (from the Oxford stringency index, at least). They had a much tighter end to 2021/start to 2022 than us, it's true.
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
Good morning! May I gently point out that there is a world of difference between lived inflation - how much the stuff I buy goes up - and paper inflation - the total of how much everyone buys goes up.
The people in the lower deciles spend far more of their meagre cash on the things with the highest rates of inflation. They are already suffering real world inflation well north of the official figure. So your 5% cut would absolutely ream them whether paper inflation comes down or not.
How else can I put this. The price increases in food - so many of which have been multiples higher than even the headline figures - are here to stay and prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down. The idea that lived inflation will stop being a problem this year is disconnected from reality.
Food price inflation is forecast to peak early 2023 and start to come down this year.
Read the article. Average food price inflation peaking at 17-19%. With most inflationary pressure - in other words increases much higher than the average - coming from "meat, fruit and vegetables, dairy and bread".
And after that the inflationary surge slows. Which means still getting more expensive but at a slower rate. Its not as if the IGD can accurately forecast this - as their own Chief Economist always adds on every presentation this is a media forecast based on a slew of variables. Can also show you previous presentations where he revises his own forecasts as the variables change.
Lets put it like this. I know senior people working across a slew of sectors supplying food and drink into the UK. Nobody is cheerful that their own prices are going to start dropping. The best case scenario is that this year has less cost price increases to push through than last year.
And as I said, the harshest spikes hit the poorest hardest.
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
Good morning! May I gently point out that there is a world of difference between lived inflation - how much the stuff I buy goes up - and paper inflation - the total of how much everyone buys goes up.
The people in the lower deciles spend far more of their meagre cash on the things with the highest rates of inflation. They are already suffering real world inflation well north of the official figure. So your 5% cut would absolutely ream them whether paper inflation comes down or not.
How else can I put this. The price increases in food - so many of which have been multiples higher than even the headline figures - are here to stay and prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down. The idea that lived inflation will stop being a problem this year is disconnected from reality.
Food price inflation is forecast to peak early 2023 and start to come down this year.
Read the article. Average food price inflation peaking at 17-19%. With most inflationary pressure - in other words increases much higher than the average - coming from "meat, fruit and vegetables, dairy and bread".
And after that the inflationary surge slows. Which means still getting more expensive but at a slower rate. Its not as if the IGD can accurately forecast this - as their own Chief Economist always adds on every presentation this is a media forecast based on a slew of variables. Can also show you previous presentations where he revises his own forecasts as the variables change.
Lets put it like this. I know senior people working across a slew of sectors supplying food and drink into the UK. Nobody is cheerful that their own prices are going to start dropping. The best case scenario is that this year has less cost price increases to push through than last year.
And as I said, the harshest spikes hit the poorest hardest.
Ha ha, all a bit ‘do you know who I am’ . You’re not the only one who works with the food industry. Your arguing against points I haven’t made. I don’t think prices will come down and no forecast I have seen says that. Merely they just rise less quickly.
not disputing that price increases affect the poorest the most either.
I’m just disputing your claim inflation in food wasn’t peaking this year. It most likely will.
Please read what I posted again. "prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down".
A food price peak is when they reach the top and then start to drop. What even the IGD are forecasting is that whilst the rate of inflation will slow from its peak, there will continue to be price rises in food. So as I said, food prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down."
Inflation will reduce. But will continue to inflate food prices. We have had inverted spells where there is active food price deflation. That isn't about to happen any time soon, as all the input prices across a basket of anything continue to rise.
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
I agree with you G, the amounts they are asking for is just stupid. Will be precious few in private sector getting bumper pay rises , inflation or not. No way can the public purse afford stupid numbers but Government should make a reasonable offer and say that is it take it or go get another job.
Gooooood. So your nurse or teacher takes your advice and quits. We can't just go down the jobcentre and pull someone in off the streets. These are professional highly trained roles and we already have a huge shortage of them.
So how does "if you don't like it go get a job" help the situation?
Angus tweeting with his customary subtlety of a flying peat shovel.
