Good news IMHO that inflation is not falling as fast as people want.
It's a view. A fairly unique one.
Is it that unique?
There are multiple classes of inflation, but for too long only inflation in goods and services have been all the Bank of England concerned itself with. Despite the fact the number one cost in a household's budget is not food, its not electricity, its not gas, its not TVs or Sky or mobile phones. The main cost in a household's budget is housing.
And yet the number one cost in a household's budget was excluded from measurements of inflation. And then governments of both parties have tapped themselves on the back and said how great a job they're doing in keeping inflation low. Because goods imported from China are cheap, while the main cost in a household's budget has been going up - but we'll just ignore that.
For a long time on here I've been saying what an issue housing was, and I'd be fine with negative equity if it fixes it (including for myself, I bought last year so I'll be one of first hit if it happens). And many, many people here have responded saying the solution needed is not negative equity, but house prices growing at less than inflation to bring down real prices without negative equity.
Well how can the latter happen, if inflation doesn't exist or is at 2% or below?
Its remarkable how many people can simultaneously say they don't want the risk of negative equity so want to see house prices not fall but rise by less than inflation, while simultaneously saying they don't want any inflation. The two principles can't go together.
I am in agreement with this, in principle at least. The trouble with inflation of course is that it's a difficult and unpredictable thing to tame once it's out in the wild. But in an ideal world we would have something like the following now:
- Wage inflation at 7% - CPI at 5% - Interest rates at about 4% - House price inflation at zero
Thanks, yeah that sounds ideal.
Even then it'd take more than a decade to bring house costs back down to a semi-reasonable income multiple, they'd still be high by historic standards even after a decade of that. However realistically 2% real wage growth seems unlikely at the moment, so I'd probably tweak your numbers a bit.
Wage inflation at 8% CPI at 7% Interest rates at about 5% House price -2% (so moderate deflation)
Even those fairly extreme looking numbers would still take a decade to get us back down to a reasonable house price to income multiplier.
I think the wage/house price ratios will be back in line quicker than you'll think.
I would love it if you're right, but it will be only if the numbers are more extreme than those I wrote.
In which case what figures are you expecting?
Interest rates haven't (properly) risen yet. If/when they go over 6% we'll probably get a house price drop. Wage inflation will carry on at 7% for a bit eating into the multiplier.
Wage inflation will only carry on at 7% if there is CPI around that. Yet too many here are wishing for CPI to drop back down to 2%, in which case then wage inflation of 7% would be deemed "unreasonable".
So are we agreed then, circling back to my original comment, that some moderately high inflation in wages, goods and services for the next few years is required in order to address the problems caused by decades of extremely high inflation for housing costs that was not matched by comparable wage growth?
PS mortgage interest rates were about 6% when the house price to income multiple exploded under Blair and Brown in the 00's.
Jesus Christ. Will the last person to leave Britain pls turn out the lights. How on earth could everything go so wrong?
The wage crunch is the worst since 1850 apparently, which is even beyond Big G’s recollection.
Meanwhile, in "another sign that something's not right" news,
Five-year-olds in Britain are on average up to seven centimetres shorter than their peers in other wealthy nations, in a trend described as “pretty startling”.
A poor national diet has been highlighted as a major culprit in Britain’s fall down international rankings of child height...
“It’s quite clear we are falling behind, relative to Europe,” he added. “But it’s telling that at age five, we are looking further behind than we are at age 19, which suggests to me that the last 14 years from age five to 19 has been particularly rough for UK children.”
Jesus Christ. Will the last person to leave Britain pls turn out the lights. How on earth could everything go so wrong?
The wage crunch is the worst since 1850 apparently, which is even beyond Big G’s recollection.
Meanwhile, in "another sign that something's not right" news,
Five-year-olds in Britain are on average up to seven centimetres shorter than their peers in other wealthy nations, in a trend described as “pretty startling”.
A poor national diet has been highlighted as a major culprit in Britain’s fall down international rankings of child height...
“It’s quite clear we are falling behind, relative to Europe,” he added. “But it’s telling that at age five, we are looking further behind than we are at age 19, which suggests to me that the last 14 years from age five to 19 has been particularly rough for UK children.”
I was listening to Will Shirer's diaries (can't quite remember which one) where he describes the opening stages of the Second World War on the Western Front. In it he talks about the state of the British youth, malnourished, rickety, pigeon chested with bad eyesight and remarks that, in contrast to the Germans, the UK had spent the inter-war years neglecting their youth.
Going back to the Boer War, the state of the health of the urban working class was so shocking that even Parliament recognised that it was a serious national security issue.
Our national default is that we love our animals better than our children. When times are good, it's not so much a problem, there's enough to go around but when times are hard then the youth are neglected.
Go to any poor area and the result of the last decade of Tory spite and meanness is there in front of your eyes, many of the children either too thin or too fat, self evidently not properly nourished. Recall that policies such as the welfare cap and the two child rule are designed specifically to "remind parents that children cost money" ie to make sure that poor parents don't have enough money to raise their children properly. That is government policy. And it is utterly self defeating of course because these children will grow up to be less intelligent, less productive and more sickly adults and the whole country will be poorer.
The two child rule for welfare is entirely reasonable. Children are a choice to have, and both contraception and abortion are free of charge on the NHS.
If you already have two children, why should the taxpayer pay for a third, fourth, fifth, sixth or more on welfare while those working for a living decide that more kids are unaffordable?
Because the taxpayer knows that supporting children is an investment in the future of the country? Because a society that doesn't nurture its children - all of its children - is committing suicide.
As far as I can see, the Commons voted to approve the report, but they didn't vote on the recommendation that he should be suspended, because he had already gone. The recall petition process is started by a vote to suspend an MP following such a report. So I think the simple answer is that if he were re-elected, it would depend whether the Commons then voted to suspend him because of the report they had already approved.
Jesus Christ. Will the last person to leave Britain pls turn out the lights. How on earth could everything go so wrong?
The wage crunch is the worst since 1850 apparently, which is even beyond Big G’s recollection.
Meanwhile, in "another sign that something's not right" news,
Five-year-olds in Britain are on average up to seven centimetres shorter than their peers in other wealthy nations, in a trend described as “pretty startling”.
A poor national diet has been highlighted as a major culprit in Britain’s fall down international rankings of child height...
“It’s quite clear we are falling behind, relative to Europe,” he added. “But it’s telling that at age five, we are looking further behind than we are at age 19, which suggests to me that the last 14 years from age five to 19 has been particularly rough for UK children.”
I was listening to Will Shirer's diaries (can't quite remember which one) where he describes the opening stages of the Second World War on the Western Front. In it he talks about the state of the British youth, malnourished, rickety, pigeon chested with bad eyesight and remarks that, in contrast to the Germans, the UK had spent the inter-war years neglecting their youth.
Going back to the Boer War, the state of the health of the urban working class was so shocking that even Parliament recognised that it was a serious national security issue.
Our national default is that we love our animals better than our children. When times are good, it's not so much a problem, there's enough to go around but when times are hard then the youth are neglected.
Go to any poor area and the result of the last decade of Tory spite and meanness is there in front of your eyes, many of the children either too thin or too fat, self evidently not properly nourished. Recall that policies such as the welfare cap and the two child rule are designed specifically to "remind parents that children cost money" ie to make sure that poor parents don't have enough money to raise their children properly. That is government policy. And it is utterly self defeating of course because these children will grow up to be less intelligent, less productive and more sickly adults and the whole country will be poorer.
The two child rule for welfare is entirely reasonable. Children are a choice to have, and both contraception and abortion are free of charge on the NHS.
If you already have two children, why should the taxpayer pay for a third, fourth, fifth, sixth or more on welfare while those working for a living decide that more kids are unaffordable?
Because the taxpayer knows that supporting children is an investment in the future of the country? Because a society that doesn't nurture its children - all of its children - is committing suicide.
Absolutely supporting children is, so children are supported.
If someone chooses to have more children they can't support, then who is meant to support them? The working taxpayers who are already struggling to support their own children so not having more than 2 already while paying taxes too?
Are you saying there should be no cap on how many children people voluntarily choose to have, even though the NHS provides both free contraception and free abortions?
Good news IMHO that inflation is not falling as fast as people want.
It's a view. A fairly unique one.
Is it that unique?
There are multiple classes of inflation, but for too long only inflation in goods and services have been all the Bank of England concerned itself with. Despite the fact the number one cost in a household's budget is not food, its not electricity, its not gas, its not TVs or Sky or mobile phones. The main cost in a household's budget is housing.
And yet the number one cost in a household's budget was excluded from measurements of inflation. And then governments of both parties have tapped themselves on the back and said how great a job they're doing in keeping inflation low. Because goods imported from China are cheap, while the main cost in a household's budget has been going up - but we'll just ignore that.
For a long time on here I've been saying what an issue housing was, and I'd be fine with negative equity if it fixes it (including for myself, I bought last year so I'll be one of first hit if it happens). And many, many people here have responded saying the solution needed is not negative equity, but house prices growing at less than inflation to bring down real prices without negative equity.
Well how can the latter happen, if inflation doesn't exist or is at 2% or below?
Its remarkable how many people can simultaneously say they don't want the risk of negative equity so want to see house prices not fall but rise by less than inflation, while simultaneously saying they don't want any inflation. The two principles can't go together.
I am in agreement with this, in principle at least. The trouble with inflation of course is that it's a difficult and unpredictable thing to tame once it's out in the wild. But in an ideal world we would have something like the following now:
- Wage inflation at 7% - CPI at 5% - Interest rates at about 4% - House price inflation at zero
Thanks, yeah that sounds ideal.
Even then it'd take more than a decade to bring house costs back down to a semi-reasonable income multiple, they'd still be high by historic standards even after a decade of that. However realistically 2% real wage growth seems unlikely at the moment, so I'd probably tweak your numbers a bit.
Wage inflation at 8% CPI at 7% Interest rates at about 5% House price -2% (so moderate deflation)
Even those fairly extreme looking numbers would still take a decade to get us back down to a reasonable house price to income multiplier.
I think the wage/house price ratios will be back in line quicker than you'll think.
I would love it if you're right, but it will be only if the numbers are more extreme than those I wrote.
In which case what figures are you expecting?
Interest rates haven't (properly) risen yet. If/when they go over 6% we'll probably get a house price drop. Wage inflation will carry on at 7% for a bit eating into the multiplier.
Wage inflation will only carry on at 7% if there is CPI around that. Yet too many here are wishing for CPI to drop back down to 2%, in which case then wage inflation of 7% would be deemed "unreasonable".
So are we agreed then, circling back to my original comment, that some moderately high inflation in wages, goods and services for the next few years is required in order to address the problems caused by decades of extremely high inflation for housing costs that was not matched by comparable wage growth?
"by decades of extremely high inflation for housing costs"
Most of the long run COST of a house is the mortgage. We've had high inflation for prices, not costs.
I will say this though, renters have been absolutely ripped off - I doubt rents were dropped post 2008 when landlords got chunky drops in their mortgage repayments...
As far as I can see, the Commons voted to approve the report, but they didn't vote on the recommendation that he should be suspended, because he had already gone. The recall petition process is started by a vote to suspend an MP following such a report. So I think the simple answer is that if he were re-elected, it would depend whether the Commons then voted to suspend him because of the report they had already approved.
It didn't recommend the suspension though, just counterfactually said it would have done if he had stuck around
Just had a house insurance renewal quote. 75% increase. Saga. Bloke on phone said it was market and the rise not untypical. And could do little to reduce. Is this common experience? Is insurance especially inflationery?
They always say that in my experience, for all forms of insurance. Without fail. It's their stock excuse. And then they magically come up with a vastly reduced quote once you decline to accept their quote and say that you are about to put the phone down in order to search a better deal on comparison sites.
I renewed my buildings insurance and it was a little lower than last year, my contents insurance was a little higher.
I renewed my car insurance and for the second car, the runaround, it was around the same and for our main car it was quite a bit cheaper.
Some insurers, like Direct Line, are simply increasing policy premiums as they have lost money due to their incompetent management and taking a large hit on stuff like the cold snap last winter as they had far more claims than they expected.
Jesus Christ. Will the last person to leave Britain pls turn out the lights. How on earth could everything go so wrong?
The wage crunch is the worst since 1850 apparently, which is even beyond Big G’s recollection.
Meanwhile, in "another sign that something's not right" news,
Five-year-olds in Britain are on average up to seven centimetres shorter than their peers in other wealthy nations, in a trend described as “pretty startling”.
A poor national diet has been highlighted as a major culprit in Britain’s fall down international rankings of child height...
“It’s quite clear we are falling behind, relative to Europe,” he added. “But it’s telling that at age five, we are looking further behind than we are at age 19, which suggests to me that the last 14 years from age five to 19 has been particularly rough for UK children.”
I was listening to Will Shirer's diaries (can't quite remember which one) where he describes the opening stages of the Second World War on the Western Front. In it he talks about the state of the British youth, malnourished, rickety, pigeon chested with bad eyesight and remarks that, in contrast to the Germans, the UK had spent the inter-war years neglecting their youth.
Going back to the Boer War, the state of the health of the urban working class was so shocking that even Parliament recognised that it was a serious national security issue.
Our national default is that we love our animals better than our children. When times are good, it's not so much a problem, there's enough to go around but when times are hard then the youth are neglected.
Go to any poor area and the result of the last decade of Tory spite and meanness is there in front of your eyes, many of the children either too thin or too fat, self evidently not properly nourished. Recall that policies such as the welfare cap and the two child rule are designed specifically to "remind parents that children cost money" ie to make sure that poor parents don't have enough money to raise their children properly. That is government policy. And it is utterly self defeating of course because these children will grow up to be less intelligent, less productive and more sickly adults and the whole country will be poorer.
The two child rule for welfare is entirely reasonable. Children are a choice to have, and both contraception and abortion are free of charge on the NHS.
If you already have two children, why should the taxpayer pay for a third, fourth, fifth, sixth or more on welfare while those working for a living decide that more kids are unaffordable?
Because the taxpayer knows that supporting children is an investment in the future of the country? Because a society that doesn't nurture its children - all of its children - is committing suicide.
When you have an economic orthodoxy that treats people as a kind of natural resource that it's often preferable to import, this ceases to be self-evident.
Good news IMHO that inflation is not falling as fast as people want.
It's a view. A fairly unique one.
Is it that unique?
There are multiple classes of inflation, but for too long only inflation in goods and services have been all the Bank of England concerned itself with. Despite the fact the number one cost in a household's budget is not food, its not electricity, its not gas, its not TVs or Sky or mobile phones. The main cost in a household's budget is housing.
And yet the number one cost in a household's budget was excluded from measurements of inflation. And then governments of both parties have tapped themselves on the back and said how great a job they're doing in keeping inflation low. Because goods imported from China are cheap, while the main cost in a household's budget has been going up - but we'll just ignore that.
For a long time on here I've been saying what an issue housing was, and I'd be fine with negative equity if it fixes it (including for myself, I bought last year so I'll be one of first hit if it happens). And many, many people here have responded saying the solution needed is not negative equity, but house prices growing at less than inflation to bring down real prices without negative equity.
Well how can the latter happen, if inflation doesn't exist or is at 2% or below?
Its remarkable how many people can simultaneously say they don't want the risk of negative equity so want to see house prices not fall but rise by less than inflation, while simultaneously saying they don't want any inflation. The two principles can't go together.
