‘Pint’ size wine stocked on Britain’s shelves for the first time ever thanks to new freedoms from leaving the European Union Still and sparkling wine to be sold in 200ml, 500ml and 568ml ‘pint’ sizes in 2024 900 British vineyards set to benefit across the country from new freedoms
Minister for Enterprise, Markets and Small Business Kevin Hollinrake said: "Innovation, freedom and choice – that’s what today’s announcement gives to producers and consumers alike.
Our exit from the EU was all about moments just like this, where we can seize new opportunities and provide a real boost to our great British wineries and further growing the economy."
I really wish that journalists would ask the follow up question of "And how does this idea grow the economy?"
It's the same item just packaged slightly differently (and at a higher cost) because all logistics are based on 750ml bottles.
You can get wine in small formats already.
There is a market for half bottles. And I find the 187ml bottles you can already get useful for cooking.
Oh I know that - eek twin A laughed at the wine in a plastic glass you can get in M&S at train stations so we now seek the weirdest packaging possible. Conad in Italy do house white / red / rose in 1litre and 250ml tetrapaks. I think the 250ml ones were less than a euro a pack (and tasted like they did).
Ironically we did a pile of shopping when in Florence in the Conad by the Ponte Vecchio and then went to the Savoy for drinks. And the bag deposited the contents on the ground as we stood up to leave...
But that really wasn't the point of my request - it was more when a politican says something that is clearly implausible (a new wine size will grow the overall economy) ask them to fill in the missing steps between steal underpants and profit)....
for those that don't get the reference it's from South Park
Rishi Sunak has abandoned Boris Johnson’s signature Brexit “dividend” of allowing British shops to once again sell products in pounds and ounces.
In an announcement slipped out quietly over Christmas, the Department for Business and Trade said that ministers had dropped plans to bring back imperial measurements after 98.7 per cent of people opposed the move in a government consultation.
Instead they would make a far more limited change and allow the reintroduction of Winston Churchill’s favoured pint bottles of champagne, which were banned by the EU.
Rishi Sunak has abandoned Boris Johnson’s signature Brexit “dividend” of allowing British shops to once again sell products in pounds and ounces.
In an announcement slipped out quietly over Christmas, the Department for Business and Trade said that ministers had dropped plans to bring back imperial measurements after 98.7 per cent of people opposed the move in a government consultation.
Instead they would make a far more limited change and allow the reintroduction of Winston Churchill’s favoured pint bottles of champagne, which were banned by the EU.
Incidentally at work I organised the start of and helped run my workplace's food drive this winter which saw large amounts of donations given in to give to a local food bank. That's an annual food drive that began only a few years ago and wasn't happening in 2018.
That's not unique to me or my workplace, its been happening all across the country, which is precisely why food bank "demand" (as in parcels handed out) has to by definition be higher now than it was in 2018, because people are more charitable now with it than they were in the past.
This should be celebrated to the rafters, not bemoaned. I would have more confidence in an incoming Labour government if they were talking up things like this and wanting to encourage more like it, rather than less.
People have always fallen on hard times, had unexpected bills etc. Having food available so that people can concentrate on their problems, rather than turn to predators instead getting into vicious debt spirals, is an unquestioningly good thing that we should want in this country. We should want more good things like that too.
I'm looking forward to being able to order pints of wine at my local pub. A real Brexit bonus, at last.
"Two pints of Blue Nun and a packet of crisps please."
Excellent. It might have changed my vote in 2016 if I'd seen this pledge on the side of a bus.
Anyhow, I do hope everyone beat my Christmas. Hard not to. What Santa brought me was Covid. Ghastly little man he is. I'm blocking up the chimney next year.
Mr. Boy, food banks started under Blair. They expanded under every PM until at least Cameron and probably since him too. Given that covers boom, bust, slow recovery, pandemic, and now, that implies policy is having minimal impact on their proliferation.
It's everything to do with available money - and an awful lot of people are finding that they have a lot of month left when the money has ran out.
In many cases it's actually nearly all the month speaking to people I know who volunteer at Foodbanks
And something definitely started to go wrong as soon as the coalition policies started to take effect - Can't however say whether it was austerity or DWP starting to sanction people given kick off point.
Go wrong? Or go right?
Cameron's idea was the big society and what's a bigger society than people donating food to help those less fortunate.
If people had too much month at the end of their money prior to 2012 they were turning to the likes of Wonga, after 2012 they were turning to the likes of the Trussel Trust.
That's something to celebrate, not commiserate.
“Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”
Workhouses? Don't give them ideas.
I am old enough to remember when "gulags for slags" was a Labour policy.
Indeed, that's at the same time as when people with too much month at the end of their money were going to Wonga, who were advertising prolifically on the TV and the Radio, was it not?
Whatever happened to Wonga? Oh right, they went out of business.
They were clamped down on at around 2013, the same time as the Trussel Trust suddenly started giving out large volumes of food parcels.
I'd have thought that a free-market libertarian like you would be all for Wonga being allowed to conduct their business without interference from the authorities.
If people overall were horrendously struggling then the number of donations would have collapsed as people looked after themselves first, which would mean fewer parcels given as there'd be less supply available.
People are less indebted now than they were. I hope donations to charity, and thus parcels handed out, continue to rise under Labour not fall and people have to turn back to debt once more.
Anyone who thinks that the distribution of surplus food to people who need it is a terrible thing really needs to consider the implications of their politics.
Anyone who thinks that the distribution of surplus food to people who need it because they are at risk of going hungry in one of the richest countries in the world is a good thing really needs to consider the implications of their politics.
No they don't. They need to keep attacking those who think the rise in supply of food to those without via foodbanks is a terrible indictment of something or other.
Rishi Sunak has abandoned Boris Johnson’s signature Brexit “dividend” of allowing British shops to once again sell products in pounds and ounces.
In an announcement slipped out quietly over Christmas, the Department for Business and Trade said that ministers had dropped plans to bring back imperial measurements after 98.7 per cent of people opposed the move in a government consultation.
Instead they would make a far more limited change and allow the reintroduction of Winston Churchill’s favoured pint bottles of champagne, which were banned by the EU.
Interesting. Almost all shops do the 500ml, which annoys me.
I want the full pint. Not 88% of it.
Market forces innit?
it's not the shops which prevent pint size beer bottles. it's the manufacturers. if you get a bottle of dog it's 550ml (still not a pint but closer than any other).
Selling in 500ml bottles makes it easier to export outside of the UK for the big boys and the little guys can't afford to get the bottle manufacturers to make larger bottles.
Rishi Sunak has abandoned Boris Johnson’s signature Brexit “dividend” of allowing British shops to once again sell products in pounds and ounces.
In an announcement slipped out quietly over Christmas, the Department for Business and Trade said that ministers had dropped plans to bring back imperial measurements after 98.7 per cent of people opposed the move in a government consultation.
Instead they would make a far more limited change and allow the reintroduction of Winston Churchill’s favoured pint bottles of champagne, which were banned by the EU.
Mr. Boy, food banks started under Blair. They expanded under every PM until at least Cameron and probably since him too. Given that covers boom, bust, slow recovery, pandemic, and now, that implies policy is having minimal impact on their proliferation.
It's everything to do with available money - and an awful lot of people are finding that they have a lot of month left when the money has ran out.
In many cases it's actually nearly all the month speaking to people I know who volunteer at Foodbanks
And something definitely started to go wrong as soon as the coalition policies started to take effect - Can't however say whether it was austerity or DWP starting to sanction people given kick off point.
Go wrong? Or go right?
Cameron's idea was the big society and what's a bigger society than people donating food to help those less fortunate.
If people had too much month at the end of their money prior to 2012 they were turning to the likes of Wonga, after 2012 they were turning to the likes of the Trussel Trust.
That's something to celebrate, not commiserate.
“Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”
Workhouses? Don't give them ideas.
I am old enough to remember when "gulags for slags" was a Labour policy.
Indeed, that's at the same time as when people with too much month at the end of their money were going to Wonga, who were advertising prolifically on the TV and the Radio, was it not?
Whatever happened to Wonga? Oh right, they went out of business.
They were clamped down on at around 2013, the same time as the Trussel Trust suddenly started giving out large volumes of food parcels.
I'd have thought that a free-market libertarian like you would be all for Wonga being allowed to conduct their business without interference from the authorities.
I'm not an anarchist, I believe authorities should exist but they should regulate things like transparency etc then let people make their choices.
I'm entirely in favour of businesses like Wonga being able to conduct their business.
I'm also entirely in favour of businesses like Wonga finding they don't have any demand, as people have a better, healthier alternative like food banks instead.
That firms like Wonga have gone out of business at the same time as food bank donations have surged is one of the best things that's happened to this country.
The fact so many people rely on food banks is a disgrace. The Tories made society very unkind and uncaring.
You would prefer higher welfare handouts from the taxpayer ?
Why is one handout deemed to be good while another is deemed to be a disgrace ?
Of course if welfare handouts from the taxpayer were increased we would still have claims they weren't high enough and people asking for free stuff from other sources.
Because the demand for free stuff is effectively unlimited.
Rishi Sunak has abandoned Boris Johnson’s signature Brexit “dividend” of allowing British shops to once again sell products in pounds and ounces.
In an announcement slipped out quietly over Christmas, the Department for Business and Trade said that ministers had dropped plans to bring back imperial measurements after 98.7 per cent of people opposed the move in a government consultation.
Instead they would make a far more limited change and allow the reintroduction of Winston Churchill’s favoured pint bottles of champagne, which were banned by the EU.
What sort of uncouth chav drinks champagne by the pint?
Champagne is so classy because of the name of the bottles such as.
Magnum
Jeroboam
Methuselah
Salmanazar
Balthaza
Nebuchadnezzar
They didn't ask me.