She has only been there 6 years, she could easily have stood again. Just the likely Nationals victory in the New Zealand election later this year put her off I assume.
At least there will be one centre right government in the Anglosphere then if the Conservatives lose the next UK general election in 2024 then
By any normal definition Biden is centre right.
In US terms Biden is centre left.
Note too the US Republican Party is the sister party of the UK Conservative Party and New Zealand National Party in the centre right International Democrat Union
Having your economic policy described as "stupid" by a leading advocate for Brexit... lol.
I like his comment regarding WFH:
"Dyson said the government’s failure to get workers back to the office after the pandemic had “badly damaged the country’s work ethic”, arguing face-to-face interaction was important, including for the training of new and young employees."
Since the start of the year two major companies that we deal with including a massive housing association have told their employees that they must now return to the office. I think mass WFH is coming to an end, mainly because people don't work.
WFH is a tool/methodology. As with all tools and methodologies, it works and is useful in some cases. And in other cases is a fucking disaster.
Sending everyone home with a small, shitty laptop is WFH, in the sense that burning a building down to collect the insurance money is a business plan.
WFH needs support, company and team structure and is applicable in some situations.
It works great for software development, in the middle phase of the project - stable team, tasks with lots of background, use Agile so each task is a well defined, independent piece.
The biggest point missed about WFH is that it needs to be flexible both ways - at the start of projects or when new team members join, you may need to do 5 days a week in the office.
The main problem with WFH is that its humans doing it, if I was doing it I would sit and watch racing all day, humans need a regulated work environment or they will do something they enjoy more..
Some humans. Some of us have worked from home since long before covid and get far more done than we do in the office.
French citoyens are striking over plans to raise the French pension age to [checks notes] 64, up from 62. The French state pension is more complicated than ours, more generous than ours, and means tested at the top level. It also runs at a profit.
Our state pension pays less, does not start till 67 (soon to be 68) and yet people obsess about the triple lock.
It's a good trick to have a more generous state pension that also runs at a profit. How do the French do that?
Aiui and IANAE the French have a pension investment fund, whereas we pay from taxation.
That must make a massive difference to the effective national savings' rate?
No idea. It is mainly rcs1000 who is obsessed with national savings rates, and possibly even then it is household savings rates. All I know is what comes from discussions with French colleagues; I'm no ChatGPT.
eta You could say that ours is an age-based system whereas theirs is more a retirement-based benefit but remember IANAE or an AI chat bot.
eta2 if this French strike takes off, you'd expect the news media to explain.
A quick search suggests that the French Pension Reserve Fund was only created in 2001, intended to provide long-run finance for the state pension system. It has been funded from surpluses of pre-existing social security funds (suggesting that fund-financing itself pre-dated 2001?), privatisations, mobile phone licenses, and a stock market transaction tax. It looks like the latter has been the most significant.
Payments out from the fund only expected to start in 2020.
The original aim was to have a fund of €150 bn by 2020 - as at 2016 it had €36 bn.
That's a lot of saved/invested money that the UK government will have just spent.
That stock market transaction tax must have killed off the Paris Bourse.
Having your economic policy described as "stupid" by a leading advocate for Brexit... lol.
I like his comment regarding WFH:
"Dyson said the government’s failure to get workers back to the office after the pandemic had “badly damaged the country’s work ethic”, arguing face-to-face interaction was important, including for the training of new and young employees."
Since the start of the year two major companies that we deal with including a massive housing association have told their employees that they must now return to the office. I think mass WFH is coming to an end, mainly because people don't work.
WFH is a tool/methodology. As with all tools and methodologies, it works and is useful in some cases. And in other cases is a fucking disaster.
Sending everyone home with a small, shitty laptop is WFH, in the sense that burning a building down to collect the insurance money is a business plan.
WFH needs support, company and team structure and is applicable in some situations.
It works great for software development, in the middle phase of the project - stable team, tasks with lots of background, use Agile so each task is a well defined, independent piece.
The biggest point missed about WFH is that it needs to be flexible both ways - at the start of projects or when new team members join, you may need to do 5 days a week in the office.