I am in agreement with this, in principle at least. The trouble with inflation of course is that it's a difficult and unpredictable thing to tame once it's out in the wild. But in an ideal world we would have something like the following now:
- Wage inflation at 7% - CPI at 5% - Interest rates at about 4% - House price inflation at zero
Thanks, yeah that sounds ideal.
Even then it'd take more than a decade to bring house costs back down to a semi-reasonable income multiple, they'd still be high by historic standards even after a decade of that. However realistically 2% real wage growth seems unlikely at the moment, so I'd probably tweak your numbers a bit.
Wage inflation at 8% CPI at 7% Interest rates at about 5% House price -2% (so moderate deflation)
Even those fairly extreme looking numbers would still take a decade to get us back down to a reasonable house price to income multiplier.
I think the wage/house price ratios will be back in line quicker than you'll think.
I would love it if you're right, but it will be only if the numbers are more extreme than those I wrote.
In which case what figures are you expecting?
Interest rates haven't (properly) risen yet. If/when they go over 6% we'll probably get a house price drop. Wage inflation will carry on at 7% for a bit eating into the multiplier.
Wage inflation will only carry on at 7% if there is CPI around that. Yet too many here are wishing for CPI to drop back down to 2%, in which case then wage inflation of 7% would be deemed "unreasonable".
So are we agreed then, circling back to my original comment, that some moderately high inflation in wages, goods and services for the next few years is required in order to address the problems caused by decades of extremely high inflation for housing costs that was not matched by comparable wage growth?
"by decades of extremely high inflation for housing costs"
Most of the long run COST of a house is the mortgage. We've had high inflation for prices, not costs.
I will say this though, renters have been absolubtely ripped off - I doubt rents were dropped post 2008 when landlords got chunky drops in their mortgage repayments...
The cost is only the mortgage if you own the property.
Getting a deposit depends upon the cost of the house, not the cost of the mortgage.
Jesus Christ. Will the last person to leave Britain pls turn out the lights. How on earth could everything go so wrong?
The wage crunch is the worst since 1850 apparently, which is even beyond Big G’s recollection.
Meanwhile, in "another sign that something's not right" news,
Five-year-olds in Britain are on average up to seven centimetres shorter than their peers in other wealthy nations, in a trend described as “pretty startling”.
A poor national diet has been highlighted as a major culprit in Britain’s fall down international rankings of child height...
“It’s quite clear we are falling behind, relative to Europe,” he added. “But it’s telling that at age five, we are looking further behind than we are at age 19, which suggests to me that the last 14 years from age five to 19 has been particularly rough for UK children.”
I was listening to Will Shirer's diaries (can't quite remember which one) where he describes the opening stages of the Second World War on the Western Front. In it he talks about the state of the British youth, malnourished, rickety, pigeon chested with bad eyesight and remarks that, in contrast to the Germans, the UK had spent the inter-war years neglecting their youth.
Going back to the Boer War, the state of the health of the urban working class was so shocking that even Parliament recognised that it was a serious national security issue.
Our national default is that we love our animals better than our children. When times are good, it's not so much a problem, there's enough to go around but when times are hard then the youth are neglected.
Go to any poor area and the result of the last decade of Tory spite and meanness is there in front of your eyes, many of the children either too thin or too fat, self evidently not properly nourished. Recall that policies such as the welfare cap and the two child rule are designed specifically to "remind parents that children cost money" ie to make sure that poor parents don't have enough money to raise their children properly. That is government policy. And it is utterly self defeating of course because these children will grow up to be less intelligent, less productive and more sickly adults and the whole country will be poorer.
The two child rule for welfare is entirely reasonable. Children are a choice to have, and both contraception and abortion are free of charge on the NHS.
If you already have two children, why should the taxpayer pay for a third, fourth, fifth, sixth or more on welfare while those working for a living decide that more kids are unaffordable?
Two things are true at the same time - the taxpayer shouldn't shoulder the burden for raising endless children to those on benefits but the state has a duty to care for all its citizens, including the children. Its not little Timmy's fault that his mother is raising six kids from six different fathers, with no financial help from any of the dads.
Jesus Christ. Will the last person to leave Britain pls turn out the lights. How on earth could everything go so wrong?
The wage crunch is the worst since 1850 apparently, which is even beyond Big G’s recollection.
Meanwhile, in "another sign that something's not right" news,
Five-year-olds in Britain are on average up to seven centimetres shorter than their peers in other wealthy nations, in a trend described as “pretty startling”.
A poor national diet has been highlighted as a major culprit in Britain’s fall down international rankings of child height...
“It’s quite clear we are falling behind, relative to Europe,” he added. “But it’s telling that at age five, we are looking further behind than we are at age 19, which suggests to me that the last 14 years from age five to 19 has been particularly rough for UK children.”
I was listening to Will Shirer's diaries (can't quite remember which one) where he describes the opening stages of the Second World War on the Western Front. In it he talks about the state of the British youth, malnourished, rickety, pigeon chested with bad eyesight and remarks that, in contrast to the Germans, the UK had spent the inter-war years neglecting their youth.
Going back to the Boer War, the state of the health of the urban working class was so shocking that even Parliament recognised that it was a serious national security issue.
Our national default is that we love our animals better than our children. When times are good, it's not so much a problem, there's enough to go around but when times are hard then the youth are neglected.
Go to any poor area and the result of the last decade of Tory spite and meanness is there in front of your eyes, many of the children either too thin or too fat, self evidently not properly nourished. Recall that policies such as the welfare cap and the two child rule are designed specifically to "remind parents that children cost money" ie to make sure that poor parents don't have enough money to raise their children properly. That is government policy. And it is utterly self defeating of course because these children will grow up to be less intelligent, less productive and more sickly adults and the whole country will be poorer.
The two child rule for welfare is entirely reasonable. Children are a choice to have, and both contraception and abortion are free of charge on the NHS.
If you already have two children, why should the taxpayer pay for a third, fourth, fifth, sixth or more on welfare while those working for a living decide that more kids are unaffordable?
Kudos for defending the indefensible. Your rationale clarifies just how callous this policy is.
Jesus Christ. Will the last person to leave Britain pls turn out the lights. How on earth could everything go so wrong?
The wage crunch is the worst since 1850 apparently, which is even beyond Big G’s recollection.
Meanwhile, in "another sign that something's not right" news,
Five-year-olds in Britain are on average up to seven centimetres shorter than their peers in other wealthy nations, in a trend described as “pretty startling”.
A poor national diet has been highlighted as a major culprit in Britain’s fall down international rankings of child height...
“It’s quite clear we are falling behind, relative to Europe,” he added. “But it’s telling that at age five, we are looking further behind than we are at age 19, which suggests to me that the last 14 years from age five to 19 has been particularly rough for UK children.”
I was listening to Will Shirer's diaries (can't quite remember which one) where he describes the opening stages of the Second World War on the Western Front. In it he talks about the state of the British youth, malnourished, rickety, pigeon chested with bad eyesight and remarks that, in contrast to the Germans, the UK had spent the inter-war years neglecting their youth.
Going back to the Boer War, the state of the health of the urban working class was so shocking that even Parliament recognised that it was a serious national security issue.
Our national default is that we love our animals better than our children. When times are good, it's not so much a problem, there's enough to go around but when times are hard then the youth are neglected.
Go to any poor area and the result of the last decade of Tory spite and meanness is there in front of your eyes, many of the children either too thin or too fat, self evidently not properly nourished. Recall that policies such as the welfare cap and the two child rule are designed specifically to "remind parents that children cost money" ie to make sure that poor parents don't have enough money to raise their children properly. That is government policy. And it is utterly self defeating of course because these children will grow up to be less intelligent, less productive and more sickly adults and the whole country will be poorer.
The two child rule for welfare is entirely reasonable. Children are a choice to have, and both contraception and abortion are free of charge on the NHS.
If you already have two children, why should the taxpayer pay for a third, fourth, fifth, sixth or more on welfare while those working for a living decide that more kids are unaffordable?
Because the taxpayer knows that supporting children is an investment in the future of the country? Because a society that doesn't nurture its children - all of its children - is committing suicide.
When you have an economic orthodoxy that treats people as a kind of natural resource that it's often preferable to import, this ceases to be self-evident.
When you tell the poor not to reproduce don't be surprised that you run out of workers.
Jesus Christ. Will the last person to leave Britain pls turn out the lights. How on earth could everything go so wrong?
The wage crunch is the worst since 1850 apparently, which is even beyond Big G’s recollection.
Meanwhile, in "another sign that something's not right" news,
Five-year-olds in Britain are on average up to seven centimetres shorter than their peers in other wealthy nations, in a trend described as “pretty startling”.
A poor national diet has been highlighted as a major culprit in Britain’s fall down international rankings of child height...
“It’s quite clear we are falling behind, relative to Europe,” he added. “But it’s telling that at age five, we are looking further behind than we are at age 19, which suggests to me that the last 14 years from age five to 19 has been particularly rough for UK children.”
I was listening to Will Shirer's diaries (can't quite remember which one) where he describes the opening stages of the Second World War on the Western Front. In it he talks about the state of the British youth, malnourished, rickety, pigeon chested with bad eyesight and remarks that, in contrast to the Germans, the UK had spent the inter-war years neglecting their youth.
Going back to the Boer War, the state of the health of the urban working class was so shocking that even Parliament recognised that it was a serious national security issue.
Our national default is that we love our animals better than our children. When times are good, it's not so much a problem, there's enough to go around but when times are hard then the youth are neglected.
Go to any poor area and the result of the last decade of Tory spite and meanness is there in front of your eyes, many of the children either too thin or too fat, self evidently not properly nourished. Recall that policies such as the welfare cap and the two child rule are designed specifically to "remind parents that children cost money" ie to make sure that poor parents don't have enough money to raise their children properly. That is government policy. And it is utterly self defeating of course because these children will grow up to be less intelligent, less productive and more sickly adults and the whole country will be poorer.
The two child rule for welfare is entirely reasonable. Children are a choice to have, and both contraception and abortion are free of charge on the NHS.
If you already have two children, why should the taxpayer pay for a third, fourth, fifth, sixth or more on welfare while those working for a living decide that more kids are unaffordable?
Kudos for defending the indefensible. Your rationale clarifies just how callous this policy is.
He’s right on this. A birth rate above the replacement rate is an unaffordable luxury for most of middle England. It’s really only viable for the very wealthy, or those with very low expectations in life who cream the welfare state.
PBers who once frequented the the UK Polling Report forum would probably remember Barney Crockett, a more loyal Labour partisan you could not hope to find.
'THE former leader of Aberdeen council has quit Labour over Keir Starmer’s hardline stance on North Sea oil. Barney Crockett, who led the council between 2012 and 2014, revealed on Wednesday he had quit and described Starmer’s oil and gas exploration ban as “more brutal” than Margaret Thatcher’s assault on industry in the 1980s. He told the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce (AGCC): “I have been left stunned and bemused by the events of the last few weeks. "The Labour leadership has made crucial decisions about the future of the UK, decisions focused on this area, without contacting anyone from this area or from the local Labour Party."'
Jesus Christ. Will the last person to leave Britain pls turn out the lights. How on earth could everything go so wrong?
The wage crunch is the worst since 1850 apparently, which is even beyond Big G’s recollection.
Meanwhile, in "another sign that something's not right" news,
Five-year-olds in Britain are on average up to seven centimetres shorter than their peers in other wealthy nations, in a trend described as “pretty startling”.
A poor national diet has been highlighted as a major culprit in Britain’s fall down international rankings of child height...
“It’s quite clear we are falling behind, relative to Europe,” he added. “But it’s telling that at age five, we are looking further behind than we are at age 19, which suggests to me that the last 14 years from age five to 19 has been particularly rough for UK children.”
I was listening to Will Shirer's diaries (can't quite remember which one) where he describes the opening stages of the Second World War on the Western Front. In it he talks about the state of the British youth, malnourished, rickety, pigeon chested with bad eyesight and remarks that, in contrast to the Germans, the UK had spent the inter-war years neglecting their youth.
Going back to the Boer War, the state of the health of the urban working class was so shocking that even Parliament recognised that it was a serious national security issue.
Our national default is that we love our animals better than our children. When times are good, it's not so much a problem, there's enough to go around but when times are hard then the youth are neglected.
Go to any poor area and the result of the last decade of Tory spite and meanness is there in front of your eyes, many of the children either too thin or too fat, self evidently not properly nourished. Recall that policies such as the welfare cap and the two child rule are designed specifically to "remind parents that children cost money" ie to make sure that poor parents don't have enough money to raise their children properly. That is government policy. And it is utterly self defeating of course because these children will grow up to be less intelligent, less productive and more sickly adults and the whole country will be poorer.
The two child rule for welfare is entirely reasonable. Children are a choice to have, and both contraception and abortion are free of charge on the NHS.
If you already have two children, why should the taxpayer pay for a third, fourth, fifth, sixth or more on welfare while those working for a living decide that more kids are unaffordable?
Two things are true at the same time - the taxpayer shouldn't shoulder the burden for raising endless children to those on benefits but the state has a duty to care for all its citizens, including the children. Its not little Timmy's fault that his mother is raising six kids from six different fathers, with no financial help from any of the dads.
And little Timmy's mother will be getting child benefit per week for Timmy and all his siblings, even with the two child cap.
What little Timmy's mother won't be getting is additional welfare on top to go to more booze and fags rather than Timmy.
Good news IMHO that inflation is not falling as fast as people want.
It's a view. A fairly unique one.
Is it that unique?
There are multiple classes of inflation, but for too long only inflation in goods and services have been all the Bank of England concerned itself with. Despite the fact the number one cost in a household's budget is not food, its not electricity, its not gas, its not TVs or Sky or mobile phones. The main cost in a household's budget is housing.
And yet the number one cost in a household's budget was excluded from measurements of inflation. And then governments of both parties have tapped themselves on the back and said how great a job they're doing in keeping inflation low. Because goods imported from China are cheap, while the main cost in a household's budget has been going up - but we'll just ignore that.
For a long time on here I've been saying what an issue housing was, and I'd be fine with negative equity if it fixes it (including for myself, I bought last year so I'll be one of first hit if it happens). And many, many people here have responded saying the solution needed is not negative equity, but house prices growing at less than inflation to bring down real prices without negative equity.
Well how can the latter happen, if inflation doesn't exist or is at 2% or below?
Its remarkable how many people can simultaneously say they don't want the risk of negative equity so want to see house prices not fall but rise by less than inflation, while simultaneously saying they don't want any inflation. The two principles can't go together.
I am in agreement with this, in principle at least. The trouble with inflation of course is that it's a difficult and unpredictable thing to tame once it's out in the wild. But in an ideal world we would have something like the following now:
- Wage inflation at 7% - CPI at 5% - Interest rates at about 4% - House price inflation at zero
Thanks, yeah that sounds ideal.
Even then it'd take more than a decade to bring house costs back down to a semi-reasonable income multiple, they'd still be high by historic standards even after a decade of that. However realistically 2% real wage growth seems unlikely at the moment, so I'd probably tweak your numbers a bit.
Wage inflation at 8% CPI at 7% Interest rates at about 5% House price -2% (so moderate deflation)
Even those fairly extreme looking numbers would still take a decade to get us back down to a reasonable house price to income multiplier.
I think the wage/house price ratios will be back in line quicker than you'll think.
I would love it if you're right, but it will be only if the numbers are more extreme than those I wrote.
In which case what figures are you expecting?
Interest rates haven't (properly) risen yet. If/when they go over 6% we'll probably get a house price drop. Wage inflation will carry on at 7% for a bit eating into the multiplier.