The one I wanted was for beer to be sold in pints in shops and stores, rather than cans and bottles always being this 500ml nonsense.
We were all asked; it was up to us whether we replied. I am pleased to be one of the majority
Yet again, another pro EU Lib commented.
Was this orchestrated by FBPE crew on Twitter?
Hardly our fault if the UKIP Neanderthals couldn’t be bothered.
At the same time it's sort of amusing that you have to cling to this to be able to claim some sort of tenuous and entirely peripheral "victory" over Brexit.
Maybe the government could help alleviate food poverty *and* improve the nation's health by distributing free healthy food to anyone who wants it? One collection per person per week allowed.
The fact so many people rely on food banks is a disgrace. The Tories made society very unkind and uncaring.
You promised us a fresh start. And yet here you are posting in exactly the same highly charged and hyperbolic style you used to, and you even dropped the f-bomb on Boxing Day.
The smart political move, for either Labour or the Conservatives, would be to link IHT or additional wealth taxes, to increased defence spending.
One problem solves another - on both sides of the political divide.
There are people who would prefer Putin to be in control as long as he cut inheritance taxes or increased house prices.
Or increased spending on the NHS, provided more foreign holidays, guaranteed their football team would be successful or a myriad of other niche demands.
Maybe the government could help alleviate food poverty *and* improve the nation's health by distributing free healthy food to anyone who wants it? One collection per person per week allowed.
Free stuff is expensive, creates a sense of entitlement on those who receive it (for which they are not grateful and for whom it's never enough) and doesn't do much to transform outcomes.
I'd maybe look more seriously at subsidising healthy food, and teaching home economics/simple cooking to all, but I think a price must be paid for it to be valued and appreciated.
Maybe the government could help alleviate food poverty *and* improve the nation's health by distributing free healthy food to anyone who wants it? One collection per person per week allowed.
So you’d approve of food banks if they were rebranded as the National Food Service?
I'm looking forward to being able to order pints of wine at my local pub. A real Brexit bonus, at last.
"Two pints of Blue Nun and a packet of crisps please."
Excellent. It might have changed my vote in 2016 if I'd seen this pledge on the side of a bus.
Anyhow, I do hope everyone beat my Christmas. Hard not to. What Santa brought me was Covid. Ghastly little man he is. I'm blocking up the chimney next year.
I've seen gout ridden blokes drinking pints of white wine after they've been forced to give up beer.
Wonga were a tad expensive, and somewhat disreputable if you got into trouble, but they did dig me out of a couple of holes on the 21st and 22nd of the month back in 2010/2011 when I'd first bought my house and I was landed with a few unexpected bills at the end of the month.
I wouldn't use them now as there are more options for free credit but at the time I did.
The fact so many people rely on food banks is a disgrace. The Tories made society very unkind and uncaring.
You must be trolling now.
If society was unkind and uncaring then food banks wouldn't exist, since nobody would be donating to them.
Wonga would exist instead.
I am not trolling just because we disagree. I have always debated in good faith with you and I would hope you do the same.
The evidence has been posted and you've completely dismissed it. It is quite evident that the rise in food banks is not because "Wonga" has disappeared. The destruction of our social fabric via austerity has caused it, at least in a significant part.
I really thought better of you Bart. I've always come to your defence in the past but now you're being a prat.
I'm looking forward to being able to order pints of wine at my local pub. A real Brexit bonus, at last.
"Two pints of Blue Nun and a packet of crisps please."
Excellent. It might have changed my vote in 2016 if I'd seen this pledge on the side of a bus.
Anyhow, I do hope everyone beat my Christmas. Hard not to. What Santa brought me was Covid. Ghastly little man he is. I'm blocking up the chimney next year.
I've seen gout ridden blokes drinking pints of white wine after they've been forced to give up beer.
I'm a huge supporter of pints of champagne - just about right for 2 meals and a snifter, whilst 750ml means waste.
On the IHT debate, nothing could make the Tories look more out to touch and irrelevant than bringing out that old nonsense again. So therefore Rishi will do it as he seems to have decided to be a Labour plant and so destroy his party from the inside. Whilst that may be fantastic for us on the other side of the aisle, having a weak and useless opposition is not good for the country.
I say this as somebody that will end up paying IHT, as I should.
Maybe the government could help alleviate food poverty *and* improve the nation's health by distributing free healthy food to anyone who wants it? One collection per person per week allowed.
Free stuff is expensive, creates a sense of entitlement on those who receive it (for which they are not grateful and for whom it's never enough) and doesn't do much to transform outcomes.
I'd maybe look more seriously at subsidising healthy food, and teaching home economics/simple cooking to all, but I think a price must be paid for it to be valued and appreciated.
Plus it wouldn't solve the problem.
The point is currently when people face an unexpected hardship, they're used to paying for food but have an alternative available as a temporary solution, which relieves their bills and acts as a safety cushion or shock absorber.
This enables them to concentrate on solving their problems, in a healthy manner.
If people were used to getting food handed out for "free" then when they got into difficulty, that shock absorber would be gone. They'd still be in difficulty, due to whatever caused it such as unexpected bills, but with no extra support available they'd face the full impact of such a shock.
The purpose of safety nets is to help people by flexibly absorbing the impact of falling down in a safe manner so you don't break instead. Remove the safety net, make it a way of life, then when people fall there's nothing there to cushion the blow.
The fact so many people rely on food banks is a disgrace. The Tories made society very unkind and uncaring.
You must be trolling now.
If society was unkind and uncaring then food banks wouldn't exist, since nobody would be donating to them.
Wonga would exist instead.
I am not trolling just because we disagree. I have always debated in good faith with you and I would hope you do the same.
The evidence has been posted and you've completely dismissed it. It is quite evident that the rise in food banks is not because "Wonga" has disappeared. The destruction of our social fabric via austerity has caused it, at least in a significant part.
I really thought better of you Bart. I've always come to your defence in the past but now you're being a prat.
What evidence has been posted?
The only evidence that has been posted is the rise of food bank donations. Which matches with a collapse in loan sharks and debt levels.
That shows society is more caring than it was in the past.
Food bank usage = food bank donations, unless you think that over a decade ago the level of donations was the same as now but 95% of the donations were going to landfill instead?
You're the one being a prat, calling people uncaring for donating to charity.
Rishi Sunak has abandoned Boris Johnson’s signature Brexit “dividend” of allowing British shops to once again sell products in pounds and ounces.
In an announcement slipped out quietly over Christmas, the Department for Business and Trade said that ministers had dropped plans to bring back imperial measurements after 98.7 per cent of people opposed the move in a government consultation.
Instead they would make a far more limited change and allow the reintroduction of Winston Churchill’s favoured pint bottles of champagne, which were banned by the EU.
Interesting. Almost all shops do the 500ml, which annoys me.
I want the full pint. Not 88% of it.
Market forces innit?
Is it? What are people going to do? Not buy a beer?
Pints are about a fiver in the pubs round here, where you can buy three badger bottles of 500ml for a fiver in the supermarket.
Dear Lord, is nothing sacred in Rishi's crusade to save his miserable butt?
At least he's following a consultation that told him his Govt was gibbering.
Wasn't there another one this morning that the Govt is still wazzocking on about reducing its revenue by abolishing iHT, whilst still running a deficit of around £100bn a year? When what we need is investment.
That has the theoretical advantage of appearing to be attractive to less wealthy people whilst actually only cutting taxes for 30k of the not-quite-richest (the richest dodge it) households per annum.
On topic. That’s a really comforting header TSE, thank you.
I’m not convinced of the electoral science of word heat maps though, on the reason so much value can be placed on them, but they could change. If they are part of a controlled sequence and the changes across the sequence are given to us, I would find that more useful. Does that make sense? For example, that same group of respondents in 9 months might be saying he “wants to make America great again” on basis they have decided they don’t want to vote for the opponent so talking themselves into this vote.
The fact so many people rely on food banks is a disgrace. The Tories made society very unkind and uncaring.
You must be trolling now.
If society was unkind and uncaring then food banks wouldn't exist, since nobody would be donating to them.
Wonga would exist instead.
I am not trolling just because we disagree. I have always debated in good faith with you and I would hope you do the same.
The evidence has been posted and you've completely dismissed it. It is quite evident that the rise in food banks is not because "Wonga" has disappeared. The destruction of our social fabric via austerity has caused it, at least in a significant part.
I really thought better of you Bart. I've always come to your defence in the past but now you're being a prat.
What evidence has been posted?
The only evidence that has been posted is the rise of food bank donations. Which matches with a collapse in loan sharks and debt levels.
That shows society is more caring than it was in the past.
Food bank usage = food bank donations, unless you think that over a decade ago the level of donations was the same as now but 95% of the donations were going to landfill instead?
You're the one being a prat, calling people uncaring for donating to charity.
I will happily debate with you as long as you withdraw the assertion that I am trolling because you know full well that I am not. And I will withdraw my accusation that you are a prat.
As I said, I have come to your defence multiple times because I know whilst we disagree on mostly everything you are here for the right reasons.
The fact so many people rely on food banks is a disgrace. The Tories made society very unkind and uncaring.
You must be trolling now.
If society was unkind and uncaring then food banks wouldn't exist, since nobody would be donating to them.
Wonga would exist instead.
I am not trolling just because we disagree. I have always debated in good faith with you and I would hope you do the same.
The evidence has been posted and you've completely dismissed it. It is quite evident that the rise in food banks is not because "Wonga" has disappeared. The destruction of our social fabric via austerity has caused it, at least in a significant part.
I really thought better of you Bart. I've always come to your defence in the past but now you're being a prat.
What evidence has been posted?