The main problem with WFH is that its humans doing it, if I was doing it I would sit and watch racing all day, humans need a regulated work environment or they will do something they enjoy more..
Which is why Agile for software development works well with WFH.
Which in turn is not surprising - the methodology was designed for distributed working.
For those who don't know it - it's about turning work into series of a small tasks that, over time, deliver the work required. So you have a list of tasks, and pick one to do. generally a short meeting at the start of each day on where people are, problems etc. Time is written against each task.
So if someone just doesn't do actual work, each day, it is very obvious. Instantly.
Under normal circumstances I am absolutely opposed to strikes and believe that anyone striking should be prepared to quit instead. I also believe the employer should have an absolute right to sack people who strike immediately and replace them with others who want to work, if there's others available.
However I still believe that people should have a right to strike, even if I'd normally oppose it, and to be honest these seem like the most appropriate circumstances to do so.
The Government thinks it has enough money to maintain the Triple Lock and give those who are not working an increase in their income to match inflation, yet expects those who are working for a living to be taking a hammering with a large real terms cut in wages. How is that reasonable?
If we were "all in it together" then that would be one thing, but we are not. Client groups are getting inflation-matching pay increases while others aren't, that is not acceptable and why should those in work not strike in those circumstances?
Those who are working should see their wages increase at least by as much as those who are not in work. Don't like that? Get a job.
I fear for my mental capacity - I really don't get that pun. Could someone please put me out of my misery and explain?
Not a pun but MacNeil is in the 'disagrees with the SNP leadership but is too fond of his career as an MP to join Alba' section of the party. He'd love to see Sturgeon do a Jacinda and be replaced by a fruit rather than fish based nomenclature at the helm.
Does the SNP have other fishy-sounding candidates, after Salmon(d) and Sturgeon, to take the helm?
There's a Gougeon but not a likely leadership candidate.
Edit: and Salmond is now persona non grata with the SNP. Never say never, but Eck coming back to the SNP is something I would put in the Never folder.
Where are you on a 1 to 10 scale of 'pissed off' about this UKG block on the gender bill?
I fear for my mental capacity - I really don't get that pun. Could someone please put me out of my misery and explain?
Not a pun but MacNeil is in the 'disagrees with the SNP leadership but is too fond of his career as an MP to join Alba' section of the party. He'd love to see Sturgeon do a Jacinda and be replaced by a fruit rather than fish based nomenclature at the helm.
Does the SNP have other fishy-sounding candidates, after Salmon(d) and Sturgeon, to take the helm?
There's a Gougeon but not a likely leadership candidate.
Edit: and Salmond is now persona non grata with the SNP. Never say never, but Eck coming back to the SNP is something I would put in the Never folder.
Having your economic policy described as "stupid" by a leading advocate for Brexit... lol.
I like his comment regarding WFH:
"Dyson said the government’s failure to get workers back to the office after the pandemic had “badly damaged the country’s work ethic”, arguing face-to-face interaction was important, including for the training of new and young employees."
Since the start of the year two major companies that we deal with including a massive housing association have told their employees that they must now return to the office. I think mass WFH is coming to an end, mainly because people don't work.
Maybe but there is also the suspicion that some firms use it as a way to trigger resignations; downsizing without the hassle and expense of redundancy. Like the global financial crisis, it started in America.
Also, the more scum baggy places are using it to shift costs to workers.
People on the lower end of things have been telling me that they've been asked to show, at interview, what equipment they personally have at home (wave the phone around to show them). The strong implication is that if you don't have a good WFH setup, you won't get the job. BYO with a vengeance....
Having your economic policy described as "stupid" by a leading advocate for Brexit... lol.
I like his comment regarding WFH:
"Dyson said the government’s failure to get workers back to the office after the pandemic had “badly damaged the country’s work ethic”, arguing face-to-face interaction was important, including for the training of new and young employees."
Since the start of the year two major companies that we deal with including a massive housing association have told their employees that they must now return to the office. I think mass WFH is coming to an end, mainly because people don't work.