Wage inflation will only carry on at 7% if there is CPI around that. Yet too many here are wishing for CPI to drop back down to 2%, in which case then wage inflation of 7% would be deemed "unreasonable".
So are we agreed then, circling back to my original comment, that some moderately high inflation in wages, goods and services for the next few years is required in order to address the problems caused by decades of extremely high inflation for housing costs that was not matched by comparable wage growth?
"by decades of extremely high inflation for housing costs"
Most of the long run COST of a house is the mortgage. We've had high inflation for prices, not costs.
I will say this though, renters have been absolubtely ripped off - I doubt rents were dropped post 2008 when landlords got chunky drops in their mortgage repayments...
The cost is only the mortgage if you own the property.
Getting a deposit depends upon the cost of the house, not the cost of the mortgage.
As all property is truly owned by someone (Incl the banks !) rent should broadly follow long run mortgage costs.
Jesus Christ. Will the last person to leave Britain pls turn out the lights. How on earth could everything go so wrong?
The wage crunch is the worst since 1850 apparently, which is even beyond Big G’s recollection.
Meanwhile, in "another sign that something's not right" news,
Five-year-olds in Britain are on average up to seven centimetres shorter than their peers in other wealthy nations, in a trend described as “pretty startling”.
A poor national diet has been highlighted as a major culprit in Britain’s fall down international rankings of child height...
“It’s quite clear we are falling behind, relative to Europe,” he added. “But it’s telling that at age five, we are looking further behind than we are at age 19, which suggests to me that the last 14 years from age five to 19 has been particularly rough for UK children.”
I was listening to Will Shirer's diaries (can't quite remember which one) where he describes the opening stages of the Second World War on the Western Front. In it he talks about the state of the British youth, malnourished, rickety, pigeon chested with bad eyesight and remarks that, in contrast to the Germans, the UK had spent the inter-war years neglecting their youth.
Going back to the Boer War, the state of the health of the urban working class was so shocking that even Parliament recognised that it was a serious national security issue.
Our national default is that we love our animals better than our children. When times are good, it's not so much a problem, there's enough to go around but when times are hard then the youth are neglected.
Go to any poor area and the result of the last decade of Tory spite and meanness is there in front of your eyes, many of the children either too thin or too fat, self evidently not properly nourished. Recall that policies such as the welfare cap and the two child rule are designed specifically to "remind parents that children cost money" ie to make sure that poor parents don't have enough money to raise their children properly. That is government policy. And it is utterly self defeating of course because these children will grow up to be less intelligent, less productive and more sickly adults and the whole country will be poorer.
The two child rule for welfare is entirely reasonable. Children are a choice to have, and both contraception and abortion are free of charge on the NHS.
If you already have two children, why should the taxpayer pay for a third, fourth, fifth, sixth or more on welfare while those working for a living decide that more kids are unaffordable?
Because the taxpayer knows that supporting children is an investment in the future of the country? Because a society that doesn't nurture its children - all of its children - is committing suicide.
When you have an economic orthodoxy that treats people as a kind of natural resource that it's often preferable to import, this ceases to be self-evident.
When you tell the poor not to reproduce don't be surprised that you run out of workers.
What about when those working for a living find they can't afford to reproduce?
Jesus Christ. Will the last person to leave Britain pls turn out the lights. How on earth could everything go so wrong?
The wage crunch is the worst since 1850 apparently, which is even beyond Big G’s recollection.
Meanwhile, in "another sign that something's not right" news,
Five-year-olds in Britain are on average up to seven centimetres shorter than their peers in other wealthy nations, in a trend described as “pretty startling”.
A poor national diet has been highlighted as a major culprit in Britain’s fall down international rankings of child height...
“It’s quite clear we are falling behind, relative to Europe,” he added. “But it’s telling that at age five, we are looking further behind than we are at age 19, which suggests to me that the last 14 years from age five to 19 has been particularly rough for UK children.”
I was listening to Will Shirer's diaries (can't quite remember which one) where he describes the opening stages of the Second World War on the Western Front. In it he talks about the state of the British youth, malnourished, rickety, pigeon chested with bad eyesight and remarks that, in contrast to the Germans, the UK had spent the inter-war years neglecting their youth.
Going back to the Boer War, the state of the health of the urban working class was so shocking that even Parliament recognised that it was a serious national security issue.
Our national default is that we love our animals better than our children. When times are good, it's not so much a problem, there's enough to go around but when times are hard then the youth are neglected.
Go to any poor area and the result of the last decade of Tory spite and meanness is there in front of your eyes, many of the children either too thin or too fat, self evidently not properly nourished. Recall that policies such as the welfare cap and the two child rule are designed specifically to "remind parents that children cost money" ie to make sure that poor parents don't have enough money to raise their children properly. That is government policy. And it is utterly self defeating of course because these children will grow up to be less intelligent, less productive and more sickly adults and the whole country will be poorer.
The two child rule for welfare is entirely reasonable. Children are a choice to have, and both contraception and abortion are free of charge on the NHS.
If you already have two children, why should the taxpayer pay for a third, fourth, fifth, sixth or more on welfare while those working for a living decide that more kids are unaffordable?
Because the taxpayer knows that supporting children is an investment in the future of the country? Because a society that doesn't nurture its children - all of its children - is committing suicide.
When you have an economic orthodoxy that treats people as a kind of natural resource that it's often preferable to import, this ceases to be self-evident.
When you tell the poor not to reproduce don't be surprised that you run out of workers.
What about when those working for a living find they can't afford to reproduce?
Jesus Christ. Will the last person to leave Britain pls turn out the lights. How on earth could everything go so wrong?
The wage crunch is the worst since 1850 apparently, which is even beyond Big G’s recollection.
Meanwhile, in "another sign that something's not right" news,
Five-year-olds in Britain are on average up to seven centimetres shorter than their peers in other wealthy nations, in a trend described as “pretty startling”.
A poor national diet has been highlighted as a major culprit in Britain’s fall down international rankings of child height...
“It’s quite clear we are falling behind, relative to Europe,” he added. “But it’s telling that at age five, we are looking further behind than we are at age 19, which suggests to me that the last 14 years from age five to 19 has been particularly rough for UK children.”
I was listening to Will Shirer's diaries (can't quite remember which one) where he describes the opening stages of the Second World War on the Western Front. In it he talks about the state of the British youth, malnourished, rickety, pigeon chested with bad eyesight and remarks that, in contrast to the Germans, the UK had spent the inter-war years neglecting their youth.
Going back to the Boer War, the state of the health of the urban working class was so shocking that even Parliament recognised that it was a serious national security issue.
Our national default is that we love our animals better than our children. When times are good, it's not so much a problem, there's enough to go around but when times are hard then the youth are neglected.
Go to any poor area and the result of the last decade of Tory spite and meanness is there in front of your eyes, many of the children either too thin or too fat, self evidently not properly nourished. Recall that policies such as the welfare cap and the two child rule are designed specifically to "remind parents that children cost money" ie to make sure that poor parents don't have enough money to raise their children properly. That is government policy. And it is utterly self defeating of course because these children will grow up to be less intelligent, less productive and more sickly adults and the whole country will be poorer.
The two child rule for welfare is entirely reasonable. Children are a choice to have, and both contraception and abortion are free of charge on the NHS.
If you already have two children, why should the taxpayer pay for a third, fourth, fifth, sixth or more on welfare while those working for a living decide that more kids are unaffordable?
Kudos for defending the indefensible. Your rationale clarifies just how callous this policy is.
He’s right on this. A birth rate above the replacement rate is an unaffordable luxury for most of middle England. It’s really only viable for the very wealthy, or those with very low expectations in life who cream the welfare state.
To be fair to the Tories Hunt's 9 month old nursery policy should help this a bit.
Jesus Christ. Will the last person to leave Britain pls turn out the lights. How on earth could everything go so wrong?
The wage crunch is the worst since 1850 apparently, which is even beyond Big G’s recollection.
Meanwhile, in "another sign that something's not right" news,
Five-year-olds in Britain are on average up to seven centimetres shorter than their peers in other wealthy nations, in a trend described as “pretty startling”.
A poor national diet has been highlighted as a major culprit in Britain’s fall down international rankings of child height...
“It’s quite clear we are falling behind, relative to Europe,” he added. “But it’s telling that at age five, we are looking further behind than we are at age 19, which suggests to me that the last 14 years from age five to 19 has been particularly rough for UK children.”
I was listening to Will Shirer's diaries (can't quite remember which one) where he describes the opening stages of the Second World War on the Western Front. In it he talks about the state of the British youth, malnourished, rickety, pigeon chested with bad eyesight and remarks that, in contrast to the Germans, the UK had spent the inter-war years neglecting their youth.
Going back to the Boer War, the state of the health of the urban working class was so shocking that even Parliament recognised that it was a serious national security issue.
Our national default is that we love our animals better than our children. When times are good, it's not so much a problem, there's enough to go around but when times are hard then the youth are neglected.
Go to any poor area and the result of the last decade of Tory spite and meanness is there in front of your eyes, many of the children either too thin or too fat, self evidently not properly nourished. Recall that policies such as the welfare cap and the two child rule are designed specifically to "remind parents that children cost money" ie to make sure that poor parents don't have enough money to raise their children properly. That is government policy. And it is utterly self defeating of course because these children will grow up to be less intelligent, less productive and more sickly adults and the whole country will be poorer.
The two child rule for welfare is entirely reasonable. Children are a choice to have, and both contraception and abortion are free of charge on the NHS.
If you already have two children, why should the taxpayer pay for a third, fourth, fifth, sixth or more on welfare while those working for a living decide that more kids are unaffordable?
Two things are true at the same time - the taxpayer shouldn't shoulder the burden for raising endless children to those on benefits but the state has a duty to care for all its citizens, including the children. Its not little Timmy's fault that his mother is raising six kids from six different fathers, with no financial help from any of the dads.
And little Timmy's mother will be getting child benefit per week for Timmy and all his siblings, even with the two child cap.
What little Timmy's mother won't be getting is additional welfare on top to go to more booze and fags rather than Timmy.
It seems a reasonable compromise to me.
Wow the class hatred is really dripping off you today.
Jesus Christ. Will the last person to leave Britain pls turn out the lights. How on earth could everything go so wrong?
The wage crunch is the worst since 1850 apparently, which is even beyond Big G’s recollection.
Meanwhile, in "another sign that something's not right" news,
Five-year-olds in Britain are on average up to seven centimetres shorter than their peers in other wealthy nations, in a trend described as “pretty startling”.
A poor national diet has been highlighted as a major culprit in Britain’s fall down international rankings of child height...
“It’s quite clear we are falling behind, relative to Europe,” he added. “But it’s telling that at age five, we are looking further behind than we are at age 19, which suggests to me that the last 14 years from age five to 19 has been particularly rough for UK children.”
I was listening to Will Shirer's diaries (can't quite remember which one) where he describes the opening stages of the Second World War on the Western Front. In it he talks about the state of the British youth, malnourished, rickety, pigeon chested with bad eyesight and remarks that, in contrast to the Germans, the UK had spent the inter-war years neglecting their youth.
Going back to the Boer War, the state of the health of the urban working class was so shocking that even Parliament recognised that it was a serious national security issue.
Our national default is that we love our animals better than our children. When times are good, it's not so much a problem, there's enough to go around but when times are hard then the youth are neglected.
Go to any poor area and the result of the last decade of Tory spite and meanness is there in front of your eyes, many of the children either too thin or too fat, self evidently not properly nourished. Recall that policies such as the welfare cap and the two child rule are designed specifically to "remind parents that children cost money" ie to make sure that poor parents don't have enough money to raise their children properly. That is government policy. And it is utterly self defeating of course because these children will grow up to be less intelligent, less productive and more sickly adults and the whole country will be poorer.
The two child rule for welfare is entirely reasonable. Children are a choice to have, and both contraception and abortion are free of charge on the NHS.
If you already have two children, why should the taxpayer pay for a third, fourth, fifth, sixth or more on welfare while those working for a living decide that more kids are unaffordable?
Because the taxpayer knows that supporting children is an investment in the future of the country? Because a society that doesn't nurture its children - all of its children - is committing suicide.
When you have an economic orthodoxy that treats people as a kind of natural resource that it's often preferable to import, this ceases to be self-evident.
When you tell the poor not to reproduce don't be surprised that you run out of workers.
What about when those working for a living find they can't afford to reproduce?
Most of the poor are working for a living too.
Then shouldering them with more taxation doesn't help them.
We should be looking at ways to cut taxes on the working poor, not increasing them.
Other than housing, my other long-running bugbear with our country is the way the working poor are taxed a real tax marginal rate of 70%+ - we need to be fixing that, not looking at ways to boost welfare for those who aren't working who choose to have more kids.
Starmer got monstered by a very impressive Sunak. Not mentioning Sunak's vote failure was a massive error, same goes for Flynn, although he did manage to bring in Brexit as the problem. Rishi handled both very well.
The mortgage issue was batted back as Labour's failure.
Possibly Starmer's worst performance against Sunak and a much improved Sunak. Not least because Starmer was rubbish.
Jesus Christ. Will the last person to leave Britain pls turn out the lights. How on earth could everything go so wrong?
The wage crunch is the worst since 1850 apparently, which is even beyond Big G’s recollection.
Meanwhile, in "another sign that something's not right" news,
Five-year-olds in Britain are on average up to seven centimetres shorter than their peers in other wealthy nations, in a trend described as “pretty startling”.
A poor national diet has been highlighted as a major culprit in Britain’s fall down international rankings of child height...
“It’s quite clear we are falling behind, relative to Europe,” he added. “But it’s telling that at age five, we are looking further behind than we are at age 19, which suggests to me that the last 14 years from age five to 19 has been particularly rough for UK children.”
I was listening to Will Shirer's diaries (can't quite remember which one) where he describes the opening stages of the Second World War on the Western Front. In it he talks about the state of the British youth, malnourished, rickety, pigeon chested with bad eyesight and remarks that, in contrast to the Germans, the UK had spent the inter-war years neglecting their youth.
Going back to the Boer War, the state of the health of the urban working class was so shocking that even Parliament recognised that it was a serious national security issue.
Our national default is that we love our animals better than our children. When times are good, it's not so much a problem, there's enough to go around but when times are hard then the youth are neglected.
Go to any poor area and the result of the last decade of Tory spite and meanness is there in front of your eyes, many of the children either too thin or too fat, self evidently not properly nourished. Recall that policies such as the welfare cap and the two child rule are designed specifically to "remind parents that children cost money" ie to make sure that poor parents don't have enough money to raise their children properly. That is government policy. And it is utterly self defeating of course because these children will grow up to be less intelligent, less productive and more sickly adults and the whole country will be poorer.
The two child rule for welfare is entirely reasonable. Children are a choice to have, and both contraception and abortion are free of charge on the NHS.
If you already have two children, why should the taxpayer pay for a third, fourth, fifth, sixth or more on welfare while those working for a living decide that more kids are unaffordable?
Kudos for defending the indefensible. Your rationale clarifies just how callous this policy is.
He’s right on this. A birth rate above the replacement rate is an unaffordable luxury for most of middle England. It’s really only viable for the very wealthy, or those with very low expectations in life who cream the welfare state.
You are putting "of course child raising is unaffordable" forward as a justification for cutting off welfare payments to children unfortunate enough to be born in unapproved families?
Jesus Christ. Will the last person to leave Britain pls turn out the lights. How on earth could everything go so wrong?