The only evidence that has been posted is the rise of food bank donations. Which matches with a collapse in loan sharks and debt levels.
That shows society is more caring than it was in the past.
Food bank usage = food bank donations, unless you think that over a decade ago the level of donations was the same as now but 95% of the donations were going to landfill instead?
You're the one being a prat, calling people uncaring for donating to charity.
I will happily debate with you as long as you withdraw the assertion that I am trolling because you know full well that I am not. And I will withdraw my accusation that you are a prat.
As I said, I have come to your defence multiple times because I know whilst we disagree on mostly everything you are here for the right reasons.
I will not withdraw the assertion you are trolling, because you are trolling.
There is no serious way you believe that people donating to charity is uncaring.
So you must be trolling. Or you're really, really thick, but I don't believe that.
The fact so many people rely on food banks is a disgrace. The Tories made society very unkind and uncaring.
You must be trolling now.
If society was unkind and uncaring then food banks wouldn't exist, since nobody would be donating to them.
Wonga would exist instead.
I am not trolling just because we disagree. I have always debated in good faith with you and I would hope you do the same.
The evidence has been posted and you've completely dismissed it. It is quite evident that the rise in food banks is not because "Wonga" has disappeared. The destruction of our social fabric via austerity has caused it, at least in a significant part.
I really thought better of you Bart. I've always come to your defence in the past but now you're being a prat.
What evidence has been posted?
The only evidence that has been posted is the rise of food bank donations. Which matches with a collapse in loan sharks and debt levels.
That shows society is more caring than it was in the past.
Food bank usage = food bank donations, unless you think that over a decade ago the level of donations was the same as now but 95% of the donations were going to landfill instead?
You're the one being a prat, calling people uncaring for donating to charity.
I will happily debate with you as long as you withdraw the assertion that I am trolling because you know full well that I am not. And I will withdraw my accusation that you are a prat.
As I said, I have come to your defence multiple times because I know whilst we disagree on mostly everything you are here for the right reasons.
I will not withdraw the assertion you are trolling, because you are trolling.
There is no serious way you believe that people donating to charity is uncaring.
So you must be trolling. Or you're really, really thick, but I don't believe that.
I am not trolling.
People donating to charity is not uncaring, the fact they have to, is.
Pretty well every rich-world government practised "austerity", after the GFC. The Club Med and Ireland pushed through public spending cuts that were far more severe than anything carried out in this country.
The Left view that unlimited public spending pays for itself is no different to the US Republicans' view that tax cuts pay for themselves.
Wonga were a tad expensive, and somewhat disreputable if you got into trouble, but they did dig me out of a couple of holes on the 21st and 22nd of the month back in 2010/2011 when I'd first bought my house and I was landed with a few unexpected bills at the end of the month.
I wouldn't use them now as there are more options for free credit but at the time I did.
One thing that always kind of amused me - the "local cooperative lenders" and "community lenders" charge the same kind of rates as Wonga. But the people who advocate the community stuff never seem to know that.
In the US, they have considerable political power, in some places, being tied into grass root political activism for the Democratic Party.
Dear Lord, is nothing sacred in Rishi's crusade to save his miserable butt?
At least he's following a consultation that told him his Govt was gibbering.
Wasn't there another one this morning that the Govt is still wazzocking on about reducing its revenue by abolishing iHT, whilst still running a deficit of around £100bn a year? When what we need is investment.
That has the theoretical advantage of appearing to be attractive to less wealthy people whilst actually only cutting taxes for 30k of the not-quite-richest (the richest dodge it) households per annum.
I think it is the inevitability of a government coming to the end of its life. They have lost all sense of what matters and they have lost all sense of how to communicate it.
I can't think of something that would show the Tories as more out of touch than tackling IHT. Labour will love to demonstrate how it will benefit Rishi and his friends.
So that is exactly what Rishi will do. He just seems a bit thick.
The fact so many people rely on food banks is a disgrace. The Tories made society very unkind and uncaring.
You must be trolling now.
If society was unkind and uncaring then food banks wouldn't exist, since nobody would be donating to them.
Wonga would exist instead.
I am not trolling just because we disagree. I have always debated in good faith with you and I would hope you do the same.
The evidence has been posted and you've completely dismissed it. It is quite evident that the rise in food banks is not because "Wonga" has disappeared. The destruction of our social fabric via austerity has caused it, at least in a significant part.
I really thought better of you Bart. I've always come to your defence in the past but now you're being a prat.
What evidence has been posted?
The only evidence that has been posted is the rise of food bank donations. Which matches with a collapse in loan sharks and debt levels.
That shows society is more caring than it was in the past.
Food bank usage = food bank donations, unless you think that over a decade ago the level of donations was the same as now but 95% of the donations were going to landfill instead?
You're the one being a prat, calling people uncaring for donating to charity.
I will happily debate with you as long as you withdraw the assertion that I am trolling because you know full well that I am not. And I will withdraw my accusation that you are a prat.
As I said, I have come to your defence multiple times because I know whilst we disagree on mostly everything you are here for the right reasons.
I will not withdraw the assertion you are trolling, because you are trolling.
There is no serious way you believe that people donating to charity is uncaring.
So you must be trolling. Or you're really, really thick, but I don't believe that.
I am not trolling.
People donating to charity is not uncaring, the fact they have to, is.
We are done here mate. You're a prat.
Nobody has to. They choose to.
Under Labour they weren't, but then people who faced unexpected hardships were turning to Wonga instead.
Wonga were a tad expensive, and somewhat disreputable if you got into trouble, but they did dig me out of a couple of holes on the 21st and 22nd of the month back in 2010/2011 when I'd first bought my house and I was landed with a few unexpected bills at the end of the month.
I wouldn't use them now as there are more options for free credit but at the time I did.
One thing that always kind of amused me - the "local cooperative lenders" and "community lenders" charge the same kind of rates as Wonga. But the people who advocate the community stuff never seem to know that.
In the US, they have considerable political power, in some places, being tied into grass root political activism for the Democratic Party.
Wonga were a tad expensive, and somewhat disreputable if you got into trouble, but they did dig me out of a couple of holes on the 21st and 22nd of the month back in 2010/2011 when I'd first bought my house and I was landed with a few unexpected bills at the end of the month.
I wouldn't use them now as there are more options for free credit but at the time I did.
One thing that always kind of amused me - the "local cooperative lenders" and "community lenders" charge the same kind of rates as Wonga. But the people who advocate the community stuff never seem to know that.
In the US, they have considerable political power, in some places, being tied into grass root political activism for the Democratic Party.
That's interesting.
I always assumed that they charged little or zero interest.
Thinking about it I suppose they would need to charge a high enough rate to allow for defaults, of which there must be many.
I don’t know if this is so off topic to be spam, but as it’s Crossword season, I have found a mystical/historical/religious crossword that’s way too tough for me!
MoonRabbits found mystical/historical/religious crossword that’s way too tough for her
Across 2. Greatest dedication to a single holy carving? (10) 4. The erstwhile lord of the ring. (7) 5. There were more than you could shake a stick at, but Dee only played in this one. (7) 7. Rest for a mystic month. (10) 10. Kelley perhaps owned this man’s hand-written nothing. (7) 13. Veracious and loyal kinsman. (8) 15. Chamber of Dee’s interrogation. (4) 16. Very good residence of the hospitable lord. (6) 17. This grandson stood by his man. (3) 21. The subject of a burly attempt at reform. (8) 25. Quality of these seven daughters. (8) 27. Deferred, but not of this lady’s blessed memory forgotten. (9) 28. He used to see on the road to Damascus. (4) 29. A bit tall, but otherwise what else could he be? (6) 30. Eponymous river. (3) 31. A thesaurus of this language is hard to find. (6)
Down 1. A retreating Greek might call this book holy. (5) 3. Spiritual movements. (7) 4. Royal cousin of blood-soaked Bess. (7) 6. Witness of the destruction by fire. (5) 8. The secret of this wood was its mysterious inner bark. (5) 9. Bibliophile lord apparently known to the Danes! (9) 11. Jonson’s caricature of Dee is hardly this. (6) 12. Dee caused this to ascend the highest heaven of invention. (6) 14. Divine diction. (8) 18. I hear it rumoured a painful harvest for these two. (4) 19. The Light of God. (5) 20. Not uncouth, a philosopher. (5) 22. Soothing ancestor of the Spanish Ambassador. (4) 23. Sulphur. (6) 24. The impecunious Palatine. (5) 26. Before whose countenance Dee wrote. (6)
Wonga were a tad expensive, and somewhat disreputable if you got into trouble, but they did dig me out of a couple of holes on the 21st and 22nd of the month back in 2010/2011 when I'd first bought my house and I was landed with a few unexpected bills at the end of the month.
I wouldn't use them now as there are more options for free credit but at the time I did.
One thing that always kind of amused me - the "local cooperative lenders" and "community lenders" charge the same kind of rates as Wonga. But the people who advocate the community stuff never seem to know that.
In the US, they have considerable political power, in some places, being tied into grass root political activism for the Democratic Party.
TIL. Interesting post, thanks!
I was working for one of the alt-banks. They had plans to expand into the US. Offer a basic bank service for everyone -
1) No overdraft. 2) Online 3) Card 4) No cheque book, but free transfer to any other bank account. 5) Cash point access
The above to be free (I think they would charge $5 for a physical card).
The idea was to have virtually no financial criteria for the above. Just the minimum requirements about KYC.
When they hit the political level, a Congressional Committee dropped a bridge on them. All kinds of weird accusations - as if they were the worst kind of loan sharks.
The political consultants explained that the community activists were heavily tied into the community banking thing, and saw stripped down banking facilities as a terrible threat.