WFH is a tool/methodology. As with all tools and methodologies, it works and is useful in some cases. And in other cases is a fucking disaster.
Sending everyone home with a small, shitty laptop is WFH, in the sense that burning a building down to collect the insurance money is a business plan.
WFH needs support, company and team structure and is applicable in some situations.
It works great for software development, in the middle phase of the project - stable team, tasks with lots of background, use Agile so each task is a well defined, independent piece.
The biggest point missed about WFH is that it needs to be flexible both ways - at the start of projects or when new team members join, you may need to do 5 days a week in the office.
The main problem with WFH is that its humans doing it, if I was doing it I would sit and watch racing all day, humans need a regulated work environment or they will do something they enjoy more..
Some humans. Some of us have worked from home since long before covid and get far more done than we do in the office.
Of course WFH can work, and it some circumstances and with some employees it is a much more effective way of working, but as a policy for all workers it has failed, which is why I think the vast majority of those who did not WFH prior to Covid will be back in the office this year.
Having your economic policy described as "stupid" by a leading advocate for Brexit... lol.
I like his comment regarding WFH:
"Dyson said the government’s failure to get workers back to the office after the pandemic had “badly damaged the country’s work ethic”, arguing face-to-face interaction was important, including for the training of new and young employees."
Since the start of the year two major companies that we deal with including a massive housing association have told their employees that they must now return to the office. I think mass WFH is coming to an end, mainly because people don't work.
WFH is a tool/methodology. As with all tools and methodologies, it works and is useful in some cases. And in other cases is a fucking disaster.
Sending everyone home with a small, shitty laptop is WFH, in the sense that burning a building down to collect the insurance money is a business plan.
WFH needs support, company and team structure and is applicable in some situations.
It works great for software development, in the middle phase of the project - stable team, tasks with lots of background, use Agile so each task is a well defined, independent piece.
The biggest point missed about WFH is that it needs to be flexible both ways - at the start of projects or when new team members join, you may need to do 5 days a week in the office.
The main problem with WFH is that its humans doing it, if I was doing it I would sit and watch racing all day, humans need a regulated work environment or they will do something they enjoy more..
Some humans. Some of us have worked from home since long before covid and get far more done than we do in the office.
I was hybrid before and hybrid now, but with more WFH (80% up from probably around 50%). Makes the ofice days less productive* than before as each time I'm in I spend more time talking to people I haven't seen for a while.
*in tangible terms - a lot of those extra conversations are actually quite useful, keeping up to date and drawing parallels across projects, sharing ideas and resources etc. But my WFH days are the days to actually get through my todo list.
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
Good morning! May I gently point out that there is a world of difference between lived inflation - how much the stuff I buy goes up - and paper inflation - the total of how much everyone buys goes up.
The people in the lower deciles spend far more of their meagre cash on the things with the highest rates of inflation. They are already suffering real world inflation well north of the official figure. So your 5% cut would absolutely ream them whether paper inflation comes down or not.
How else can I put this. The price increases in food - so many of which have been multiples higher than even the headline figures - are here to stay and prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down. The idea that lived inflation will stop being a problem this year is disconnected from reality.
I was reading this morning that the price of porridge oats has increased 188% in the last year.
I don't know if it's true - it was a newspaper report - but if true that's extraordinary.
I was particularly thinking about it this morning as I was making porridge, helpfully with some oats I bought a while ago.
With the milk that has increased in price by around 48% in the last seven months...
The oat hay for my goats has pretty much doubled in price over the last year, although I guess that's the yen falling as well.
Also when I buy porridge from Amazon it's the only thing I have to sign for, everything else gets dumped in the genkan.
It's no surprise that people want a decent pay rise, and it's no surprise that the public is generally supportive of that. Today's inflation rate was slightly down at 10.5%, but food prices were rising at 16.8% to December. Meanwhile, energy bills keep rising whatever is happening to the wholesale cost of energy; I've just received notification that my monthly bill is £264 a month, compared with £97 at this time last year.