The wage crunch is the worst since 1850 apparently, which is even beyond Big G’s recollection.
Meanwhile, in "another sign that something's not right" news,
Five-year-olds in Britain are on average up to seven centimetres shorter than their peers in other wealthy nations, in a trend described as “pretty startling”.
A poor national diet has been highlighted as a major culprit in Britain’s fall down international rankings of child height...
“It’s quite clear we are falling behind, relative to Europe,” he added. “But it’s telling that at age five, we are looking further behind than we are at age 19, which suggests to me that the last 14 years from age five to 19 has been particularly rough for UK children.”
I was listening to Will Shirer's diaries (can't quite remember which one) where he describes the opening stages of the Second World War on the Western Front. In it he talks about the state of the British youth, malnourished, rickety, pigeon chested with bad eyesight and remarks that, in contrast to the Germans, the UK had spent the inter-war years neglecting their youth.
Going back to the Boer War, the state of the health of the urban working class was so shocking that even Parliament recognised that it was a serious national security issue.
Our national default is that we love our animals better than our children. When times are good, it's not so much a problem, there's enough to go around but when times are hard then the youth are neglected.
Go to any poor area and the result of the last decade of Tory spite and meanness is there in front of your eyes, many of the children either too thin or too fat, self evidently not properly nourished. Recall that policies such as the welfare cap and the two child rule are designed specifically to "remind parents that children cost money" ie to make sure that poor parents don't have enough money to raise their children properly. That is government policy. And it is utterly self defeating of course because these children will grow up to be less intelligent, less productive and more sickly adults and the whole country will be poorer.
The two child rule for welfare is entirely reasonable. Children are a choice to have, and both contraception and abortion are free of charge on the NHS.
If you already have two children, why should the taxpayer pay for a third, fourth, fifth, sixth or more on welfare while those working for a living decide that more kids are unaffordable?
Two things are true at the same time - the taxpayer shouldn't shoulder the burden for raising endless children to those on benefits but the state has a duty to care for all its citizens, including the children. Its not little Timmy's fault that his mother is raising six kids from six different fathers, with no financial help from any of the dads.
And little Timmy's mother will be getting child benefit per week for Timmy and all his siblings, even with the two child cap.
What little Timmy's mother won't be getting is additional welfare on top to go to more booze and fags rather than Timmy.
It seems a reasonable compromise to me.
Wow the class hatred is really dripping off you today.
No its not, I think all classes should be treated equally and fairly.
We have Child Benefit in this country. It is available for all children, including third and more.
Why is Child Benefit enough for people who are working and poor, but not enough for others? Why is it that people who are working and poor and can't get other welfare should get only a small Child Benefit while others who are poor and do get welfare should get both Child Benefit and other benefits too?
If Child Benefit isn't enough, then address that. For all children equally.
Jesus Christ. Will the last person to leave Britain pls turn out the lights. How on earth could everything go so wrong?
The wage crunch is the worst since 1850 apparently, which is even beyond Big G’s recollection.
Meanwhile, in "another sign that something's not right" news,
Five-year-olds in Britain are on average up to seven centimetres shorter than their peers in other wealthy nations, in a trend described as “pretty startling”.
A poor national diet has been highlighted as a major culprit in Britain’s fall down international rankings of child height...
“It’s quite clear we are falling behind, relative to Europe,” he added. “But it’s telling that at age five, we are looking further behind than we are at age 19, which suggests to me that the last 14 years from age five to 19 has been particularly rough for UK children.”
I was listening to Will Shirer's diaries (can't quite remember which one) where he describes the opening stages of the Second World War on the Western Front. In it he talks about the state of the British youth, malnourished, rickety, pigeon chested with bad eyesight and remarks that, in contrast to the Germans, the UK had spent the inter-war years neglecting their youth.
Going back to the Boer War, the state of the health of the urban working class was so shocking that even Parliament recognised that it was a serious national security issue.
Our national default is that we love our animals better than our children. When times are good, it's not so much a problem, there's enough to go around but when times are hard then the youth are neglected.
Go to any poor area and the result of the last decade of Tory spite and meanness is there in front of your eyes, many of the children either too thin or too fat, self evidently not properly nourished. Recall that policies such as the welfare cap and the two child rule are designed specifically to "remind parents that children cost money" ie to make sure that poor parents don't have enough money to raise their children properly. That is government policy. And it is utterly self defeating of course because these children will grow up to be less intelligent, less productive and more sickly adults and the whole country will be poorer.
The two child rule for welfare is entirely reasonable. Children are a choice to have, and both contraception and abortion are free of charge on the NHS.
If you already have two children, why should the taxpayer pay for a third, fourth, fifth, sixth or more on welfare while those working for a living decide that more kids are unaffordable?
Kudos for defending the indefensible. Your rationale clarifies just how callous this policy is.
He’s right on this. A birth rate above the replacement rate is an unaffordable luxury for most of middle England. It’s really only viable for the very wealthy, or those with very low expectations in life who cream the welfare state.
To be fair to the Tories Hunt's 9 month old nursery policy should help this a bit.
If only it was arriving sooner !
The rumour is that it won’t happen because it’s undeliverable.
Jesus Christ. Will the last person to leave Britain pls turn out the lights. How on earth could everything go so wrong?
The wage crunch is the worst since 1850 apparently, which is even beyond Big G’s recollection.
Meanwhile, in "another sign that something's not right" news,
Five-year-olds in Britain are on average up to seven centimetres shorter than their peers in other wealthy nations, in a trend described as “pretty startling”.
A poor national diet has been highlighted as a major culprit in Britain’s fall down international rankings of child height...
“It’s quite clear we are falling behind, relative to Europe,” he added. “But it’s telling that at age five, we are looking further behind than we are at age 19, which suggests to me that the last 14 years from age five to 19 has been particularly rough for UK children.”
I was listening to Will Shirer's diaries (can't quite remember which one) where he describes the opening stages of the Second World War on the Western Front. In it he talks about the state of the British youth, malnourished, rickety, pigeon chested with bad eyesight and remarks that, in contrast to the Germans, the UK had spent the inter-war years neglecting their youth.
Going back to the Boer War, the state of the health of the urban working class was so shocking that even Parliament recognised that it was a serious national security issue.
Our national default is that we love our animals better than our children. When times are good, it's not so much a problem, there's enough to go around but when times are hard then the youth are neglected.
Go to any poor area and the result of the last decade of Tory spite and meanness is there in front of your eyes, many of the children either too thin or too fat, self evidently not properly nourished. Recall that policies such as the welfare cap and the two child rule are designed specifically to "remind parents that children cost money" ie to make sure that poor parents don't have enough money to raise their children properly. That is government policy. And it is utterly self defeating of course because these children will grow up to be less intelligent, less productive and more sickly adults and the whole country will be poorer.
The two child rule for welfare is entirely reasonable. Children are a choice to have, and both contraception and abortion are free of charge on the NHS.
If you already have two children, why should the taxpayer pay for a third, fourth, fifth, sixth or more on welfare while those working for a living decide that more kids are unaffordable?
Kudos for defending the indefensible. Your rationale clarifies just how callous this policy is.
He’s right on this. A birth rate above the replacement rate is an unaffordable luxury for most of middle England. It’s really only viable for the very wealthy, or those with very low expectations in life who cream the welfare state.
You are putting "of course child raising is unaffordable" forward as a justification for cutting off welfare payments to children unfortunate enough to be born in unapproved families?
No, I don't think Child Benefit should be stopped in any families.
And its not stopped for anyone on welfare, nor the working poor who don't get welfare. If its insufficient, then why is that?
Brexit - driving up inflation, making people poorer, not delivering anything that it promised except for the bastards who are happy to see us all poorer so they can profit.
It's tempting to laugh at people like that, but I think it shows just how poor political discourse was during the referendum. I keep saying this, but the remain side needed to present Freedom of Movement as a *Positive* to Brits, not something that had to be "endured".
Jesus Christ. Will the last person to leave Britain pls turn out the lights. How on earth could everything go so wrong?
The wage crunch is the worst since 1850 apparently, which is even beyond Big G’s recollection.
Meanwhile, in "another sign that something's not right" news,
Five-year-olds in Britain are on average up to seven centimetres shorter than their peers in other wealthy nations, in a trend described as “pretty startling”.
A poor national diet has been highlighted as a major culprit in Britain’s fall down international rankings of child height...
“It’s quite clear we are falling behind, relative to Europe,” he added. “But it’s telling that at age five, we are looking further behind than we are at age 19, which suggests to me that the last 14 years from age five to 19 has been particularly rough for UK children.”
I was listening to Will Shirer's diaries (can't quite remember which one) where he describes the opening stages of the Second World War on the Western Front. In it he talks about the state of the British youth, malnourished, rickety, pigeon chested with bad eyesight and remarks that, in contrast to the Germans, the UK had spent the inter-war years neglecting their youth.
Going back to the Boer War, the state of the health of the urban working class was so shocking that even Parliament recognised that it was a serious national security issue.
Our national default is that we love our animals better than our children. When times are good, it's not so much a problem, there's enough to go around but when times are hard then the youth are neglected.
Go to any poor area and the result of the last decade of Tory spite and meanness is there in front of your eyes, many of the children either too thin or too fat, self evidently not properly nourished. Recall that policies such as the welfare cap and the two child rule are designed specifically to "remind parents that children cost money" ie to make sure that poor parents don't have enough money to raise their children properly. That is government policy. And it is utterly self defeating of course because these children will grow up to be less intelligent, less productive and more sickly adults and the whole country will be poorer.
The two child rule for welfare is entirely reasonable. Children are a choice to have, and both contraception and abortion are free of charge on the NHS.
If you already have two children, why should the taxpayer pay for a third, fourth, fifth, sixth or more on welfare while those working for a living decide that more kids are unaffordable?
Kudos for defending the indefensible. Your rationale clarifies just how callous this policy is.
He’s right on this. A birth rate above the replacement rate is an unaffordable luxury for most of middle England. It’s really only viable for the very wealthy, or those with very low expectations in life who cream the welfare state.
To be fair to the Tories Hunt's 9 month old nursery policy should help this a bit.
If only it was arriving sooner !
The rumour is that it won’t happen because it’s undeliverable.
The first bit should kick in pre-election (April 2024) (2 yr olds 15 hours). All the nurseries and childminders will fill up if/when it's fully implemented (Sep 2025) which will be on Starmer's watch. I'd have thought it would likely be delivered but 9 months might be raised a smidge or additional means test between 9 mths and 2 or 3 yrs.
Obviously anyone with half a brain can work out everywhere will fill up though - so there'll be de facto rationing even if it's not explicit.
I'm not an economist, but I have a few friends who are (one did an actuarial degree and that never made sense to me) and they are big MMT proponents. From my limited understanding, their argument for how to deal with current inflation is just wealth redistribution - that taxes are not about "balancing the books" but instead to keep money flowing in the system, and the easiest way to do that would be to take it from the piles of money hoarded by the rich and give it to the poor who will spend it immediately on goods they need - this reduces excess profit seeking (because what's the point of too much profit if the gov is going to just take it away anyway) and solves any crisis in spending power for lower earners. It also stimulates growth - again, if you give poor people a pound they will spend it, if you give a rich person a pound it will sit and accrue interest because it will likely just be invested in inflated assets (housing and stocks). Outside of a moral argument (protestant work ethic people saying people should earn their money need not apply), is this viable economics?
Yes. I think it's Keynesian economics and the velocity of money. Ironic that the Greens have rediscovered Keynsianism just when Labour appears to have forgotten it.
Jesus Christ. Will the last person to leave Britain pls turn out the lights. How on earth could everything go so wrong?
The wage crunch is the worst since 1850 apparently, which is even beyond Big G’s recollection.
Meanwhile, in "another sign that something's not right" news,
Five-year-olds in Britain are on average up to seven centimetres shorter than their peers in other wealthy nations, in a trend described as “pretty startling”.
A poor national diet has been highlighted as a major culprit in Britain’s fall down international rankings of child height...
“It’s quite clear we are falling behind, relative to Europe,” he added. “But it’s telling that at age five, we are looking further behind than we are at age 19, which suggests to me that the last 14 years from age five to 19 has been particularly rough for UK children.”
I was listening to Will Shirer's diaries (can't quite remember which one) where he describes the opening stages of the Second World War on the Western Front. In it he talks about the state of the British youth, malnourished, rickety, pigeon chested with bad eyesight and remarks that, in contrast to the Germans, the UK had spent the inter-war years neglecting their youth.
Going back to the Boer War, the state of the health of the urban working class was so shocking that even Parliament recognised that it was a serious national security issue.
Our national default is that we love our animals better than our children. When times are good, it's not so much a problem, there's enough to go around but when times are hard then the youth are neglected.
Go to any poor area and the result of the last decade of Tory spite and meanness is there in front of your eyes, many of the children either too thin or too fat, self evidently not properly nourished. Recall that policies such as the welfare cap and the two child rule are designed specifically to "remind parents that children cost money" ie to make sure that poor parents don't have enough money to raise their children properly. That is government policy. And it is utterly self defeating of course because these children will grow up to be less intelligent, less productive and more sickly adults and the whole country will be poorer.
The two child rule for welfare is entirely reasonable. Children are a choice to have, and both contraception and abortion are free of charge on the NHS.
If you already have two children, why should the taxpayer pay for a third, fourth, fifth, sixth or more on welfare while those working for a living decide that more kids are unaffordable?
Kudos for defending the indefensible. Your rationale clarifies just how callous this policy is.
He’s right on this. A birth rate above the replacement rate is an unaffordable luxury for most of middle England. It’s really only viable for the very wealthy, or those with very low expectations in life who cream the welfare state.
To be fair to the Tories Hunt's 9 month old nursery policy should help this a bit.
If only it was arriving sooner !
The rumour is that it won’t happen because it’s undeliverable.
The first bit should kick in pre-election (April 2024) (2 yr olds 15 hours). All the nurseries and childminders will fill up if/when it's fully implemented (Sep 2025) which will be on Starmer's watch.
The money being offered doesn't cover the costs involved...
Jesus Christ. Will the last person to leave Britain pls turn out the lights. How on earth could everything go so wrong?
The wage crunch is the worst since 1850 apparently, which is even beyond Big G’s recollection.
Meanwhile, in "another sign that something's not right" news,
Five-year-olds in Britain are on average up to seven centimetres shorter than their peers in other wealthy nations, in a trend described as “pretty startling”.
A poor national diet has been highlighted as a major culprit in Britain’s fall down international rankings of child height...
“It’s quite clear we are falling behind, relative to Europe,” he added. “But it’s telling that at age five, we are looking further behind than we are at age 19, which suggests to me that the last 14 years from age five to 19 has been particularly rough for UK children.”
I was listening to Will Shirer's diaries (can't quite remember which one) where he describes the opening stages of the Second World War on the Western Front. In it he talks about the state of the British youth, malnourished, rickety, pigeon chested with bad eyesight and remarks that, in contrast to the Germans, the UK had spent the inter-war years neglecting their youth.
Going back to the Boer War, the state of the health of the urban working class was so shocking that even Parliament recognised that it was a serious national security issue.
Our national default is that we love our animals better than our children. When times are good, it's not so much a problem, there's enough to go around but when times are hard then the youth are neglected.
Go to any poor area and the result of the last decade of Tory spite and meanness is there in front of your eyes, many of the children either too thin or too fat, self evidently not properly nourished. Recall that policies such as the welfare cap and the two child rule are designed specifically to "remind parents that children cost money" ie to make sure that poor parents don't have enough money to raise their children properly. That is government policy. And it is utterly self defeating of course because these children will grow up to be less intelligent, less productive and more sickly adults and the whole country will be poorer.