The fact so many people rely on food banks is a disgrace. The Tories made society very unkind and uncaring.
You must be trolling now.
If society was unkind and uncaring then food banks wouldn't exist, since nobody would be donating to them.
Wonga would exist instead.
I am not trolling just because we disagree. I have always debated in good faith with you and I would hope you do the same.
The evidence has been posted and you've completely dismissed it. It is quite evident that the rise in food banks is not because "Wonga" has disappeared. The destruction of our social fabric via austerity has caused it, at least in a significant part.
I really thought better of you Bart. I've always come to your defence in the past but now you're being a prat.
What evidence has been posted?
The only evidence that has been posted is the rise of food bank donations. Which matches with a collapse in loan sharks and debt levels.
That shows society is more caring than it was in the past.
Food bank usage = food bank donations, unless you think that over a decade ago the level of donations was the same as now but 95% of the donations were going to landfill instead?
You're the one being a prat, calling people uncaring for donating to charity.
I will happily debate with you as long as you withdraw the assertion that I am trolling because you know full well that I am not. And I will withdraw my accusation that you are a prat.
As I said, I have come to your defence multiple times because I know whilst we disagree on mostly everything you are here for the right reasons.
I will not withdraw the assertion you are trolling, because you are trolling.
There is no serious way you believe that people donating to charity is uncaring.
So you must be trolling. Or you're really, really thick, but I don't believe that.
I am not trolling.
People donating to charity is not uncaring, the fact they have to, is.
We are done here mate. You're a prat.
Nobody has to. They choose to.
Under Labour they weren't, but then people who faced unexpected hardships were turning to Wonga instead.
Was that better - or worse?
We could go back to the way things were under that friend of the poor, Tony Blair - and just send the food to landfill.
That quality food now goes to those who could never have afforded it is one of the better outcomes of recent years.
Wonga were a tad expensive, and somewhat disreputable if you got into trouble, but they did dig me out of a couple of holes on the 21st and 22nd of the month back in 2010/2011 when I'd first bought my house and I was landed with a few unexpected bills at the end of the month.
I wouldn't use them now as there are more options for free credit but at the time I did.
One thing that always kind of amused me - the "local cooperative lenders" and "community lenders" charge the same kind of rates as Wonga. But the people who advocate the community stuff never seem to know that.
In the US, they have considerable political power, in some places, being tied into grass root political activism for the Democratic Party.
That's interesting.
I always assumed that they charged little or zero interest.
Thinking about it I suppose they would need to charge a high enough rate to allow for defaults, of which there must be many.
That's a Bingo.
To be fair, they generally charge less than the most rapacious lenders. But it's still eye watering levels of interest.
Wonga were a tad expensive, and somewhat disreputable if you got into trouble, but they did dig me out of a couple of holes on the 21st and 22nd of the month back in 2010/2011 when I'd first bought my house and I was landed with a few unexpected bills at the end of the month.
I wouldn't use them now as there are more options for free credit but at the time I did.
One thing that always kind of amused me - the "local cooperative lenders" and "community lenders" charge the same kind of rates as Wonga. But the people who advocate the community stuff never seem to know that.
In the US, they have considerable political power, in some places, being tied into grass root political activism for the Democratic Party.
That's interesting.
I always assumed that they charged little or zero interest.
Thinking about it I suppose they would need to charge a high enough rate to allow for defaults, of which there must be many.
That's a Bingo.
To be fair, they generally charge less than the most rapacious lenders. But it's still eye watering levels of interest.
TANSTAAFL
Banks (n): Businesses that exist to lend money to people who can prove that they don't need it.
Hence why the existence of alternatives (like food banks) to provide support to people who are in need, is an entirely good thing.
If people overall were horrendously struggling then the number of donations would have collapsed as people looked after themselves first, which would mean fewer parcels given as there'd be less supply available.
People are less indebted now than they were. I hope donations to charity, and thus parcels handed out, continue to rise under Labour not fall and people have to turn back to debt once more.
Anyone who thinks that the distribution of surplus food to people who need it is a terrible thing really needs to consider the implications of their politics.
Anyone who thinks that in modern Britain it is acceptable for people to be unable to afford to feed themselves and their families needs to consider the implications of their politics.
If people overall were horrendously struggling then the number of donations would have collapsed as people looked after themselves first, which would mean fewer parcels given as there'd be less supply available.
People are less indebted now than they were. I hope donations to charity, and thus parcels handed out, continue to rise under Labour not fall and people have to turn back to debt once more.
Anyone who thinks that the distribution of surplus food to people who need it is a terrible thing really needs to consider the implications of their politics.
Anyone who thinks that in modern Britain it is acceptable for people to be unable to afford to feed themselves and their families needs to consider the implications of their politics.
People have always faced unexpected hardships, there is nothing new there.
People face things breaking down at home, or their car breaking down, or other problems that suddenly blow their finances. Always have, always will.
In the past the only solution was to get into a vicious debt spiral. Now they can turn to support instead.
I think some people are conflating charity with reliance on charity. The one is generally a good thing, the other not so much.
Agreed.
People will always face hardships though, always have done, always will do.
When they do, having charity available is better than predators available.
If debt problems were rising and food bank donations were falling, then yes I'd agree that would be a problem.
But debt problems are falling and food bank usage (read: donations) are rising, so that is unquestioningly an excellent thing.
You can't be agreeing, that means something's gone wrong. I'd expand and summarize as follows:
To the extent higher foodbank use is destroying the loan-shark business, yes that's good. To the extent it's caused by hard up people feeling even more hard up than they did before, no it isn't.
All can be happy, I think, now I've put it like this?
If people overall were horrendously struggling then the number of donations would have collapsed as people looked after themselves first, which would mean fewer parcels given as there'd be less supply available.
People are less indebted now than they were. I hope donations to charity, and thus parcels handed out, continue to rise under Labour not fall and people have to turn back to debt once more.
Anyone who thinks that the distribution of surplus food to people who need it is a terrible thing really needs to consider the implications of their politics.
Anyone who thinks that in modern Britain it is acceptable for people to be unable to afford to feed themselves and their families needs to consider the implications of their politics.
Everyone can afford to feed themselves and their families.
But some cannot afford to properly house themselves and their families.
It is the cost of housing which can affect people's ability to spend on other things not the cost of food.
Betting Post. A Christmas holiday tradition - horse race betting 🐎 12.45 Kempton - Rock House 1.55 Kempton - Master Chewy 2.30 Kempton - Elixir Du Nutz 2.50 Chepstow - Chambard
Shiskin. What more can be said - the Frank Spencer of horses. Some mares do have em
Good luck. I'd be slightly wary that Master Chewy has recorded five seconds and only one win.
I know what you are saying John, I’m less confident about today than the 3 from 4 wins yesterday. They are all up against worthy opponents. I’m most concerned about Rock House up against Matterhorn, than the other three tips.
I am so glad austerity resolved the mess in the public finances and we're now growing the economy at a record rate.
Austerity killed off the economy.
Remember those lockdowns you supported and the financial support therein?
That has to be paid for and explains in part the public finances today.
Lockdown was a mistake. I now heavily regret ever supporting it based on the response afterwards to anyone under the age of 90.
As I always say, I am usually wrong. Wouldn't use my posts as anything but rambling much of the time (as most posts are).
I disagree. Pre vaccines, Covid roughly doubled the death rate in every age band IIRC - obviously this hit the oldest the hardest but the effects on younger cohorts were very bad & the load on the NHS for a full scale infection wave even if you left the oldest cohorts to die in their homes would have prevented the NHS from doing any other work at all & trashed the service altogether. It seems inevitable that in the absence of an official lockdown people would have created their own, trashing the economy in the process.
So the pre-vaccine lockdowns were necessary, because protecting the ability of the NHS to treat the population as a whole was worth the cost & preventing widespread economic damage from haphazard self-imposed lockdowns with central support for a government run lockdown was also necessary. Those lockdowns should, in retrospect, (and arguably for those of us at the time who looked at the figures clearly) should have come in earlier & harder, because then they would have been shorter & less damaging.
Post-vaccine lockdowns I honestly could go either way on - on net I think they probably caused more damage that they saved, but the effects on NHS staff of being overwhelmed by back to back waves of infections were real. But so was the damaging psychological effects on individuals & economic effects on the country as a whole.
I don’t know if this is so off topic to be spam, but as it’s Crossword season, I have found a mystical/historical/religious crossword that’s way too tough for me!
MoonRabbits found mystical/historical/religious crossword that’s way too tough for her
Across 2. Greatest dedication to a single holy carving? (10) 4. The erstwhile lord of the ring. (7) 5. There were more than you could shake a stick at, but Dee only played in this one. (7) 7. Rest for a mystic month. (10) 10. Kelley perhaps owned this man’s hand-written nothing. (7) 13. Veracious and loyal kinsman. (8) 15. Chamber of Dee’s interrogation. (4) 16. Very good residence of the hospitable lord. (6) 17. This grandson stood by his man. (3) 21. The subject of a burly attempt at reform. (8) 25. Quality of these seven daughters. (8) 27. Deferred, but not of this lady’s blessed memory forgotten. (9) 28. He used to see on the road to Damascus. (4) 29. A bit tall, but otherwise what else could he be? (6) 30. Eponymous river. (3) 31. A thesaurus of this language is hard to find. (6)
Down 1. A retreating Greek might call this book holy. (5) 3. Spiritual movements. (7) 4. Royal cousin of blood-soaked Bess. (7) 6. Witness of the destruction by fire. (5) 8. The secret of this wood was its mysterious inner bark. (5) 9. Bibliophile lord apparently known to the Danes! (9) 11. Jonson’s caricature of Dee is hardly this. (6) 12. Dee caused this to ascend the highest heaven of invention. (6) 14. Divine diction. (8) 18. I hear it rumoured a painful harvest for these two. (4) 19. The Light of God. (5) 20. Not uncouth, a philosopher. (5) 22. Soothing ancestor of the Spanish Ambassador. (4) 23. Sulphur. (6) 24. The impecunious Palatine. (5) 26. Before whose countenance Dee wrote. (6)
It is a stinker. I can't get very far with it.