Guess what average and low paid people spend much of their income on? Food and energy bills, and for many fuel. An average pay rise of 2.7% in the public sector just isn't enough, especially in the context of falling real incomes over the last 10 years for most public sector workers.
In an ideal world everyone would have a pay rise to match inflation and of course everyone backs tax rises as long as it is not theirs
I have no idea how this is resolved but Sunak and Hunt seem to have an accountants mentality of balancing the books and as they have come this far and taken the flak, I expect no change by them this side of the new tax year
However, the big problem comes in April when pensions, benefits and the living wage do rise by 10.1% which by the way is fully endorsed by Starmer and indeed the Lib Dems, when in truth it should be capped nearer to 5%
So, you'd cap benefit rises and the living wage rise to 5%. When food prices are rising by 16.8%, and even higher for many basic foodstuffs? Let them starve, eh? (Any by the way, I never said that pay rises should be in line with inflation - just that what is being offered is inadequate).
That is not what I am saying
Inflation will fall over the next 6 months and as we cannot afford 10% public sector rises neither can the triple lock be justified
A fairer settlement would be nearer 5% maybe 6%
I agree with you G, the amounts they are asking for is just stupid. Will be precious few in private sector getting bumper pay rises , inflation or not. No way can the public purse afford stupid numbers but Government should make a reasonable offer and say that is it take it or go get another job.
Gooooood. So your nurse or teacher takes your advice and quits. We can't just go down the jobcentre and pull someone in off the streets. These are professional highly trained roles and we already have a huge shortage of them.
So how does "if you don't like it go get a job" help the situation?
It is worse than that. They quit their £600 a week job, and end up getting paid £600 a shift as agency staff from time to time as we are short of nurses. Brilliant management!
This is what the Tories are dying on an ideological hill for, to lose permanent staff and turn them into agency workers at a huge multiple of the price instead of paying them in real terms what we have been doing previously.
Under normal circumstances I am absolutely opposed to strikes and believe that anyone striking should be prepared to quit instead. I also believe the employer should have an absolute right to sack people who strike immediately and replace them with others who want to work, if there's others available.
However I still believe that people should have a right to strike, even if I'd normally oppose it, and to be honest these seem like the most appropriate circumstances to do so.
The Government thinks it has enough money to maintain the Triple Lock and give those who are not working an increase in their income to match inflation, yet expects those who are working for a living to be taking a hammering with a large real terms cut in wages. How is that reasonable?
If we were "all in it together" then that would be one thing, but we are not. Client groups are getting inflation-matching pay increases while others aren't, that is not acceptable and why should those in work not strike in those circumstances?
Those who are working should see their wages increase at least by as much as those who are not in work. Don't like that? Get a job.
Keeping the triple lock has defined this era of inflation, everyone now not getting an 11% rise at the taxpayer's expense is, rightly IMO, incensed. If they can give 12.5m retirees an extra 11% then what's 0.4m nurses asking for 10%, or 0.05m ambulance drivers asking for 8%, or 0.2m junior doctors asking for 9% etc...
It was the single biggest error that the government made and they are now reaping the reward from that with endless strikes in the public sector from workers who have seen the 11% benchmark given to old people.
Having your economic policy described as "stupid" by a leading advocate for Brexit... lol.
I like his comment regarding WFH:
"Dyson said the government’s failure to get workers back to the office after the pandemic had “badly damaged the country’s work ethic”, arguing face-to-face interaction was important, including for the training of new and young employees."
Since the start of the year two major companies that we deal with including a massive housing association have told their employees that they must now return to the office. I think mass WFH is coming to an end, mainly because people don't work.
WFH is a tool/methodology. As with all tools and methodologies, it works and is useful in some cases. And in other cases is a fucking disaster.
Sending everyone home with a small, shitty laptop is WFH, in the sense that burning a building down to collect the insurance money is a business plan.
WFH needs support, company and team structure and is applicable in some situations.
It works great for software development, in the middle phase of the project - stable team, tasks with lots of background, use Agile so each task is a well defined, independent piece.