The two child rule for welfare is entirely reasonable. Children are a choice to have, and both contraception and abortion are free of charge on the NHS.
If you already have two children, why should the taxpayer pay for a third, fourth, fifth, sixth or more on welfare while those working for a living decide that more kids are unaffordable?
Because the taxpayer knows that supporting children is an investment in the future of the country? Because a society that doesn't nurture its children - all of its children - is committing suicide.
When you have an economic orthodoxy that treats people as a kind of natural resource that it's often preferable to import, this ceases to be self-evident.
When you tell the poor not to reproduce don't be surprised that you run out of workers.
What about when those working for a living find they can't afford to reproduce?
Most of the poor are working for a living too.
Gordon Brown was always talking about child poverty.
I don't recall him ever making the obvious suggestion that poor people shouldn't have children.
Brexit - driving up inflation, making people poorer, not delivering anything that it promised except for the bastards who are happy to see us all poorer so they can profit.
It's tempting to laugh at people like that, but I think it shows just how poor political discourse was during the referendum. I keep saying this, but the remain side needed to present Freedom of Movement as a *Positive* to Brits, not something that had to be "endured".
Hang on a second home owner didn't understand the risk of voting to leave the EU - I honestly forget how stupid most people are...
Jesus Christ. Will the last person to leave Britain pls turn out the lights. How on earth could everything go so wrong?
The wage crunch is the worst since 1850 apparently, which is even beyond Big G’s recollection.
Meanwhile, in "another sign that something's not right" news,
Five-year-olds in Britain are on average up to seven centimetres shorter than their peers in other wealthy nations, in a trend described as “pretty startling”.
A poor national diet has been highlighted as a major culprit in Britain’s fall down international rankings of child height...
“It’s quite clear we are falling behind, relative to Europe,” he added. “But it’s telling that at age five, we are looking further behind than we are at age 19, which suggests to me that the last 14 years from age five to 19 has been particularly rough for UK children.”
I was listening to Will Shirer's diaries (can't quite remember which one) where he describes the opening stages of the Second World War on the Western Front. In it he talks about the state of the British youth, malnourished, rickety, pigeon chested with bad eyesight and remarks that, in contrast to the Germans, the UK had spent the inter-war years neglecting their youth.
Going back to the Boer War, the state of the health of the urban working class was so shocking that even Parliament recognised that it was a serious national security issue.
Our national default is that we love our animals better than our children. When times are good, it's not so much a problem, there's enough to go around but when times are hard then the youth are neglected.
Go to any poor area and the result of the last decade of Tory spite and meanness is there in front of your eyes, many of the children either too thin or too fat, self evidently not properly nourished. Recall that policies such as the welfare cap and the two child rule are designed specifically to "remind parents that children cost money" ie to make sure that poor parents don't have enough money to raise their children properly. That is government policy. And it is utterly self defeating of course because these children will grow up to be less intelligent, less productive and more sickly adults and the whole country will be poorer.
The two child rule for welfare is entirely reasonable. Children are a choice to have, and both contraception and abortion are free of charge on the NHS.
If you already have two children, why should the taxpayer pay for a third, fourth, fifth, sixth or more on welfare while those working for a living decide that more kids are unaffordable?
Kudos for defending the indefensible. Your rationale clarifies just how callous this policy is.
He’s right on this. A birth rate above the replacement rate is an unaffordable luxury for most of middle England. It’s really only viable for the very wealthy, or those with very low expectations in life who cream the welfare state.
You are putting "of course child raising is unaffordable" forward as a justification for cutting off welfare payments to children unfortunate enough to be born in unapproved families?
No, I don't think Child Benefit should be stopped in any families.
And its not stopped for anyone on welfare, nor the working poor who don't get welfare. If its insufficient, then why is that?
It's stopped as soon as someone in the family earns £50,000 which means an awful lot of people don't get it and with the barrier fixed and wages increasing a lot more people / families will be impacted.
Brexit - driving up inflation, making people poorer, not delivering anything that it promised except for the bastards who are happy to see us all poorer so they can profit.
Classic example of not applying the precautionary principle. If you have a second home in the EU then even if there's only a 20% risk of your lifestyle being affected by a vote for Brexit, why would you risk it? But some did.
Second home owners affected by Brexit falls under the "so what" category.
The inconvenience caused to entitled, privileged, middle classes. Cry me a river.
Brexit - driving up inflation, making people poorer, not delivering anything that it promised except for the bastards who are happy to see us all poorer so they can profit.
It's tempting to laugh at people like that, but I think it shows just how poor political discourse was during the referendum. I keep saying this, but the remain side needed to present Freedom of Movement as a *Positive* to Brits, not something that had to be "endured".
Hang on a second home owner didn't understand the risk of voting to leave the EU - I honestly forget how stupid most people are...
You do wonder how "Sarah" got hold of a Lazian second home if she was too thick to understand that particular effect of Brexit.
PBers who once frequented the the UK Polling Report forum would probably remember Barney Crockett, a more loyal Labour partisan you could not hope to find.
'THE former leader of Aberdeen council has quit Labour over Keir Starmer’s hardline stance on North Sea oil. Barney Crockett, who led the council between 2012 and 2014, revealed on Wednesday he had quit and described Starmer’s oil and gas exploration ban as “more brutal” than Margaret Thatcher’s assault on industry in the 1980s. He told the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce (AGCC): “I have been left stunned and bemused by the events of the last few weeks. "The Labour leadership has made crucial decisions about the future of the UK, decisions focused on this area, without contacting anyone from this area or from the local Labour Party."'
Jesus Christ. Will the last person to leave Britain pls turn out the lights. How on earth could everything go so wrong?
The wage crunch is the worst since 1850 apparently, which is even beyond Big G’s recollection.
Meanwhile, in "another sign that something's not right" news,
Five-year-olds in Britain are on average up to seven centimetres shorter than their peers in other wealthy nations, in a trend described as “pretty startling”.
A poor national diet has been highlighted as a major culprit in Britain’s fall down international rankings of child height...
“It’s quite clear we are falling behind, relative to Europe,” he added. “But it’s telling that at age five, we are looking further behind than we are at age 19, which suggests to me that the last 14 years from age five to 19 has been particularly rough for UK children.”
I was listening to Will Shirer's diaries (can't quite remember which one) where he describes the opening stages of the Second World War on the Western Front. In it he talks about the state of the British youth, malnourished, rickety, pigeon chested with bad eyesight and remarks that, in contrast to the Germans, the UK had spent the inter-war years neglecting their youth.
Going back to the Boer War, the state of the health of the urban working class was so shocking that even Parliament recognised that it was a serious national security issue.
Our national default is that we love our animals better than our children. When times are good, it's not so much a problem, there's enough to go around but when times are hard then the youth are neglected.
Go to any poor area and the result of the last decade of Tory spite and meanness is there in front of your eyes, many of the children either too thin or too fat, self evidently not properly nourished. Recall that policies such as the welfare cap and the two child rule are designed specifically to "remind parents that children cost money" ie to make sure that poor parents don't have enough money to raise their children properly. That is government policy. And it is utterly self defeating of course because these children will grow up to be less intelligent, less productive and more sickly adults and the whole country will be poorer.
The two child rule for welfare is entirely reasonable. Children are a choice to have, and both contraception and abortion are free of charge on the NHS.
If you already have two children, why should the taxpayer pay for a third, fourth, fifth, sixth or more on welfare while those working for a living decide that more kids are unaffordable?
One of the purposes of welfare is to provide a safety net to help people through a limited period of financial difficulty.
Right now I have a very comfortable income and I can easily support a large family, but who knows what might happen in a decade's time? Of course, I am a responsible person, so I am making my own provision for unexpected events - savings, life insurance, etc - but there are limits to what a private individual can achieve in this regard.
One of the functions of the State is to act as an insurer of last resort, and this is a basis for the existence of social security. The State in Britain has uniquely said that in the case of 3rd and subsequent children it will abdicate its responsibilities in this regard and not act as the insurer of last resort.
It's a massive abdication of responsibility and incredibly cruel.
Also, in the context of the demographic transition it's also actively harmful to the future finances of the country.
I have a horrible horrible feeling that this is going the way of actual mortgage support payments. Just like the energy support payments. And the covid support payments.
It seems any time we hit negative economic situations now the government just throws (generally non means tested) money at it to paper over the cracks. This will make the eventual implosion even more catastrophic when it comes.
I have a horrible horrible feeling that this is going the way of actual mortgage support payments. Just like the energy support payments. And the covid support payments.
It seems any time we hit negative economic situations now the government just throws (generally non means tested) money at it to paper over the cracks. This will make the eventual implosion even more catastrophic when it comes.
I'm not an economist, but I have a few friends who are (one did an actuarial degree and that never made sense to me) and they are big MMT proponents. From my limited understanding, their argument for how to deal with current inflation is just wealth redistribution - that taxes are not about "balancing the books" but instead to keep money flowing in the system, and the easiest way to do that would be to take it from the piles of money hoarded by the rich and give it to the poor who will spend it immediately on goods they need - this reduces excess profit seeking (because what's the point of too much profit if the gov is going to just take it away anyway) and solves any crisis in spending power for lower earners. It also stimulates growth - again, if you give poor people a pound they will spend it, if you give a rich person a pound it will sit and accrue interest because it will likely just be invested in inflated assets (housing and stocks). Outside of a moral argument (protestant work ethic people saying people should earn their money need not apply), is this viable economics?
Yes. I think it's Keynesian economics and the velocity of money. Ironic that the Greens have rediscovered Keynsianism just when Labour appears to have forgotten it.
I would say no, or at the very least you can create problems as great as those you are trying to solve. The first issue is demand. Because money in the hands of the poor is much more likely to be spent you increase effective demand by, as you say, increasing its velocity. But do we have a shortage of demand? We have an enormous trade deficit which would suggest consumption already exceeds output by quite a margin. If we simply increase demand we either generate higher inflation or suck in more imports.
Secondly, what we really need to do is improve output which requires a lot of investment. Policies such as those described (or idiotic and short term "windfall" taxes) do not encourage investment, quite the reverse. We need to incentivise saving and investment in the UK, not the reverse.
Thirdly, whilst I am a great admirer of Keynes, the models that he used were much, much more self contained than a modern economy. Exports and imports are both much more significant and there are nothing like the trade tariffs that he successfully railed against. This means that it is much easier for both capital to leave and for imports to be sucked in than it was in the past. MMT seems to me, as a non-expert, to have some merit if you have the reserve currency, such as the dollar. Sterling has not been a reserve currency for a long time now.
Starmer got monstered by a very impressive Sunak. Not mentioning Sunak's vote failure was a massive error, same goes for Flynn, although he did manage to bring in Brexit as the problem. Rishi handled both very well.
The mortgage issue was batted back as Labour's failure.
Possibly Starmer's worst performance against Sunak and a much improved Sunak. Not least because Starmer was rubbish.
Hmm, didn't you say much the same last week? I didn't listen to PMQs so don't have a view, but I don't get the impression that you've been an SKS fan at any time.
PBers who once frequented the the UK Polling Report forum would probably remember Barney Crockett, a more loyal Labour partisan you could not hope to find.
'THE former leader of Aberdeen council has quit Labour over Keir Starmer’s hardline stance on North Sea oil. Barney Crockett, who led the council between 2012 and 2014, revealed on Wednesday he had quit and described Starmer’s oil and gas exploration ban as “more brutal” than Margaret Thatcher’s assault on industry in the 1980s. He told the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce (AGCC): “I have been left stunned and bemused by the events of the last few weeks. "The Labour leadership has made crucial decisions about the future of the UK, decisions focused on this area, without contacting anyone from this area or from the local Labour Party."'
But the SNP under Sturgeon and continuity Yousless agree with this policy. They also think further exploitation should stop for ecological reasons. It was one of the areas where Kate Forbes seriously disagreed but she lost.
Only the Tories are clear that we should continue to use our own resources to meet our need for energy whilst bearing down on the proportion of energy coming from petrochemicals. It will be interesting to see what effect this has on north east seats at the next election.
I have a horrible horrible feeling that this is going the way of actual mortgage support payments. Just like the energy support payments. And the covid support payments.
It seems any time we hit negative economic situations now the government just throws (generally non means tested) money at it to paper over the cracks. This will make the eventual implosion even more catastrophic when it comes.
The mess will be for SKS and Reeves to deal with. What an absolute clown show this govt is at the moment. The main point of raising interest rates is to remove money from the economy to suppress demand.
This will not happen if they take with one hand and give with the other. Debt Interest payments will go through the roof as well.
Never mind Nad's resignation, what time is Andrew Bailey's due?
He's safe for another 4 years apparently.
Rachel Reeves seems to have some ideas, imported from the US, as how to reform the inept MPC. However, from the press reports, it seems Bailey cannot be replaced.
I have a horrible horrible feeling that this is going the way of actual mortgage support payments. Just like the energy support payments. And the covid support payments.
It seems any time we hit negative economic situations now the government just throws (generally non means tested) money at it to paper over the cracks. This will make the eventual implosion even more catastrophic when it comes.
The mess will be for SKS and Reeves to deal with. What an absolute clown show this govt is at the moment. The main point of raising interest rates is to remove money from the economy to suppress demand.
This will not happen if they take with one hand and give with the other. Debt Interest payments will go through the roof as well.
Government debt gilts market will be a bloodbath if they hit the mortgage support button.
Jesus Christ. Will the last person to leave Britain pls turn out the lights. How on earth could everything go so wrong?
The wage crunch is the worst since 1850 apparently, which is even beyond Big G’s recollection.
Meanwhile, in "another sign that something's not right" news,
Five-year-olds in Britain are on average up to seven centimetres shorter than their peers in other wealthy nations, in a trend described as “pretty startling”.
A poor national diet has been highlighted as a major culprit in Britain’s fall down international rankings of child height...
“It’s quite clear we are falling behind, relative to Europe,” he added. “But it’s telling that at age five, we are looking further behind than we are at age 19, which suggests to me that the last 14 years from age five to 19 has been particularly rough for UK children.”
I was listening to Will Shirer's diaries (can't quite remember which one) where he describes the opening stages of the Second World War on the Western Front. In it he talks about the state of the British youth, malnourished, rickety, pigeon chested with bad eyesight and remarks that, in contrast to the Germans, the UK had spent the inter-war years neglecting their youth.
Going back to the Boer War, the state of the health of the urban working class was so shocking that even Parliament recognised that it was a serious national security issue.
Our national default is that we love our animals better than our children. When times are good, it's not so much a problem, there's enough to go around but when times are hard then the youth are neglected.
Go to any poor area and the result of the last decade of Tory spite and meanness is there in front of your eyes, many of the children either too thin or too fat, self evidently not properly nourished. Recall that policies such as the welfare cap and the two child rule are designed specifically to "remind parents that children cost money" ie to make sure that poor parents don't have enough money to raise their children properly. That is government policy. And it is utterly self defeating of course because these children will grow up to be less intelligent, less productive and more sickly adults and the whole country will be poorer.
The two child rule for welfare is entirely reasonable. Children are a choice to have, and both contraception and abortion are free of charge on the NHS.
If you already have two children, why should the taxpayer pay for a third, fourth, fifth, sixth or more on welfare while those working for a living decide that more kids are unaffordable?
Kudos for defending the indefensible. Your rationale clarifies just how callous this policy is.