15AStar (from Star Chamber to which John Dee was hauled) 28A Saul? 31A try occult
4d - cousin of Elizabeth of England (pejorative name for the latter) but the obvious one, Mary/Marie Stuart of Scotland, doesn't fit
24d must refer to the Poor Palatines, immigrants from the Holy Roman Empire.
I think some people are conflating charity with reliance on charity. The one is generally a good thing, the other not so much.
Agreed.
People will always face hardships though, always have done, always will do.
When they do, having charity available is better than predators available.
If debt problems were rising and food bank donations were falling, then yes I'd agree that would be a problem.
But debt problems are falling and food bank usage (read: donations) are rising, so that is unquestioningly an excellent thing.
You can't be agreeing, that means something's gone wrong. I'd expand and summarize as follows:
To the extent higher foodbank use is destroying the loan-shark business, yes that's good. To the extent it's caused by hard up people feeling even more hard up than they did before, no it isn't.
All can be happy, I think, now I've put it like this?
Since private debt levels are falling, not rising, then it doesn't seem people are feeling more hard up than they did before, which is good.
Doesn't mean things can't be better.
And of course its the cost of housing which utterly dwarfs the cost of food. Food is a total distraction when it comes to hardship, but the rise of food banks is fantastic not miserable.
Mr. Boy, food banks started under Blair. They expanded under every PM until at least Cameron and probably since him too. Given that covers boom, bust, slow recovery, pandemic, and now, that implies policy is having minimal impact on their proliferation.
It's everything to do with available money - and an awful lot of people are finding that they have a lot of month left when the money has ran out.
In many cases it's actually nearly all the month speaking to people I know who volunteer at Foodbanks
And something definitely started to go wrong as soon as the coalition policies started to take effect - Can't however say whether it was austerity or DWP starting to sanction people given kick off point.
Go wrong? Or go right?
Cameron's idea was the big society and what's a bigger society than people donating food to help those less fortunate.
If people had too much month at the end of their money prior to 2012 they were turning to the likes of Wonga, after 2012 they were turning to the likes of the Trussel Trust.
That's something to celebrate, not commiserate.
“Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”
Workhouses? Don't give them ideas.
I am old enough to remember when "gulags for slags" was a Labour policy.
Indeed, that's at the same time as when people with too much month at the end of their money were going to Wonga, who were advertising prolifically on the TV and the Radio, was it not?
Whatever happened to Wonga? Oh right, they went out of business.
They were clamped down on at around 2013, the same time as the Trussel Trust suddenly started giving out large volumes of food parcels.
Wonga went out of business because of government regulation rather than competition from foodbanks.
Yes they did, and where did people turn to when that happened?
There have always been people suffering from too much month at the end of their money.
In Blair and Brown's day they turned to Wonga.
After Cameron they could turn to Trussel Trust instead.
I know which system I prefer - which do you prefer?
And the number of people suffering from too much month at the end of their money has gone up under May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak. It’s not the concept of a food bank that is the problem, it’s the increasing numbers needing them.
And how much has that to do with people losing jobs during Covid? Or hitting the incredibly high energy costs following ther Russian invasion of Ukraine?
Look me in the eye and tell me that if Labour had won the election in 2017, things would be materially different for those with too much month at the end of their money. The governing party has faced a hellish period of government, whatever party had been in office. (Although, if Corbyn had won in 2017, he would likely have maxxed out the nation's credit cards before Covid and then the cost of living crisis hit. It does not bear thinking about....)
COVID and the Russian invasion of Ukraine are convenient disasters to blame, but they came after nearly a decade of Conservative Party Prime Ministers.
Mr. Boy, food banks started under Blair. They expanded under every PM until at least Cameron and probably since him too. Given that covers boom, bust, slow recovery, pandemic, and now, that implies policy is having minimal impact on their proliferation.
It's everything to do with available money - and an awful lot of people are finding that they have a lot of month left when the money has ran out.
In many cases it's actually nearly all the month speaking to people I know who volunteer at Foodbanks
And something definitely started to go wrong as soon as the coalition policies started to take effect - Can't however say whether it was austerity or DWP starting to sanction people given kick off point.
Go wrong? Or go right?
Cameron's idea was the big society and what's a bigger society than people donating food to help those less fortunate.
If people had too much month at the end of their money prior to 2012 they were turning to the likes of Wonga, after 2012 they were turning to the likes of the Trussel Trust.
That's something to celebrate, not commiserate.
“Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”
Workhouses? Don't give them ideas.
I am old enough to remember when "gulags for slags" was a Labour policy.
Indeed, that's at the same time as when people with too much month at the end of their money were going to Wonga, who were advertising prolifically on the TV and the Radio, was it not?
Whatever happened to Wonga? Oh right, they went out of business.
They were clamped down on at around 2013, the same time as the Trussel Trust suddenly started giving out large volumes of food parcels.
Wonga went out of business because of government regulation rather than competition from foodbanks.
Yes they did, and where did people turn to when that happened?
There have always been people suffering from too much month at the end of their money.
In Blair and Brown's day they turned to Wonga.
After Cameron they could turn to Trussel Trust instead.
I know which system I prefer - which do you prefer?
And the number of people suffering from too much month at the end of their money has gone up under May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak. It’s not the concept of a food bank that is the problem, it’s the increasing numbers needing them.
And how much has that to do with people losing jobs during Covid? Or hitting the incredibly high energy costs following ther Russian invasion of Ukraine?
Look me in the eye and tell me that if Labour had won the election in 2017, things would be materially different for those with too much month at the end of their money. The governing party has faced a hellish period of government, whatever party had been in office. (Although, if Corbyn had won in 2017, he would likely have maxxed out the nation's credit cards before Covid and then the cost of living crisis hit. It does not bear thinking about....)
COVID and the Russian invasion of Ukraine are convenient disasters to blame, but they came after nearly a decade of Conservative Party Prime Ministers.
A decade during which private debt levels fell and donations to charity rose.
If people overall were horrendously struggling then the number of donations would have collapsed as people looked after themselves first, which would mean fewer parcels given as there'd be less supply available.
People are less indebted now than they were. I hope donations to charity, and thus parcels handed out, continue to rise under Labour not fall and people have to turn back to debt once more.
Anyone who thinks that the distribution of surplus food to people who need it is a terrible thing really needs to consider the implications of their politics.
Anyone who thinks that in modern Britain it is acceptable for people to be unable to afford to feed themselves and their families needs to consider the implications of their politics.
Everyone can afford to feed themselves and their families.
But some cannot afford to properly house themselves and their families.
It is the cost of housing which can affect people's ability to spend on other things not the cost of food.
Food is cheap.
Housing is expensive.
Vimes Boots.
I know people poorer than me, who are spending more actual money (not percentage) on accommodation. Because they are renting (effectively paying a 100% mortgage). Their food spend is pretty much the small charge left over.
The three main parties were all promising austerity, but that doesn't mean austerity wasn't a choice. The electorate didn't have much opportunity to express a view on it, but there were alternative options.
Spring budget day announced by Hunt for the 6th March
All the speculation about tax and IHT cuts will be revealed then, but I doubt IHT changes are high in the list of priorities, even the Telegraph said they are 3rd in line for consideration and they have an agenda
Received an e mail today from conservative home which confirms the members backbencher of the year is none other than Jacob Rees Mogg
If people overall were horrendously struggling then the number of donations would have collapsed as people looked after themselves first, which would mean fewer parcels given as there'd be less supply available.
People are less indebted now than they were. I hope donations to charity, and thus parcels handed out, continue to rise under Labour not fall and people have to turn back to debt once more.
Anyone who thinks that the distribution of surplus food to people who need it is a terrible thing really needs to consider the implications of their politics.
Anyone who thinks that in modern Britain it is acceptable for people to be unable to afford to feed themselves and their families needs to consider the implications of their politics.
Everyone can afford to feed themselves and their families.
But some cannot afford to properly house themselves and their families.
It is the cost of housing which can affect people's ability to spend on other things not the cost of food.
Food is cheap.
Housing is expensive.
Vimes Boots.
I know people poorer than me, who are spending more actual money (not percentage) on accommodation. Because they are renting. Their food spend is pretty much the small charge left over.
Absolutely!
I'm paying considerably less on my house now I own my own, than I did when I was renting last year.
Even if I were to remortgage at current rates, that would still be true.
If people overall were horrendously struggling then the number of donations would have collapsed as people looked after themselves first, which would mean fewer parcels given as there'd be less supply available.
People are less indebted now than they were. I hope donations to charity, and thus parcels handed out, continue to rise under Labour not fall and people have to turn back to debt once more.
Anyone who thinks that the distribution of surplus food to people who need it is a terrible thing really needs to consider the implications of their politics.
Anyone who thinks that in modern Britain it is acceptable for people to be unable to afford to feed themselves and their families needs to consider the implications of their politics.
Everyone can afford to feed themselves and their families.
But some cannot afford to properly house themselves and their families.
It is the cost of housing which can affect people's ability to spend on other things not the cost of food.
Food is cheap.
Housing is expensive.
Vimes Boots.
I know people poorer than me, who are spending more actual money (not percentage) on accommodation. Because they are renting. Their food spend is pretty much the small charge left over.
Absolutely!
I'm paying considerably less on my house now I own my own, than I did when I was renting last year.