The biggest point missed about WFH is that it needs to be flexible both ways - at the start of projects or when new team members join, you may need to do 5 days a week in the office.
The main problem with WFH is that its humans doing it, if I was doing it I would sit and watch racing all day, humans need a regulated work environment or they will do something they enjoy more..
Completely untrue. If I don't do my job, I get fired. If I try to do it in the office, I get very little actual work done. Some useful networking, yes, but don't need to do that 5 days a week. If I want to do any real work, I stay at home.
Comments
If you don't mind the weevils - which are perfectly safe and merely add protein - it's a good strategy
Mind you, I have been keeping them in a box with an airtight seal.
Edit - that should read, 'I have been keeping the oats in a box with an airtight seal.' I don't generally keep weevils.
A 60% increase in your heating bills is not something thats easy for a lot of people to weather...
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-jacinda-ardern-is-stepping-down/
I had this vague hope that some sunlight would melt the ice on my car before I had to take it down to Bristol later on this morning. That appears to have been as optimistic as hoping that the DfE would come up with a sensible policy on education.
In this I am critical of them; but I doubt you'd find another post on here where I've been especially critical of them in a general matter. (I know I've mentioned when my wife got racially abuse din Germany).
"ut it seems a bit strange to complain, as you have done, that they are much worse than France in terms of supporting Ukraine. "
Have I mentioned France?
If you look at my posts, I think I've been reasonable in my criticism. Germany are doing more than people think, less than they claim, and much less than they should be doing.
Can’t help but admire Jack Monroe. Her Guardian interview was ace. Taking money off mugs and spending it on whiskey and settees. Class.
And her online army of sycophants still adore her.
British intelligence sees this as a high-risk decision likely driven by propaganda purposes
Given the fact that the entire fleet is estimated to be in the low tens and production problems have marred the T-14's rollout, they are unlikely to make a major military impact
But they could move the needle on Germany's deliberations about Leopards to Ukraine
https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1615996542061776896
Oh...
https://www.investmentweek.co.uk/news/4060135/paris-overtakes-london-europes-most-valuable-stock-market
But they chose it because in the Navy you always choose the lesser of two weevils.
One of many sources
https://www.igd.com/home/article-viewer/t/food-inflation-rate-to-peak-in-early-2023-then-slow/i/30254
I fear for my mental capacity - I really don't get that pun. Could someone please put me out of my misery and explain?
There is still an issue where people associate this type of 'burnout' with failure, which is not particularly healthy.
Headline food inflation is way lower than reality. Anecdotal evidence that this is biting consumers, Tesco, Bridgend car park which is normally rammed at 5 pm wasn't even a third full.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Clarence_Yard
Insiders suspect Sturgeon’s real motivation is personal: a kind of career virtue-signalling, calculated to help her secure a post as an LGBT champion in an international body such as the United Nations. It is an open secret that she is already planning her career after politics. The Gender Recognition Reform Bill may bring about that move rather sooner than she thinks.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/gender-wars-the-unions-new-battle-line/
Having your economic policy described as "stupid" by a leading advocate for Brexit... lol.
At least there will be one centre right government in the Anglosphere then if the Conservatives lose the next UK general election in 2024 then
Read the article. Average food price inflation peaking at 17-19%. With most inflationary pressure - in other words increases much higher than the average - coming from "meat, fruit and vegetables, dairy and bread".
And after that the inflationary surge slows. Which means still getting more expensive but at a slower rate. Its not as if the IGD can accurately forecast this - as their own Chief Economist always adds on every presentation this is a media forecast based on a slew of variables. Can also show you previous presentations where he revises his own forecasts as the variables change.
Lets put it like this. I know senior people working across a slew of sectors supplying food and drink into the UK. Nobody is cheerful that their own prices are going to start dropping. The best case scenario is that this year has less cost price increases to push through than last year.
And as I said, the harshest spikes hit the poorest hardest.