He’s right on this. A birth rate above the replacement rate is an unaffordable luxury for most of middle England. It’s really only viable for the very wealthy, or those with very low expectations in life who cream the welfare state.
You are putting "of course child raising is unaffordable" forward as a justification for cutting off welfare payments to children unfortunate enough to be born in unapproved families?
No, I don't think Child Benefit should be stopped in any families.
And its not stopped for anyone on welfare, nor the working poor who don't get welfare. If its insufficient, then why is that?
Because Britain has chosen to have a system of means-tested benefits rather than universal benefits. That's a whole separate argument to one about whether you should abandon third and subsequent children.
I have a horrible horrible feeling that this is going the way of actual mortgage support payments. Just like the energy support payments. And the covid support payments.
It seems any time we hit negative economic situations now the government just throws (generally non means tested) money at it to paper over the cracks. This will make the eventual implosion even more catastrophic when it comes.
Agreed. Paying people's mortgages for them would be utter lunacy.
Lady Maths of the Rugby 🐟💙🇺🇦 @labourtandt · 36m Replying to @jessphillips One of our young neighbours have put reluctantly put their house on the market, they cant afford the rise in their mortgage repayment.
Never mind Nad's resignation, what time is Andrew Bailey's due?
He's safe for another 4 years apparently.
Rachel Reeves seems to have some ideas, imported from the US, as how to reform the inept MPC. However, from the press reports, it seems Bailey cannot be replaced.
Sadly put him up against a lettuce and he wins.
He should do the decent thing and go in the circumstances.
Starmer got monstered by a very impressive Sunak. Not mentioning Sunak's vote failure was a massive error, same goes for Flynn, although he did manage to bring in Brexit as the problem. Rishi handled both very well.
The mortgage issue was batted back as Labour's failure.
Possibly Starmer's worst performance against Sunak and a much improved Sunak. Not least because Starmer was rubbish.
Hmm, didn't you say much the same last week? I didn't listen to PMQs so don't have a view, but I don't get the impression that you've been an SKS fan at any time.
Starmer asked the same question six times and each time got a non-answer from Sunak. He didn't mention Sunak's no vote. He didn't mention Sunak's tacit contempt of parliament by not voting in favour of the committee report. He didn't mention inflation or the boats failures. He was useless and he had stacks of material to bury Sunak under. He was unacceptably poor.
Just had a house insurance renewal quote. 75% increase. Saga. Bloke on phone said it was market and the rise not untypical. And could do little to reduce. Is this common experience? Is insurance especially inflationery?
Insuring two motorbikes now costs me nearly 3 grand/year. TPO.
Can't get car insurance at any price so they are all insured in Mrs DA's name with me as a named driver. TPF&T. I also appear to be on some sort of blacklist that makes it impossible to hire a car in any country in the OECD...
I have a horrible horrible feeling that this is going the way of actual mortgage support payments. Just like the energy support payments. And the covid support payments.
It seems any time we hit negative economic situations now the government just throws (generally non means tested) money at it to paper over the cracks. This will make the eventual implosion even more catastrophic when it comes.
Agreed. Paying people's mortgages for them would be utter lunacy.
And prop up and further inflate house prices. But Eat Out to Help Out was pretty daft too.
Next election will be fought over this issue. The only resolution I can see is SKS promises the moon on a stick, and then sorrowfully recants once in office and seen the true extent of tory mismanagement.
I'm not an economist, but I have a few friends who are (one did an actuarial degree and that never made sense to me) and they are big MMT proponents. From my limited understanding, their argument for how to deal with current inflation is just wealth redistribution - that taxes are not about "balancing the books" but instead to keep money flowing in the system, and the easiest way to do that would be to take it from the piles of money hoarded by the rich and give it to the poor who will spend it immediately on goods they need - this reduces excess profit seeking (because what's the point of too much profit if the gov is going to just take it away anyway) and solves any crisis in spending power for lower earners. It also stimulates growth - again, if you give poor people a pound they will spend it, if you give a rich person a pound it will sit and accrue interest because it will likely just be invested in inflated assets (housing and stocks). Outside of a moral argument (protestant work ethic people saying people should earn their money need not apply), is this viable economics?
Yes. I think it's Keynesian economics and the velocity of money. Ironic that the Greens have rediscovered Keynsianism just when Labour appears to have forgotten it.
I would say no, or at the very least you can create problems as great as those you are trying to solve. The first issue is demand. Because money in the hands of the poor is much more likely to be spent you increase effective demand by, as you say, increasing its velocity. But do we have a shortage of demand? We have an enormous trade deficit which would suggest consumption already exceeds output by quite a margin. If we simply increase demand we either generate higher inflation or suck in more imports.
Secondly, what we really need to do is improve output which requires a lot of investment. Policies such as those described (or idiotic and short term "windfall" taxes) do not encourage investment, quite the reverse. We need to incentivise saving and investment in the UK, not the reverse.
Thirdly, whilst I am a great admirer of Keynes, the models that he used were much, much more self contained than a modern economy. Exports and imports are both much more significant and there are nothing like the trade tariffs that he successfully railed against. This means that it is much easier for both capital to leave and for imports to be sucked in than it was in the past. MMT seems to me, as a non-expert, to have some merit if you have the reserve currency, such as the dollar. Sterling has not been a reserve currency for a long time now.
I just want to focus on the second point you make, because that's the one that seems to sit with me the most. Surely the point of taxes (windfall or otherwise) is that it allows the state to invest? So, for example, if you put a windfall tax on energy profits over the past 18 months or next 18 months etc the state could redirect that monies into upgrading the grid / green energy, etc. etc. Why would that lead to a fall in investment? The private sector may not wish to invest, but to be honest the private sector isn't investing much in things we need anyway - especially not in those sectors that are causing the issues we're having (energy and water infrastructure). Rather they're doing the Reacher Gilt scam; buy it when it's cheap, reduce maintenance which is a large capital cost, increase costs by claiming you're going to do maintenance and pocket the profit.
Lady Maths of the Rugby 🐟💙🇺🇦 @labourtandt · 36m Replying to @jessphillips One of our young neighbours have put reluctantly put their house on the market, they cant afford the rise in their mortgage repayment.
I have a horrible horrible feeling that this is going the way of actual mortgage support payments. Just like the energy support payments. And the covid support payments.
It seems any time we hit negative economic situations now the government just throws (generally non means tested) money at it to paper over the cracks. This will make the eventual implosion even more catastrophic when it comes.
Agreed. Paying people's mortgages for them would be utter lunacy.
I just don't understand what it would achieve. It wouldn't ultimately fix the problem of a shortage of housing. It might keep people in their houses, which is not negligible, but it would bugger their ability to move quickly.
I would have said if they go down that route there would have to be some kind of debt for equity swap. As in, the government takes on your mortgage if you like but you now live in, in effect, a council house.
But there won't be. It would just be free money.
Very nice for me and my sister if it happens as we're about to sell our father's house and that should clear our mortgages - so instead, we can use that money for other things and get our rather nice houses paid for by the government.
But should the government be subsidising people in that situation? Hell no.
Lady Maths of the Rugby 🐟💙🇺🇦 @labourtandt · 36m Replying to @jessphillips One of our young neighbours have put reluctantly put their house on the market, they cant afford the rise in their mortgage repayment.
Do British voters approve or disapprove of the Govt's performance on the economy? (18 June)
Disapprove: 51% (+7) Approve: 26% (-5) Net Approval: -25% (-12)
Changes +/- 11 June
I presume the 26% are mainly savers who are benefitting from locking in high interest rates when inflation is expected to decline markedly.
Soon to be pissed off when it doesnt
Savers aren't happy! The interest rates being paid are well below inflation and people's savings continue to be rapidly eroded.
Quite. The best rates, in reasonably mainstream banks with FSCS and ignoring outre stuff, are around 5-5.4 percentage points, but that tends to be for fixed rate deals with no access to the cash at all or with the loss of 3-6 months of interest if removed early. Full access or limited access is a point or so lower. And deduct tax unless it is an ISA. With the fiscal drag meaning that one's tax-free savings allowance is also eroded by inflation.
I have a horrible horrible feeling that this is going the way of actual mortgage support payments. Just like the energy support payments. And the covid support payments.
It seems any time we hit negative economic situations now the government just throws (generally non means tested) money at it to paper over the cracks. This will make the eventual implosion even more catastrophic when it comes.
Agreed. Paying people's mortgages for them would be utter lunacy.
And prop up and further inflate house prices. But Eat Out to Help Out was pretty daft too.
Next election will be fought over this issue. The only resolution I can see is SKS promises the moon on a stick, and then sorrowfully recants once in office and seen the true extent of tory mismanagement.
The only problem with that is the 'Truss' effect will immediately hit Stammer and interest rates rocket
There seems no solution that is palatable and no quick fix either
You can change who is in No 10 but you cannot change the economics
Jesus Christ. Will the last person to leave Britain pls turn out the lights. How on earth could everything go so wrong?
The wage crunch is the worst since 1850 apparently, which is even beyond Big G’s recollection.
Meanwhile, in "another sign that something's not right" news,
Five-year-olds in Britain are on average up to seven centimetres shorter than their peers in other wealthy nations, in a trend described as “pretty startling”.
A poor national diet has been highlighted as a major culprit in Britain’s fall down international rankings of child height...
“It’s quite clear we are falling behind, relative to Europe,” he added. “But it’s telling that at age five, we are looking further behind than we are at age 19, which suggests to me that the last 14 years from age five to 19 has been particularly rough for UK children.”
I was listening to Will Shirer's diaries (can't quite remember which one) where he describes the opening stages of the Second World War on the Western Front. In it he talks about the state of the British youth, malnourished, rickety, pigeon chested with bad eyesight and remarks that, in contrast to the Germans, the UK had spent the inter-war years neglecting their youth.
Going back to the Boer War, the state of the health of the urban working class was so shocking that even Parliament recognised that it was a serious national security issue.
Our national default is that we love our animals better than our children. When times are good, it's not so much a problem, there's enough to go around but when times are hard then the youth are neglected.
Go to any poor area and the result of the last decade of Tory spite and meanness is there in front of your eyes, many of the children either too thin or too fat, self evidently not properly nourished. Recall that policies such as the welfare cap and the two child rule are designed specifically to "remind parents that children cost money" ie to make sure that poor parents don't have enough money to raise their children properly. That is government policy. And it is utterly self defeating of course because these children will grow up to be less intelligent, less productive and more sickly adults and the whole country will be poorer.
The two child rule for welfare is entirely reasonable. Children are a choice to have, and both contraception and abortion are free of charge on the NHS.
If you already have two children, why should the taxpayer pay for a third, fourth, fifth, sixth or more on welfare while those working for a living decide that more kids are unaffordable?
One of the purposes of welfare is to provide a safety net to help people through a limited period of financial difficulty.
Right now I have a very comfortable income and I can easily support a large family, but who knows what might happen in a decade's time? Of course, I am a responsible person, so I am making my own provision for unexpected events - savings, life insurance, etc - but there are limits to what a private individual can achieve in this regard.
One of the functions of the State is to act as an insurer of last resort, and this is a basis for the existence of social security. The State in Britain has uniquely said that in the case of 3rd and subsequent children it will abdicate its responsibilities in this regard and not act as the insurer of last resort.
It's a massive abdication of responsibility and incredibly cruel.
Also, in the context of the demographic transition it's also actively harmful to the future finances of the country.
The state in Britain has said no such thing. People can still get Child Benefit for 3rd and subsequent children.
The problem is that rather than having child benefits be wrapped up in Child Benefit, we have multiple classes of benefits. Two parents working full time for minimum wage will get Child Benefit any may still be struggling but may not be entitled to any other benefits.
Whereas if they're working part time they might get both Child Benefit and a Child portion for Universal Credit, formerly Child Tax Credits, which distorts the support available for children.
Some here are acting as if the distinction is between those who are extremely well off on six figure salaries, or those relying solely on Universal Credit, whereas there is a huge middle in-between.
Do British voters approve or disapprove of the Govt's performance on the economy? (18 June)
Disapprove: 51% (+7) Approve: 26% (-5) Net Approval: -25% (-12)
Changes +/- 11 June
I presume the 26% are mainly savers who are benefitting from locking in high interest rates when inflation is expected to decline markedly.
Soon to be pissed off when it doesnt
Savers aren't happy! The interest rates being paid are well below inflation and people's savings continue to be rapidly eroded.
Now that *is* an area where the government could and should be doing something. What the banks are getting away with is an absolute disgrace.
Some much more, or rather less, than others. I'm going through our savings accounts and the difference between banks is quite something. Why get 1.3% with one high street bank when one can find 3.5-4% or more quite easily?
Never mind Nad's resignation, what time is Andrew Bailey's due?
He's safe for another 4 years apparently.
Rachel Reeves seems to have some ideas, imported from the US, as how to reform the inept MPC. However, from the press reports, it seems Bailey cannot be replaced.
Sadly put him up against a lettuce and he wins.
He should do the decent thing and go in the circumstances.
True, but they are simply kicking it into the long grass by having a "review"
In modern Britain since when did anyone take accountability of their failures rather than simply deflect and double down.
Didn't he swear, at risk of perjury, that the evidence he gave at his confirmation hearing was true ?
Notable in light of Justice Alito's WSJ op-ed: during his Senate confirmation hearings, he said he recuses himself when “any possible question might arise.”
Do British voters approve or disapprove of the Govt's performance on the economy? (18 June)
Disapprove: 51% (+7) Approve: 26% (-5) Net Approval: -25% (-12)
Changes +/- 11 June
I presume the 26% are mainly savers who are benefitting from locking in high interest rates when inflation is expected to decline markedly.
Soon to be pissed off when it doesnt
Savers aren't happy! The interest rates being paid are well below inflation and people's savings continue to be rapidly eroded.
Hence my comment of locking in higher interest rates against an expectation of inflation declining markedly. 6% in December when forecast inflation is far lower than now and well under 6% would seem a good idea, however, as I say.....
Jesus Christ. Will the last person to leave Britain pls turn out the lights. How on earth could everything go so wrong?
The wage crunch is the worst since 1850 apparently, which is even beyond Big G’s recollection.
Meanwhile, in "another sign that something's not right" news,
Five-year-olds in Britain are on average up to seven centimetres shorter than their peers in other wealthy nations, in a trend described as “pretty startling”.
A poor national diet has been highlighted as a major culprit in Britain’s fall down international rankings of child height...
“It’s quite clear we are falling behind, relative to Europe,” he added. “But it’s telling that at age five, we are looking further behind than we are at age 19, which suggests to me that the last 14 years from age five to 19 has been particularly rough for UK children.”
I was listening to Will Shirer's diaries (can't quite remember which one) where he describes the opening stages of the Second World War on the Western Front. In it he talks about the state of the British youth, malnourished, rickety, pigeon chested with bad eyesight and remarks that, in contrast to the Germans, the UK had spent the inter-war years neglecting their youth.
Going back to the Boer War, the state of the health of the urban working class was so shocking that even Parliament recognised that it was a serious national security issue.
Our national default is that we love our animals better than our children. When times are good, it's not so much a problem, there's enough to go around but when times are hard then the youth are neglected.
Go to any poor area and the result of the last decade of Tory spite and meanness is there in front of your eyes, many of the children either too thin or too fat, self evidently not properly nourished. Recall that policies such as the welfare cap and the two child rule are designed specifically to "remind parents that children cost money" ie to make sure that poor parents don't have enough money to raise their children properly. That is government policy. And it is utterly self defeating of course because these children will grow up to be less intelligent, less productive and more sickly adults and the whole country will be poorer.