Even if I were to remortgage at current rates, that would still be true.
Problem is the only fix for that is a few millions homes being built.
Wonga were a tad expensive, and somewhat disreputable if you got into trouble, but they did dig me out of a couple of holes on the 21st and 22nd of the month back in 2010/2011 when I'd first bought my house and I was landed with a few unexpected bills at the end of the month.
I wouldn't use them now as there are more options for free credit but at the time I did.
One thing that always kind of amused me - the "local cooperative lenders" and "community lenders" charge the same kind of rates as Wonga. But the people who advocate the community stuff never seem to know that.
In the US, they have considerable political power, in some places, being tied into grass root political activism for the Democratic Party.
That's interesting.
I always assumed that they charged little or zero interest.
Thinking about it I suppose they would need to charge a high enough rate to allow for defaults, of which there must be many.
That's a Bingo.
To be fair, they generally charge less than the most rapacious lenders. But it's still eye watering levels of interest.
TANSTAAFL
Banks (n): Businesses that exist to lend money to people who can prove that they don't need it.
Hence why the existence of alternatives (like food banks) to provide support to people who are in need, is an entirely good thing.
One reason payday lenders flourished was that although they charged interest at usurious rates, it was for very short timescales and therefore trivial in cash amounts. This wrinkle was missed by those well-meaning folk who never needed them in the first place.
If people overall were horrendously struggling then the number of donations would have collapsed as people looked after themselves first, which would mean fewer parcels given as there'd be less supply available.
People are less indebted now than they were. I hope donations to charity, and thus parcels handed out, continue to rise under Labour not fall and people have to turn back to debt once more.
Anyone who thinks that the distribution of surplus food to people who need it is a terrible thing really needs to consider the implications of their politics.
Anyone who thinks that in modern Britain it is acceptable for people to be unable to afford to feed themselves and their families needs to consider the implications of their politics.
Everyone can afford to feed themselves and their families.
But some cannot afford to properly house themselves and their families.
It is the cost of housing which can affect people's ability to spend on other things not the cost of food.
Food is cheap.
Housing is expensive.
Vimes Boots.
I know people poorer than me, who are spending more actual money (not percentage) on accommodation. Because they are renting. Their food spend is pretty much the small charge left over.
Absolutely!
I'm paying considerably less on my house now I own my own, than I did when I was renting last year.
Even if I were to remortgage at current rates, that would still be true.
Problem is the only fix for that is a few millions homes being built.
That's not a problem.
The fact people including the government are standing in the way of building the ten million extra homes we need is the problem.
Spring budget day announced by Hunt for the 6th March
All the speculation about tax and IHT cuts will be revealed then, but I doubt IHT changes are high in the list of priorities, even the Telegraph said they are 3rd in line for consideration and they have an agenda
Received an e mail today from conservative home which confirms the members backbencher of the year is none other than Jacob Rees Mogg
Says it all about the membership really
6th March is the Wednesday before Cheltenham, so the clash is avoided but isn't Tuesday more traditional? I've not checked but dimly recall it being on Champion Hurdle day.
Spring budget day announced by Hunt for the 6th March
All the speculation about tax and IHT cuts will be revealed then, but I doubt IHT changes are high in the list of priorities, even the Telegraph said they are 3rd in line for consideration and they have an agenda
Received an e mail today from conservative home which confirms the members backbencher of the year is none other than Jacob Rees Mogg
Says it all about the membership really
6th March is the Wednesday before Cheltenham, so the clash is avoided but isn't Tuesday more traditional? I've not checked but dimly recall it being on Champion Hurdle day.
If people overall were horrendously struggling then the number of donations would have collapsed as people looked after themselves first, which would mean fewer parcels given as there'd be less supply available.
People are less indebted now than they were. I hope donations to charity, and thus parcels handed out, continue to rise under Labour not fall and people have to turn back to debt once more.
Anyone who thinks that the distribution of surplus food to people who need it is a terrible thing really needs to consider the implications of their politics.
Anyone who thinks that in modern Britain it is acceptable for people to be unable to afford to feed themselves and their families needs to consider the implications of their politics.
Everyone can afford to feed themselves and their families.
But some cannot afford to properly house themselves and their families.
It is the cost of housing which can affect people's ability to spend on other things not the cost of food.
Food is cheap.
Housing is expensive.
Vimes Boots.
I know people poorer than me, who are spending more actual money (not percentage) on accommodation. Because they are renting. Their food spend is pretty much the small charge left over.
Absolutely!
I'm paying considerably less on my house now I own my own, than I did when I was renting last year.
Even if I were to remortgage at current rates, that would still be true.
Problem is the only fix for that is a few millions homes being built.
Wonga were a tad expensive, and somewhat disreputable if you got into trouble, but they did dig me out of a couple of holes on the 21st and 22nd of the month back in 2010/2011 when I'd first bought my house and I was landed with a few unexpected bills at the end of the month.
I wouldn't use them now as there are more options for free credit but at the time I did.
One thing that always kind of amused me - the "local cooperative lenders" and "community lenders" charge the same kind of rates as Wonga. But the people who advocate the community stuff never seem to know that.
In the US, they have considerable political power, in some places, being tied into grass root political activism for the Democratic Party.
That's interesting.
I always assumed that they charged little or zero interest.
Thinking about it I suppose they would need to charge a high enough rate to allow for defaults, of which there must be many.
That's a Bingo.
To be fair, they generally charge less than the most rapacious lenders. But it's still eye watering levels of interest.
TANSTAAFL
Banks (n): Businesses that exist to lend money to people who can prove that they don't need it.
Hence why the existence of alternatives (like food banks) to provide support to people who are in need, is an entirely good thing.
One reason payday lenders flourished was that although they charged interest at usurious rates, it was for very short timescales and therefore trivial in cash amounts. This wrinkle was missed by those well-meaning folk who never needed them in the first place.
When you're already in financial difficulty, getting into vicious debt spirals for "trivial" cash amounts each time is horrendous. Every "trivial" amount certainly adds up.
Plus the "trivial" amount has to be paid back on top of what you couldn't afford so borrowed instead of course.
Getting stuff that you normally pay for, for free, as a temporary solution is a far superior solution than borrowing and having to repay what you couldn't afford plus a "trivial" amount.
And Wonga was making tens of millions in profits, not trivial profits.
If people overall were horrendously struggling then the number of donations would have collapsed as people looked after themselves first, which would mean fewer parcels given as there'd be less supply available.
People are less indebted now than they were. I hope donations to charity, and thus parcels handed out, continue to rise under Labour not fall and people have to turn back to debt once more.
Anyone who thinks that the distribution of surplus food to people who need it is a terrible thing really needs to consider the implications of their politics.
Anyone who thinks that in modern Britain it is acceptable for people to be unable to afford to feed themselves and their families needs to consider the implications of their politics.
Everyone can afford to feed themselves and their families.
But some cannot afford to properly house themselves and their families.
It is the cost of housing which can affect people's ability to spend on other things not the cost of food.
Food is cheap.
Housing is expensive.
Vimes Boots.
I know people poorer than me, who are spending more actual money (not percentage) on accommodation. Because they are renting. Their food spend is pretty much the small charge left over.
Absolutely!
I'm paying considerably less on my house now I own my own, than I did when I was renting last year.
Even if I were to remortgage at current rates, that would still be true.
Problem is the only fix for that is a few millions homes being built.
Yes and no. The immediate problem is, erm, rent-seeking by landlords, hence rent being more than mortgage repayments. There is an extra charge imposed by BTL middlemen wanting a profit above their own mortgage costs in return for very little service. You could imagine social housing having cheaper rents.
Maybe the government could help alleviate food poverty *and* improve the nation's health by distributing free healthy food to anyone who wants it? One collection per person per week allowed.
So you’d approve of food banks if they were rebranded as the National Food Service?
Haha. I approve of foodbanks, just not the need for them.
Wonga were a tad expensive, and somewhat disreputable if you got into trouble, but they did dig me out of a couple of holes on the 21st and 22nd of the month back in 2010/2011 when I'd first bought my house and I was landed with a few unexpected bills at the end of the month.
I wouldn't use them now as there are more options for free credit but at the time I did.
One thing that always kind of amused me - the "local cooperative lenders" and "community lenders" charge the same kind of rates as Wonga. But the people who advocate the community stuff never seem to know that.
In the US, they have considerable political power, in some places, being tied into grass root political activism for the Democratic Party.
TIL. Interesting post, thanks!
I was working for one of the alt-banks. They had plans to expand into the US. Offer a basic bank service for everyone -
1) No overdraft. 2) Online 3) Card 4) No cheque book, but free transfer to any other bank account. 5) Cash point access
The above to be free (I think they would charge $5 for a physical card).
The idea was to have virtually no financial criteria for the above. Just the minimum requirements about KYC.
When they hit the political level, a Congressional Committee dropped a bridge on them. All kinds of weird accusations - as if they were the worst kind of loan sharks.
The political consultants explained that the community activists were heavily tied into the community banking thing, and saw stripped down banking facilities as a terrible threat.
Presumably the need for banking license(s?) involved the regulators which allowed the politicians to stick their oar in?
Maybe the government could help alleviate food poverty *and* improve the nation's health by distributing free healthy food to anyone who wants it? One collection per person per week allowed.
So you’d approve of food banks if they were rebranded as the National Food Service?
Haha. I approve of foodbanks, just not the need for them.
So would you legislate so that cars don't break down?
Would you legislate so that people never end up in hardship?
If people overall were horrendously struggling then the number of donations would have collapsed as people looked after themselves first, which would mean fewer parcels given as there'd be less supply available.
People are less indebted now than they were. I hope donations to charity, and thus parcels handed out, continue to rise under Labour not fall and people have to turn back to debt once more.