Never seen any yet though.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/jan/19/package-holidays-flights-30-per-cent-more-expensive-last-year
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64309155
Must go now, time for my community sing-song therapy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64319323
(That's not a recipe btw)
Ha ha, all a bit ‘do you know who I am’ . You’re not the only one who works with the food industry. Your arguing against points I haven’t made. I don’t think prices will come down and no forecast I have seen says that. Merely they just rise less quickly.
not disputing that price increases affect the poorest the most either.
I’m just disputing your claim inflation in food wasn’t peaking this year. It most likely will.
I think Germany has for months indicated it wouldn't supply tanks to Ukraine without the US also supplying tanks, so the quickest way to get Leopard tanks to Ukraine would be to get the US to announce it will supply Abrams tanks to Ukraine. See also: Marders.
It has slowed a bit. See you later.
Edit: and Salmond is now persona non grata with the SNP.
Never say never, but Eck coming back to the SNP is something I would put in the Never folder.
Dictators take note.
(Some on here would say she got COVID very wrong whilst the Dog did somewhat better, only not as well as living-with-COVID poster boy, Jair Bolsonaro).
"Dyson said the government’s failure to get workers back to the office after the pandemic had “badly damaged the country’s work ethic”, arguing face-to-face interaction was important, including for the training of new and young employees."
Since the start of the year two major companies that we deal with including a massive housing association have told their employees that they must now return to the office. I think mass WFH is coming to an end, mainly because people don't work.
Sending everyone home with a small, shitty laptop is WFH, in the sense that burning a building down to collect the insurance money is a business plan.
WFH needs support, company and team structure and is applicable in some situations.
It works great for software development, in the middle phase of the project - stable team, tasks with lots of background, use Agile so each task is a well defined, independent piece.
The biggest point missed about WFH is that it needs to be flexible both ways - at the start of projects or when new team members join, you may need to do 5 days a week in the office.
Salmond's return would indeed be quite something.
A food price peak is when they reach the top and then start to drop. What even the IGD are forecasting is that whilst the rate of inflation will slow from its peak, there will continue to be price rises in food. So as I said, food prices are still going up, not peaking or coming back down."
Inflation will reduce. But will continue to inflate food prices. We have had inverted spells where there is active food price deflation. That isn't about to happen any time soon, as all the input prices across a basket of anything continue to rise.
So how does "if you don't like it go get a job" help the situation?
https://www.idu.org/members/
Which in turn is not surprising - the methodology was designed for distributed working.
For those who don't know it - it's about turning work into series of a small tasks that, over time, deliver the work required. So you have a list of tasks, and pick one to do. generally a short meeting at the start of each day on where people are, problems etc. Time is written against each task.
So if someone just doesn't do actual work, each day, it is very obvious. Instantly.
However I still believe that people should have a right to strike, even if I'd normally oppose it, and to be honest these seem like the most appropriate circumstances to do so.
The Government thinks it has enough money to maintain the Triple Lock and give those who are not working an increase in their income to match inflation, yet expects those who are working for a living to be taking a hammering with a large real terms cut in wages. How is that reasonable?
If we were "all in it together" then that would be one thing, but we are not. Client groups are getting inflation-matching pay increases while others aren't, that is not acceptable and why should those in work not strike in those circumstances?
Those who are working should see their wages increase at least by as much as those who are not in work. Don't like that? Get a job.
People on the lower end of things have been telling me that they've been asked to show, at interview, what equipment they personally have at home (wave the phone around to show them). The strong implication is that if you don't have a good WFH setup, you won't get the job. BYO with a vengeance....
*in tangible terms - a lot of those extra conversations are actually quite useful, keeping up to date and drawing parallels across projects, sharing ideas and resources etc. But my WFH days are the days to actually get through my todo list.
Also when I buy porridge from Amazon it's the only thing I have to sign for, everything else gets dumped in the genkan.
This is what the Tories are dying on an ideological hill for, to lose permanent staff and turn them into agency workers at a huge multiple of the price instead of paying them in real terms what we have been doing previously.
It was the single biggest error that the government made and they are now reaping the reward from that with endless strikes in the public sector from workers who have seen the 11% benchmark given to old people.