The two child rule for welfare is entirely reasonable. Children are a choice to have, and both contraception and abortion are free of charge on the NHS.
If you already have two children, why should the taxpayer pay for a third, fourth, fifth, sixth or more on welfare while those working for a living decide that more kids are unaffordable?
Kudos for defending the indefensible. Your rationale clarifies just how callous this policy is.
He’s right on this. A birth rate above the replacement rate is an unaffordable luxury for most of middle England. It’s really only viable for the very wealthy, or those with very low expectations in life who cream the welfare state.
You are putting "of course child raising is unaffordable" forward as a justification for cutting off welfare payments to children unfortunate enough to be born in unapproved families?
No, I don't think Child Benefit should be stopped in any families.
And its not stopped for anyone on welfare, nor the working poor who don't get welfare. If its insufficient, then why is that?
Because Britain has chosen to have a system of means-tested benefits rather than universal benefits. That's a whole separate argument to one about whether you should abandon third and subsequent children.
We don't abandon third and subsequent children, they get Child Benefit. Which I've said many times already now.
If Child Benefit is insufficient, then that needs addressing, but don't pretend there's nothing.
I have a horrible horrible feeling that this is going the way of actual mortgage support payments. Just like the energy support payments. And the covid support payments.
It seems any time we hit negative economic situations now the government just throws (generally non means tested) money at it to paper over the cracks. This will make the eventual implosion even more catastrophic when it comes.
Agreed. Paying people's mortgages for them would be utter lunacy.
I just don't understand what it would achieve. It wouldn't ultimately fix the problem of a shortage of housing. It might keep people in their houses, which is not negligible, but it would bugger their ability to move quickly.
I would have said if they go down that route there would have to be some kind of debt for equity swap. As in, the government takes on your mortgage if you like but you now live in, in effect, a council house.
But there won't be. It would just be free money.
Very nice for me and my sister if it happens as we're about to sell our father's house and that should clear our mortgages - so instead, we can use that money for other things and get our rather nice houses paid for by the government.
But should the government be subsidising people in that situation? Hell no.
The issue is successive governments since Thatcher have hoodwinked generations of workers into believing they are better off because their house has gained in value even if their wages didn't rise, so they only way in the UK to actually get wealthier is to keep climbing up the chain of properties, swinging from one mortgage to the next, in the hope that one day you own a house that you can then downsize from, creating liquidity with every swing down to smaller and smaller properties, giving the capital injection to secure you in your old age. This was sold to me as the only way to live from a pretty young age - get on the property ladder, get a job, get married and have kids, you're a success if you do all that before 30. Well, lots of people now can't do that, and no other solution has been presented; and those who did do that were typically those who came from somewhat well off backgrounds but not excessively privileged ones, so if it stops working you have a bourgeoise revolt. I think one of the things we can see from how quickly Truss' fell is that a decade of Conservatives making most people poorer was fine until it hit the class of people who write, edit and produce the news and politics - that upper middle class who probably have a mortgage they can only just afford but it is an important stepping stone. Fuck them over too much and, politically, you are really in trouble.
Cameron put those people in alliance with OAPs and social moderates / economic conservatives. May upset the OAPs, and didn't replace them, Johnson upset the social moderates, but replaced them with some working class social conservatives and got back OAPs, and Truss lost everyone. Sunak has done a bit better with OAPs and the social moderates (although I think the culture war stuff will lose them), and the culture war stuff doesn't seem to be enough to keep working class social conservatives (who feel the economic pain more acutely), so the last group left to try to appeal too will be bourgeoise mortgage holders.
I have a horrible horrible feeling that this is going the way of actual mortgage support payments. Just like the energy support payments. And the covid support payments.
It seems any time we hit negative economic situations now the government just throws (generally non means tested) money at it to paper over the cracks. This will make the eventual implosion even more catastrophic when it comes.
Agreed. Paying people's mortgages for them would be utter lunacy.
I just don't understand what it would achieve. It wouldn't ultimately fix the problem of a shortage of housing. It might keep people in their houses, which is not negligible, but it would bugger their ability to move quickly.
I would have said if they go down that route there would have to be some kind of debt for equity swap. As in, the government takes on your mortgage if you like but you now live in, in effect, a council house.
But there won't be. It would just be free money.
Very nice for me and my sister if it happens as we're about to sell our father's house and that should clear our mortgages - so instead, we can use that money for other things and get our rather nice houses paid for by the government.
But should the government be subsidising people in that situation? Hell no.
As unpalatable as it may be house prices are going to fall, repossessions rise, and negative equity rear its head again as in the 1990s and that did involve a lot of pain but an eventual reduction in house prices
One thing is certain neither Sunak or Starmer can afford to underwrite the housing market
I have a horrible horrible feeling that this is going the way of actual mortgage support payments. Just like the energy support payments. And the covid support payments.
It seems any time we hit negative economic situations now the government just throws (generally non means tested) money at it to paper over the cracks. This will make the eventual implosion even more catastrophic when it comes.
Agreed. Paying people's mortgages for them would be utter lunacy.
I just don't understand what it would achieve. It wouldn't ultimately fix the problem of a shortage of housing. It might keep people in their houses, which is not negligible, but it would bugger their ability to move quickly.
I would have said if they go down that route there would have to be some kind of debt for equity swap. As in, the government takes on your mortgage if you like but you now live in, in effect, a council house.
But there won't be. It would just be free money.
Very nice for me and my sister if it happens as we're about to sell our father's house and that should clear our mortgages - so instead, we can use that money for other things and get our rather nice houses paid for by the government.
But should the government be subsidising people in that situation? Hell no.
As unpalatable as it may be house prices are going to fall, repossessions rise, and negative equity rear its head again as in the 1990s and that did involve a lot of pain but an eventual reduction in house prices
One thing is certain neither Sunak or Starmer can afford to underwrite the housing market
One of them underwrote the national wage bill for a year...
PBers who once frequented the the UK Polling Report forum would probably remember Barney Crockett, a more loyal Labour partisan you could not hope to find.
'THE former leader of Aberdeen council has quit Labour over Keir Starmer’s hardline stance on North Sea oil. Barney Crockett, who led the council between 2012 and 2014, revealed on Wednesday he had quit and described Starmer’s oil and gas exploration ban as “more brutal” than Margaret Thatcher’s assault on industry in the 1980s. He told the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce (AGCC): “I have been left stunned and bemused by the events of the last few weeks. "The Labour leadership has made crucial decisions about the future of the UK, decisions focused on this area, without contacting anyone from this area or from the local Labour Party."'
But the SNP under Sturgeon and continuity Yousless agree with this policy. They also think further exploitation should stop for ecological reasons. It was one of the areas where Kate Forbes seriously disagreed but she lost.
Only the Tories are clear that we should continue to use our own resources to meet our need for energy whilst bearing down on the proportion of energy coming from petrochemicals. It will be interesting to see what effect this has on north east seats at the next election.
'our own resources'
I wasn't really making a partisan point but if you insist..
I'm old enough to remember when your lot (Bettertogether) were saying the oil was running out and the tax from it falling, with the SNP being accused of basing its case for independence on oil based fantasy economics. Now it seems the Unionist parties are one way or another looking at oil as a partial antidote to the UK's pisspoor economic performance.
I have a horrible horrible feeling that this is going the way of actual mortgage support payments. Just like the energy support payments. And the covid support payments.
It seems any time we hit negative economic situations now the government just throws (generally non means tested) money at it to paper over the cracks. This will make the eventual implosion even more catastrophic when it comes.
Agreed. Paying people's mortgages for them would be utter lunacy.
The Government can't do that because it would mean one rules for Home owners (being protected) and 1 rule for renters who are having to pay whatever their landlord is insisting on to cover their higher loan costs.
Jesus Christ. Will the last person to leave Britain pls turn out the lights. How on earth could everything go so wrong?
The wage crunch is the worst since 1850 apparently, which is even beyond Big G’s recollection.
Meanwhile, in "another sign that something's not right" news,
Five-year-olds in Britain are on average up to seven centimetres shorter than their peers in other wealthy nations, in a trend described as “pretty startling”.
A poor national diet has been highlighted as a major culprit in Britain’s fall down international rankings of child height...
“It’s quite clear we are falling behind, relative to Europe,” he added. “But it’s telling that at age five, we are looking further behind than we are at age 19, which suggests to me that the last 14 years from age five to 19 has been particularly rough for UK children.”
I was listening to Will Shirer's diaries (can't quite remember which one) where he describes the opening stages of the Second World War on the Western Front. In it he talks about the state of the British youth, malnourished, rickety, pigeon chested with bad eyesight and remarks that, in contrast to the Germans, the UK had spent the inter-war years neglecting their youth.
Going back to the Boer War, the state of the health of the urban working class was so shocking that even Parliament recognised that it was a serious national security issue.
Our national default is that we love our animals better than our children. When times are good, it's not so much a problem, there's enough to go around but when times are hard then the youth are neglected.
Go to any poor area and the result of the last decade of Tory spite and meanness is there in front of your eyes, many of the children either too thin or too fat, self evidently not properly nourished. Recall that policies such as the welfare cap and the two child rule are designed specifically to "remind parents that children cost money" ie to make sure that poor parents don't have enough money to raise their children properly. That is government policy. And it is utterly self defeating of course because these children will grow up to be less intelligent, less productive and more sickly adults and the whole country will be poorer.
The two child rule for welfare is entirely reasonable. Children are a choice to have, and both contraception and abortion are free of charge on the NHS.
If you already have two children, why should the taxpayer pay for a third, fourth, fifth, sixth or more on welfare while those working for a living decide that more kids are unaffordable?
Kudos for defending the indefensible. Your rationale clarifies just how callous this policy is.
He’s right on this. A birth rate above the replacement rate is an unaffordable luxury for most of middle England. It’s really only viable for the very wealthy, or those with very low expectations in life who cream the welfare state.
You are putting "of course child raising is unaffordable" forward as a justification for cutting off welfare payments to children unfortunate enough to be born in unapproved families?
No, I don't think Child Benefit should be stopped in any families.
And its not stopped for anyone on welfare, nor the working poor who don't get welfare. If its insufficient, then why is that?
Because child benefit, which is not means tested, doesn't have a 2 child limit, unlike universal credit and working tax credits which actually aim to reduce poverty. So the government can subsidise the children of wealthy families they approve of, who wouldn't qualify for UC or WTC anyway, while punishing the poor families they don't approve of.
Can you imagine the personal heartache that would cause? Hard working people ruined for life. I don't know the answer, but a couple of million people crushed forever is not politically astute.
I have a horrible horrible feeling that this is going the way of actual mortgage support payments. Just like the energy support payments. And the covid support payments.
It seems any time we hit negative economic situations now the government just throws (generally non means tested) money at it to paper over the cracks. This will make the eventual implosion even more catastrophic when it comes.
Agreed. Paying people's mortgages for them would be utter lunacy.
I just don't understand what it would achieve. It wouldn't ultimately fix the problem of a shortage of housing. It might keep people in their houses, which is not negligible, but it would bugger their ability to move quickly.
I would have said if they go down that route there would have to be some kind of debt for equity swap. As in, the government takes on your mortgage if you like but you now live in, in effect, a council house.
But there won't be. It would just be free money.
Very nice for me and my sister if it happens as we're about to sell our father's house and that should clear our mortgages - so instead, we can use that money for other things and get our rather nice houses paid for by the government.
But should the government be subsidising people in that situation? Hell no.
As unpalatable as it may be house prices are going to fall, repossessions rise, and negative equity rear its head again as in the 1990s and that did involve a lot of pain but an eventual reduction in house prices
One thing is certain neither Sunak or Starmer can afford to underwrite the housing market
One of them underwrote the national wage bill for a year...
Furlough was a very different situation which by the way was fully endorsed by all political parties at the time and defended millions of jobs
Can you imagine the personal heartache that would cause? Hard working people ruined for life. I don't know the answer, but a couple of million people crushed forever is not politically astute.
This attitude perhaps goes to the crux of one of our problems as a nation. No American would think that if you overextend yourself financially and things go wrong, you are "ruined for life".
Jesus Christ. Will the last person to leave Britain pls turn out the lights. How on earth could everything go so wrong?
The wage crunch is the worst since 1850 apparently, which is even beyond Big G’s recollection.
Meanwhile, in "another sign that something's not right" news,
Five-year-olds in Britain are on average up to seven centimetres shorter than their peers in other wealthy nations, in a trend described as “pretty startling”.
A poor national diet has been highlighted as a major culprit in Britain’s fall down international rankings of child height...
“It’s quite clear we are falling behind, relative to Europe,” he added. “But it’s telling that at age five, we are looking further behind than we are at age 19, which suggests to me that the last 14 years from age five to 19 has been particularly rough for UK children.”
Brexit - driving up inflation, making people poorer, not delivering anything that it promised except for the bastards who are happy to see us all poorer so they can profit.
It's tempting to laugh at people like that, but I think it shows just how poor political discourse was during the referendum. I keep saying this, but the remain side needed to present Freedom of Movement as a *Positive* to Brits, not something that had to be "endured".
It is fairly remarkable that Cameron, who wasn't the worst of communicators, failed to get people like that onside.
Similarly, I often end up listening to Farming Today when I wake up early. Farmers who appear complaining about Brexit, having voted for it, seems an almost daily occurrence.
I have a horrible horrible feeling that this is going the way of actual mortgage support payments. Just like the energy support payments. And the covid support payments.
It seems any time we hit negative economic situations now the government just throws (generally non means tested) money at it to paper over the cracks. This will make the eventual implosion even more catastrophic when it comes.
Agreed. Paying people's mortgages for them would be utter lunacy.
I just don't understand what it would achieve. It wouldn't ultimately fix the problem of a shortage of housing. It might keep people in their houses, which is not negligible, but it would bugger their ability to move quickly.
I would have said if they go down that route there would have to be some kind of debt for equity swap. As in, the government takes on your mortgage if you like but you now live in, in effect, a council house.
But there won't be. It would just be free money.
Very nice for me and my sister if it happens as we're about to sell our father's house and that should clear our mortgages - so instead, we can use that money for other things and get our rather nice houses paid for by the government.
But should the government be subsidising people in that situation? Hell no.
As unpalatable as it may be house prices are going to fall, repossessions rise, and negative equity rear its head again as in the 1990s and that did involve a lot of pain but an eventual reduction in house prices
One thing is certain neither Sunak or Starmer can afford to underwrite the housing market
That's a bit of an I'm alright Jack view. I am too, but I don't wish to see a couple of million people's lives fail.
Many of those on here who were decrying the mental health issues from lockdowns are quite content to see the heartache and resultant mental health issues from widespread repossessions.
Jesus Christ. Will the last person to leave Britain pls turn out the lights. How on earth could everything go so wrong?
The wage crunch is the worst since 1850 apparently, which is even beyond Big G’s recollection.
Meanwhile, in "another sign that something's not right" news,
Five-year-olds in Britain are on average up to seven centimetres shorter than their peers in other wealthy nations, in a trend described as “pretty startling”.
A poor national diet has been highlighted as a major culprit in Britain’s fall down international rankings of child height...
“It’s quite clear we are falling behind, relative to Europe,” he added. “But it’s telling that at age five, we are looking further behind than we are at age 19, which suggests to me that the last 14 years from age five to 19 has been particularly rough for UK children.”
I have a horrible horrible feeling that this is going the way of actual mortgage support payments. Just like the energy support payments. And the covid support payments.