Anyone who thinks that the distribution of surplus food to people who need it is a terrible thing really needs to consider the implications of their politics.
Anyone who thinks that in modern Britain it is acceptable for people to be unable to afford to feed themselves and their families needs to consider the implications of their politics.
People have always faced unexpected hardships, there is nothing new there.
People face things breaking down at home, or their car breaking down, or other problems that suddenly blow their finances. Always have, always will.
In the past the only solution was to get into a vicious debt spiral. Now they can turn to support instead.
That's not bad, that's fantastic.
Charity existed in the past, Bart. It has existed for literally millennia. The welfare state has also existed for decades. It is a very strange history of the world if you believe "In the past the only solution was to get into a vicious debt spiral." Have you been eating too much brandy butter?
If people overall were horrendously struggling then the number of donations would have collapsed as people looked after themselves first, which would mean fewer parcels given as there'd be less supply available.
People are less indebted now than they were. I hope donations to charity, and thus parcels handed out, continue to rise under Labour not fall and people have to turn back to debt once more.
Anyone who thinks that the distribution of surplus food to people who need it is a terrible thing really needs to consider the implications of their politics.
Anyone who thinks that in modern Britain it is acceptable for people to be unable to afford to feed themselves and their families needs to consider the implications of their politics.
Everyone can afford to feed themselves and their families.
But some cannot afford to properly house themselves and their families.
It is the cost of housing which can affect people's ability to spend on other things not the cost of food.
Food is cheap.
Housing is expensive.
Vimes Boots.
I know people poorer than me, who are spending more actual money (not percentage) on accommodation. Because they are renting. Their food spend is pretty much the small charge left over.
Absolutely!
I'm paying considerably less on my house now I own my own, than I did when I was renting last year.
Even if I were to remortgage at current rates, that would still be true.
Problem is the only fix for that is a few millions homes being built.
Yes and no. The immediate problem is, erm, rent-seeking by landlords, hence rent being more than mortgage repayments. There is an extra charge imposed by BTL middlemen wanting a profit above their own mortgage costs in return for very little service. You could imagine social housing having cheaper rents.
Sorry but that isn't how the market works.
The price of rent is determined by Supply and Demand - the fact Landlords make a profit is because the market equilibrium for rental properties results in a higher market price than the monthly mortgage.
If people overall were horrendously struggling then the number of donations would have collapsed as people looked after themselves first, which would mean fewer parcels given as there'd be less supply available.
People are less indebted now than they were. I hope donations to charity, and thus parcels handed out, continue to rise under Labour not fall and people have to turn back to debt once more.
Anyone who thinks that the distribution of surplus food to people who need it is a terrible thing really needs to consider the implications of their politics.
Anyone who thinks that in modern Britain it is acceptable for people to be unable to afford to feed themselves and their families needs to consider the implications of their politics.
People have always faced unexpected hardships, there is nothing new there.
People face things breaking down at home, or their car breaking down, or other problems that suddenly blow their finances. Always have, always will.
In the past the only solution was to get into a vicious debt spiral. Now they can turn to support instead.
That's not bad, that's fantastic.
You keep trotting out the phrase "unexpected hardships". What we actually have is people relying on food banks each and every week. And the Tories don't see this as a problem.
Wonga were a tad expensive, and somewhat disreputable if you got into trouble, but they did dig me out of a couple of holes on the 21st and 22nd of the month back in 2010/2011 when I'd first bought my house and I was landed with a few unexpected bills at the end of the month.
I wouldn't use them now as there are more options for free credit but at the time I did.
One thing that always kind of amused me - the "local cooperative lenders" and "community lenders" charge the same kind of rates as Wonga. But the people who advocate the community stuff never seem to know that.
In the US, they have considerable political power, in some places, being tied into grass root political activism for the Democratic Party.
That's interesting.
I always assumed that they charged little or zero interest.
Thinking about it I suppose they would need to charge a high enough rate to allow for defaults, of which there must be many.
That's a Bingo.
To be fair, they generally charge less than the most rapacious lenders. But it's still eye watering levels of interest.
TANSTAAFL
Banks (n): Businesses that exist to lend money to people who can prove that they don't need it.
Hence why the existence of alternatives (like food banks) to provide support to people who are in need, is an entirely good thing.
One reason payday lenders flourished was that although they charged interest at usurious rates, it was for very short timescales and therefore trivial in cash amounts. This wrinkle was missed by those well-meaning folk who never needed them in the first place.
When you're already in financial difficulty, getting into vicious debt spirals for "trivial" cash amounts each time is horrendous. Every "trivial" amount certainly adds up.
Plus the "trivial" amount has to be paid back on top of what you couldn't afford so borrowed instead of course.
Getting stuff that you normally pay for, for free, as a temporary solution is a far superior solution than borrowing and having to repay what you couldn't afford plus a "trivial" amount.
And Wonga was making tens of millions in profits, not trivial profits.
Yes, but that was due to volume aiui. Look at commission charges on some cash machines. Outrageous from one point of view but low enough in actual money terms that some people still pay it rather than walk to the next free one. More of a problem with lenders landing their customers in debt were credit cards with free transfers where large debts could be racked up over months before repayment was called for.
If people overall were horrendously struggling then the number of donations would have collapsed as people looked after themselves first, which would mean fewer parcels given as there'd be less supply available.
People are less indebted now than they were. I hope donations to charity, and thus parcels handed out, continue to rise under Labour not fall and people have to turn back to debt once more.
Anyone who thinks that the distribution of surplus food to people who need it is a terrible thing really needs to consider the implications of their politics.
Anyone who thinks that in modern Britain it is acceptable for people to be unable to afford to feed themselves and their families needs to consider the implications of their politics.
People have always faced unexpected hardships, there is nothing new there.
People face things breaking down at home, or their car breaking down, or other problems that suddenly blow their finances. Always have, always will.
In the past the only solution was to get into a vicious debt spiral. Now they can turn to support instead.
That's not bad, that's fantastic.
Charity existed in the past, Bart. It has existed for literally millennia. The welfare state has also existed for decades. It is a very strange history of the world if you believe "In the past the only solution was to get into a vicious debt spiral." Have you been eating too much brandy butter?
Where was the charity in Blair and Brown's time that was existing as an alternative to Wonga for people who faced too much month at the end of their money?
The welfare state was not a fix for short-term problems. Wonga was then, food banks are today.
If Sunak sets a Hail Mary, Save My Butt budget, including say the abolition of IHT, as trailed in the media this morning, is there anything to stop the Opposition saying that they will cancel it, and unwind the changes to restore the Status Quo Ante?
(Clearly that becomes untenable after a period of time).
Do we have any examples of incoming Governments unwinding previous measures in this way, except for when a Court decrees it?
If people overall were horrendously struggling then the number of donations would have collapsed as people looked after themselves first, which would mean fewer parcels given as there'd be less supply available.
People are less indebted now than they were. I hope donations to charity, and thus parcels handed out, continue to rise under Labour not fall and people have to turn back to debt once more.
Anyone who thinks that the distribution of surplus food to people who need it is a terrible thing really needs to consider the implications of their politics.
Anyone who thinks that in modern Britain it is acceptable for people to be unable to afford to feed themselves and their families needs to consider the implications of their politics.
Everyone can afford to feed themselves and their families.
But some cannot afford to properly house themselves and their families.
It is the cost of housing which can affect people's ability to spend on other things not the cost of food.
Food is cheap.
Housing is expensive.
Vimes Boots.
I know people poorer than me, who are spending more actual money (not percentage) on accommodation. Because they are renting. Their food spend is pretty much the small charge left over.
Absolutely!
I'm paying considerably less on my house now I own my own, than I did when I was renting last year.
Even if I were to remortgage at current rates, that would still be true.
Problem is the only fix for that is a few millions homes being built.
Mr. Boy, food banks started under Blair. They expanded under every PM until at least Cameron and probably since him too. Given that covers boom, bust, slow recovery, pandemic, and now, that implies policy is having minimal impact on their proliferation.
It's everything to do with available money - and an awful lot of people are finding that they have a lot of month left when the money has ran out.
In many cases it's actually nearly all the month speaking to people I know who volunteer at Foodbanks
And something definitely started to go wrong as soon as the coalition policies started to take effect - Can't however say whether it was austerity or DWP starting to sanction people given kick off point.
Go wrong? Or go right?
Cameron's idea was the big society and what's a bigger society than people donating food to help those less fortunate.
If people had too much month at the end of their money prior to 2012 they were turning to the likes of Wonga, after 2012 they were turning to the likes of the Trussel Trust.
That's something to celebrate, not commiserate.
“Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”
Workhouses? Don't give them ideas.
I am old enough to remember when "gulags for slags" was a Labour policy.
Indeed, that's at the same time as when people with too much month at the end of their money were going to Wonga, who were advertising prolifically on the TV and the Radio, was it not?
Whatever happened to Wonga? Oh right, they went out of business.
They were clamped down on at around 2013, the same time as the Trussel Trust suddenly started giving out large volumes of food parcels.
Wonga went out of business because of government regulation rather than competition from foodbanks.
Yes they did, and where did people turn to when that happened?
There have always been people suffering from too much month at the end of their money.
In Blair and Brown's day they turned to Wonga.
After Cameron they could turn to Trussel Trust instead.
I know which system I prefer - which do you prefer?
And the number of people suffering from too much month at the end of their money has gone up under May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak. It’s not the concept of a food bank that is the problem, it’s the increasing numbers needing them.
And how much has that to do with people losing jobs during Covid? Or hitting the incredibly high energy costs following ther Russian invasion of Ukraine?