It seems any time we hit negative economic situations now the government just throws (generally non means tested) money at it to paper over the cracks. This will make the eventual implosion even more catastrophic when it comes.
Agreed. Paying people's mortgages for them would be utter lunacy.
I just don't understand what it would achieve. It wouldn't ultimately fix the problem of a shortage of housing. It might keep people in their houses, which is not negligible, but it would bugger their ability to move quickly.
I would have said if they go down that route there would have to be some kind of debt for equity swap. As in, the government takes on your mortgage if you like but you now live in, in effect, a council house.
But there won't be. It would just be free money.
Very nice for me and my sister if it happens as we're about to sell our father's house and that should clear our mortgages - so instead, we can use that money for other things and get our rather nice houses paid for by the government.
But should the government be subsidising people in that situation? Hell no.
As unpalatable as it may be house prices are going to fall, repossessions rise, and negative equity rear its head again as in the 1990s and that did involve a lot of pain but an eventual reduction in house prices
One thing is certain neither Sunak or Starmer can afford to underwrite the housing market
One of them underwrote the national wage bill for a year...
Furlough was a very different situation which by the way was fully endorsed by all political parties at the time and defended millions of jobs
Well, if Sunak offered free mortgage subs tomorrow SKS would be hard pressed not to endorse it (or show himself as pro-expelling hard working families into the snow), and it would defend 100s of 000s of households, so I am not seeing the difference.
Can you imagine the personal heartache that would cause? Hard working people ruined for life. I don't know the answer, but a couple of million people crushed forever is not politically astute.
It is just a silly comment
Market forces will correct this crisis in time and some will pay a heavy price as they did in the 1990's when we had a similar situation resulting in negative equity and reducing house prices
I mean, this may be the end result, but the blast radius would be catastrophic. We need only look over to the US to see its radicalising effect - so many in the Qanon class came from lower - middle class backgrounds, had mortgages that post 2008 they couldn't keep up with, and were left to fend for themselves. Obama did nothing for them, no other Republican spoke to them, and then Trump came along and said that american decline has to stop and it's all the fault of immigrants and muslims (and definitely not the fault of the banks or the relaxing of regulations on them). The same would happen here, too. May worry about Johnson or Farage, but I don't think any of our current crop of politicians would be the populist to ride that wave; it would be someone even crueller, even more vicious. The heart of fascism for many who aren't deep ideologues is a sense that they deserve better, and no one is giving them what they deserve, and the outgroup is what is preventing them getting what they deserve. The implosion of the mortgage market, the thing the UK has allowed to become one of the few methods of gaining wealth and feeling like a success, would create that sentiment in many more people.
Jesus Christ. Will the last person to leave Britain pls turn out the lights. How on earth could everything go so wrong?
The wage crunch is the worst since 1850 apparently, which is even beyond Big G’s recollection.
Meanwhile, in "another sign that something's not right" news,
Five-year-olds in Britain are on average up to seven centimetres shorter than their peers in other wealthy nations, in a trend described as “pretty startling”.
A poor national diet has been highlighted as a major culprit in Britain’s fall down international rankings of child height...
“It’s quite clear we are falling behind, relative to Europe,” he added. “But it’s telling that at age five, we are looking further behind than we are at age 19, which suggests to me that the last 14 years from age five to 19 has been particularly rough for UK children.”
I was listening to Will Shirer's diaries (can't quite remember which one) where he describes the opening stages of the Second World War on the Western Front. In it he talks about the state of the British youth, malnourished, rickety, pigeon chested with bad eyesight and remarks that, in contrast to the Germans, the UK had spent the inter-war years neglecting their youth.
Going back to the Boer War, the state of the health of the urban working class was so shocking that even Parliament recognised that it was a serious national security issue.
Our national default is that we love our animals better than our children. When times are good, it's not so much a problem, there's enough to go around but when times are hard then the youth are neglected.
Go to any poor area and the result of the last decade of Tory spite and meanness is there in front of your eyes, many of the children either too thin or too fat, self evidently not properly nourished. Recall that policies such as the welfare cap and the two child rule are designed specifically to "remind parents that children cost money" ie to make sure that poor parents don't have enough money to raise their children properly. That is government policy. And it is utterly self defeating of course because these children will grow up to be less intelligent, less productive and more sickly adults and the whole country will be poorer.
The two child rule for welfare is entirely reasonable. Children are a choice to have, and both contraception and abortion are free of charge on the NHS.
If you already have two children, why should the taxpayer pay for a third, fourth, fifth, sixth or more on welfare while those working for a living decide that more kids are unaffordable?
Kudos for defending the indefensible. Your rationale clarifies just how callous this policy is.
He’s right on this. A birth rate above the replacement rate is an unaffordable luxury for most of middle England. It’s really only viable for the very wealthy, or those with very low expectations in life who cream the welfare state.
You are putting "of course child raising is unaffordable" forward as a justification for cutting off welfare payments to children unfortunate enough to be born in unapproved families?
No, I don't think Child Benefit should be stopped in any families.
And its not stopped for anyone on welfare, nor the working poor who don't get welfare. If its insufficient, then why is that?
Because child benefit, which is not means tested, doesn't have a 2 child limit, unlike universal credit and working tax credits which actually aim to reduce poverty. So the government can subsidise the children of wealthy families they approve of, who wouldn't qualify for UC or WTC anyway, while punishing the poor families they don't approve of.
Child benefit is however taxed when you start earning £50,000 - the wealthy don't get it and even well paid working class workers (say a train driver) won't receive it.
Last year I know customer service people who thanks to a 1 off bonus hit that point and had to pay it back.
Comments
So are we agreed then, circling back to my original comment, that some moderately high inflation in wages, goods and services for the next few years is required in order to address the problems caused by decades of extremely high inflation for housing costs that was not matched by comparable wage growth?
PS mortgage interest rates were about 6% when the house price to income multiple exploded under Blair and Brown in the 00's.
If someone chooses to have more children they can't support, then who is meant to support them? The working taxpayers who are already struggling to support their own children so not having more than 2 already while paying taxes too?
Are you saying there should be no cap on how many children people voluntarily choose to have, even though the NHS provides both free contraception and free abortions?
Most of the long run COST of a house is the mortgage. We've had high inflation for prices, not costs.
I will say this though, renters have been absolutely ripped off - I doubt rents were dropped post 2008 when landlords got chunky drops in their mortgage repayments...
Omg Sunak now saying he’s tackling waiting lists and then threw in the Stop the Boats line .
Nothing about shirking the bojo vote.
I renewed my car insurance and for the second car, the runaround, it was around the same and for our main car it was quite a bit cheaper.
Some insurers, like Direct Line, are simply increasing policy premiums as they have lost money due to their incompetent management and taking a large hit on stuff like the cold snap last winter as they had far more claims than they expected.
Getting a deposit depends upon the cost of the house, not the cost of the mortgage.
'THE former leader of Aberdeen council has quit Labour over Keir Starmer’s hardline stance on North Sea oil.
Barney Crockett, who led the council between 2012 and 2014, revealed on Wednesday he had quit and described Starmer’s oil and gas exploration ban as “more brutal” than Margaret Thatcher’s assault on industry in the 1980s.
He told the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce (AGCC): “I have been left stunned and bemused by the events of the last few weeks.
"The Labour leadership has made crucial decisions about the future of the UK, decisions focused on this area, without contacting anyone from this area or from the local Labour Party."'
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/1671474794888577025?s=20
What little Timmy's mother won't be getting is additional welfare on top to go to more booze and fags rather than Timmy.
It seems a reasonable compromise to me.
As I say renters have been royally ripped off.
If only it was arriving sooner !
We should be looking at ways to cut taxes on the working poor, not increasing them.
Other than housing, my other long-running bugbear with our country is the way the working poor are taxed a real tax marginal rate of 70%+ - we need to be fixing that, not looking at ways to boost welfare for those who aren't working who choose to have more kids.
The mortgage issue was batted back as Labour's failure.
Possibly Starmer's worst performance against Sunak and a much improved Sunak. Not least because Starmer was rubbish.
We have Child Benefit in this country. It is available for all children, including third and more.
Why is Child Benefit enough for people who are working and poor, but not enough for others? Why is it that people who are working and poor and can't get other welfare should get only a small Child Benefit while others who are poor and do get welfare should get both Child Benefit and other benefits too?
If Child Benefit isn't enough, then address that. For all children equally.
And its not stopped for anyone on welfare, nor the working poor who don't get welfare. If its insufficient, then why is that?
I'd have thought it would likely be delivered but 9 months might be raised a smidge or additional means test between 9 mths and 2 or 3 yrs.
Obviously anyone with half a brain can work out everywhere will fill up though - so there'll be de facto rationing even if it's not explicit.
I don't recall him ever making the obvious suggestion that poor people shouldn't have children.
The inconvenience caused to entitled, privileged, middle classes. Cry me a river.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/there-s-only-one-way-to-tackle-britain-s-mortgage-meltdown-get-the-banks-to-cough-up/ar-AA1cPvBY?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=4bcc29ab1f2a428d84da2557ffe38eff&ei=15
Right now I have a very comfortable income and I can easily support a large family, but who knows what might happen in a decade's time? Of course, I am a responsible person, so I am making my own provision for unexpected events - savings, life insurance, etc - but there are limits to what a private individual can achieve in this regard.
One of the functions of the State is to act as an insurer of last resort, and this is a basis for the existence of social security. The State in Britain has uniquely said that in the case of 3rd and subsequent children it will abdicate its responsibilities in this regard and not act as the insurer of last resort.
It's a massive abdication of responsibility and incredibly cruel.
Also, in the context of the demographic transition it's also actively harmful to the future finances of the country.
It seems any time we hit negative economic situations now the government just throws (generally non means tested) money at it to paper over the cracks. This will make the eventual implosion even more catastrophic when it comes.
Secondly, what we really need to do is improve output which requires a lot of investment. Policies such as those described (or idiotic and short term "windfall" taxes) do not encourage investment, quite the reverse. We need to incentivise saving and investment in the UK, not the reverse.
Thirdly, whilst I am a great admirer of Keynes, the models that he used were much, much more self contained than a modern economy. Exports and imports are both much more significant and there are nothing like the trade tariffs that he successfully railed against. This means that it is much easier for both capital to leave and for imports to be sucked in than it was in the past. MMT seems to me, as a non-expert, to have some merit if you have the reserve currency, such as the dollar. Sterling has not been a reserve currency for a long time now.
https://uk.yahoo.com/style/british-rescue-mission-titan-blocked-085907193.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQzrB3kuqck
Only the Tories are clear that we should continue to use our own resources to meet our need for energy whilst bearing down on the proportion of energy coming from petrochemicals. It will be interesting to see what effect this has on north east seats at the next election.
This will not happen if they take with one hand and give with the other. Debt Interest payments will go through the roof as well.
Rachel Reeves seems to have some ideas, imported from the US, as how to reform the inept MPC. However, from the press reports, it seems Bailey cannot be replaced.
Sadly put him up against a lettuce and he wins.
Do British voters approve or disapprove of the Govt's performance on the economy? (18 June)
Disapprove: 51% (+7)
Approve: 26% (-5)
Net Approval: -25% (-12)
Changes +/- 11 June
https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gmdss-areas-and-search-and-rescue
Merryn Somerset Webb
@MerrynSW
·
36m
It begins
Lady Maths of the Rugby 🐟💙🇺🇦
@labourtandt
·
36m
Replying to @jessphillips
One of our young neighbours have put reluctantly put their house on the market, they cant afford the rise in their mortgage repayment.
https://twitter.com/MerrynSW/status/1671479254662389760
Soon to be pissed off when it doesnt
Next election will be fought over this issue. The only resolution I can see is SKS promises the moon on a stick, and then sorrowfully recants once in office and seen the true extent of tory mismanagement.
I would have said if they go down that route there would have to be some kind of debt for equity swap. As in, the government takes on your mortgage if you like but you now live in, in effect, a council house.
But there won't be. It would just be free money.
Very nice for me and my sister if it happens as we're about to sell our father's house and that should clear our mortgages - so instead, we can use that money for other things and get our rather nice houses paid for by the government.
But should the government be subsidising people in that situation? Hell no.
There seems no solution that is palatable and no quick fix either
You can change who is in No 10 but you cannot change the economics
The problem is that rather than having child benefits be wrapped up in Child Benefit, we have multiple classes of benefits. Two parents working full time for minimum wage will get Child Benefit any may still be struggling but may not be entitled to any other benefits.
Whereas if they're working part time they might get both Child Benefit and a Child portion for Universal Credit, formerly Child Tax Credits, which distorts the support available for children.
Some here are acting as if the distinction is between those who are extremely well off on six figure salaries, or those relying solely on Universal Credit, whereas there is a huge middle in-between.
In modern Britain since when did anyone take accountability of their failures rather than simply deflect and double down.
"@EuropeElects
Spain, NC Report poll:
PP-EPP: 35%
PSOE-S&D: 26% (+3)
VOX-ECR: 14%
Sumar-LEFT|G/EFA: 13% (+2)
ERC-G/EFA: 3%
Junts-NI: 2%
PNV-RE: 2%
...
+/- vs. 30 May-3 June 2023
Fieldwork: 12-17 June 2023
Sample size: 1,000"
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1671389077826928641
Justice Samuel Alito Took Luxury Fishing Vacation With GOP Billionaire Who Later Had Cases Before the Court
https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishing-trip-paul-singer-scotus-supreme-court
Didn't he swear, at risk of perjury, that the evidence he gave at his confirmation hearing was true ?
Notable in light of Justice Alito's WSJ op-ed: during his Senate confirmation hearings, he said he recuses himself when “any possible question might arise.”
He now maintains that accepting private jet flights from a litigant is not grounds for recusal.
https://twitter.com/JustinElliott/status/1671476622371827713
If Child Benefit is insufficient, then that needs addressing, but don't pretend there's nothing.
Cameron put those people in alliance with OAPs and social moderates / economic conservatives. May upset the OAPs, and didn't replace them, Johnson upset the social moderates, but replaced them with some working class social conservatives and got back OAPs, and Truss lost everyone. Sunak has done a bit better with OAPs and the social moderates (although I think the culture war stuff will lose them), and the culture war stuff doesn't seem to be enough to keep working class social conservatives (who feel the economic pain more acutely), so the last group left to try to appeal too will be bourgeoise mortgage holders.
One thing is certain neither Sunak or Starmer can afford to underwrite the housing market
I wasn't really making a partisan point but if you insist..
I'm old enough to remember when your lot (Bettertogether) were saying the oil was running out and the tax from it falling, with the SNP being accused of basing its case for independence on oil based fantasy economics. Now it seems the Unionist parties are one way or another looking at oil as a partial antidote to the UK's pisspoor economic performance.
Similarly, I often end up listening to Farming Today when I wake up early. Farmers who appear complaining about Brexit, having voted for it, seems an almost daily occurrence.
Many of those on here who were decrying the mental health issues from lockdowns are quite content to see the heartache and resultant mental health issues from widespread repossessions.
"Study drugs make healthy people worse at problem solving, not better
Users try harder but are less competent"
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2023/06/20/study-drugs-make-healthy-people-worse-at-problem-solving-not-better
Market forces will correct this crisis in time and some will pay a heavy price as they did in the 1990's when we had a similar situation resulting in negative equity and reducing house prices
However, it will not be quick
Last year I know customer service people who thanks to a 1 off bonus hit that point and had to pay it back.