Look me in the eye and tell me that if Labour had won the election in 2017, things would be materially different for those with too much month at the end of their money. The governing party has faced a hellish period of government, whatever party had been in office. (Although, if Corbyn had won in 2017, he would likely have maxxed out the nation's credit cards before Covid and then the cost of living crisis hit. It does not bear thinking about....)
COVID and the Russian invasion of Ukraine are convenient disasters to blame, but they came after nearly a decade of Conservative Party Prime Ministers.
A decade during which private debt levels fell and donations to charity rose.
"Total household debt in the UK rose sharply from the late 1990s up until the financial crisis began in 2008.
"Debt as a proportion of household income rose from 85% in 1996 to 156% at its peak in 2008.
"During the 2008/09 recession, banks were much more reluctant to lend money and consumers were less inclined to take on credit. As a result, the household debt-to-income ratio fell to 128% by late 2015. Starting in early 2016, growth in household debt levels accelerated, leading to the debt-to-income ratio to increase from 132% in Q4 2015 to 136% in Q4 2017, before falling to 132% in late 2019.
"During the coronavirus pandemic, total household debt and the debt-to-income ratio rose slowly, driven by rising mortgage debt but tempered by consumers repaying unsecured debt. From Q1 2022, the debt-to-income ratio started falling and reached 129% in Q1 2023, partly due to higher interest rates."
If people overall were horrendously struggling then the number of donations would have collapsed as people looked after themselves first, which would mean fewer parcels given as there'd be less supply available.
People are less indebted now than they were. I hope donations to charity, and thus parcels handed out, continue to rise under Labour not fall and people have to turn back to debt once more.
Anyone who thinks that the distribution of surplus food to people who need it is a terrible thing really needs to consider the implications of their politics.
Anyone who thinks that in modern Britain it is acceptable for people to be unable to afford to feed themselves and their families needs to consider the implications of their politics.
Everyone can afford to feed themselves and their families.
But some cannot afford to properly house themselves and their families.
It is the cost of housing which can affect people's ability to spend on other things not the cost of food.
Food is cheap.
Housing is expensive.
Vimes Boots.
I know people poorer than me, who are spending more actual money (not percentage) on accommodation. Because they are renting. Their food spend is pretty much the small charge left over.
Absolutely!
I'm paying considerably less on my house now I own my own, than I did when I was renting last year.
Even if I were to remortgage at current rates, that would still be true.
Problem is the only fix for that is a few millions homes being built.
Yes and no. The immediate problem is, erm, rent-seeking by landlords, hence rent being more than mortgage repayments. There is an extra charge imposed by BTL middlemen wanting a profit above their own mortgage costs in return for very little service. You could imagine social housing having cheaper rents.
Sorry but that isn't how the market works.
The price of rent is determined by Supply and Demand - the fact Landlords make a profit is because the market equilibrium for rental properties results in a higher market price than the monthly mortgage.
And that is not necessarily true everywhere..
The state subsidises landlords under the guise of supporting tenants.
If Sunak sets a Hail Mary, Save My Butt budget, including say the abolition of IHT, as trailed in the media this morning, is there anything to stop the Opposition saying that they will cancel it, and unwind the changes to restore the Status Quo Ante?
(Clearly that becomes untenable after a period of time).
Do we have any examples of incoming Governments unwinding previous measures in this way, except for when a Court decrees it?
Nothing stops an incoming government cancelling prior measures if they win an election.
The incoming Coalition government cancelled many of Brown and Darling's measures, including for example a National Insurance rise.
If people overall were horrendously struggling then the number of donations would have collapsed as people looked after themselves first, which would mean fewer parcels given as there'd be less supply available.
People are less indebted now than they were. I hope donations to charity, and thus parcels handed out, continue to rise under Labour not fall and people have to turn back to debt once more.
Anyone who thinks that the distribution of surplus food to people who need it is a terrible thing really needs to consider the implications of their politics.
Anyone who thinks that in modern Britain it is acceptable for people to be unable to afford to feed themselves and their families needs to consider the implications of their politics.
Everyone can afford to feed themselves and their families.
But some cannot afford to properly house themselves and their families.
It is the cost of housing which can affect people's ability to spend on other things not the cost of food.
Food is cheap.
Housing is expensive.
Vimes Boots.
I know people poorer than me, who are spending more actual money (not percentage) on accommodation. Because they are renting. Their food spend is pretty much the small charge left over.
Absolutely!
I'm paying considerably less on my house now I own my own, than I did when I was renting last year.
Even if I were to remortgage at current rates, that would still be true.
Problem is the only fix for that is a few millions homes being built.
Yes and no. The immediate problem is, erm, rent-seeking by landlords, hence rent being more than mortgage repayments. There is an extra charge imposed by BTL middlemen wanting a profit above their own mortgage costs in return for very little service. You could imagine social housing having cheaper rents.
Sorry but that isn't how the market works.
The price of rent is determined by Supply and Demand - the fact Landlords make a profit is because the market equilibrium for rental properties results in a higher market price than the monthly mortgage.
And that is not necessarily true everywhere..
In a free market, sellers will always charge as much as they can get away with and buyers will always offer the least possible. In a healthy free market, the overlap of those allows beautiful things to happen.
But not every free market is healthy at all times.
If people overall were horrendously struggling then the number of donations would have collapsed as people looked after themselves first, which would mean fewer parcels given as there'd be less supply available.
People are less indebted now than they were. I hope donations to charity, and thus parcels handed out, continue to rise under Labour not fall and people have to turn back to debt once more.
Anyone who thinks that the distribution of surplus food to people who need it is a terrible thing really needs to consider the implications of their politics.
Anyone who thinks that in modern Britain it is acceptable for people to be unable to afford to feed themselves and their families needs to consider the implications of their politics.
Everyone can afford to feed themselves and their families.
But some cannot afford to properly house themselves and their families.
It is the cost of housing which can affect people's ability to spend on other things not the cost of food.
Food is cheap.
Housing is expensive.
The housing theory of everything raises it’s ugly head once more. I genuinely believe that at the root of many of the ills that weigh on the UK economy lies the way we have chosen to structure the housing market.
If people overall were horrendously struggling then the number of donations would have collapsed as people looked after themselves first, which would mean fewer parcels given as there'd be less supply available.
People are less indebted now than they were. I hope donations to charity, and thus parcels handed out, continue to rise under Labour not fall and people have to turn back to debt once more.
Anyone who thinks that the distribution of surplus food to people who need it is a terrible thing really needs to consider the implications of their politics.
Anyone who thinks that in modern Britain it is acceptable for people to be unable to afford to feed themselves and their families needs to consider the implications of their politics.
Everyone can afford to feed themselves and their families.
But some cannot afford to properly house themselves and their families.
It is the cost of housing which can affect people's ability to spend on other things not the cost of food.
Food is cheap.
Housing is expensive.
Vimes Boots.
I know people poorer than me, who are spending more actual money (not percentage) on accommodation. Because they are renting. Their food spend is pretty much the small charge left over.
Absolutely!
I'm paying considerably less on my house now I own my own, than I did when I was renting last year.
Even if I were to remortgage at current rates, that would still be true.
Problem is the only fix for that is a few millions homes being built.
Yes and no. The immediate problem is, erm, rent-seeking by landlords, hence rent being more than mortgage repayments. There is an extra charge imposed by BTL middlemen wanting a profit above their own mortgage costs in return for very little service. You could imagine social housing having cheaper rents.
The problem is that the cheaper housing gets sublet (illegally) in about 5 minutes.
I used to own a shared equity flat. Built on Crown Estate land. To subsidise housing, the last 40% couldn’t be sold or have rent charged against it.
All the original owners had moved out and were subletting - the delta between the cheap price and letting rate was very nice…
Mr. Boy, food banks started under Blair. They expanded under every PM until at least Cameron and probably since him too. Given that covers boom, bust, slow recovery, pandemic, and now, that implies policy is having minimal impact on their proliferation.
It's everything to do with available money - and an awful lot of people are finding that they have a lot of month left when the money has ran out.
In many cases it's actually nearly all the month speaking to people I know who volunteer at Foodbanks
And something definitely started to go wrong as soon as the coalition policies started to take effect - Can't however say whether it was austerity or DWP starting to sanction people given kick off point.
Go wrong? Or go right?
Cameron's idea was the big society and what's a bigger society than people donating food to help those less fortunate.
If people had too much month at the end of their money prior to 2012 they were turning to the likes of Wonga, after 2012 they were turning to the likes of the Trussel Trust.
That's something to celebrate, not commiserate.
“Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”
Workhouses? Don't give them ideas.
I am old enough to remember when "gulags for slags" was a Labour policy.
Indeed, that's at the same time as when people with too much month at the end of their money were going to Wonga, who were advertising prolifically on the TV and the Radio, was it not?
Whatever happened to Wonga? Oh right, they went out of business.
They were clamped down on at around 2013, the same time as the Trussel Trust suddenly started giving out large volumes of food parcels.
Wonga went out of business because of government regulation rather than competition from foodbanks.
Yes they did, and where did people turn to when that happened?
There have always been people suffering from too much month at the end of their money.
In Blair and Brown's day they turned to Wonga.
After Cameron they could turn to Trussel Trust instead.
I know which system I prefer - which do you prefer?
And the number of people suffering from too much month at the end of their money has gone up under May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak. It’s not the concept of a food bank that is the problem, it’s the increasing numbers needing them.
And how much has that to do with people losing jobs during Covid? Or hitting the incredibly high energy costs following ther Russian invasion of Ukraine?
Look me in the eye and tell me that if Labour had won the election in 2017, things would be materially different for those with too much month at the end of their money. The governing party has faced a hellish period of government, whatever party had been in office. (Although, if Corbyn had won in 2017, he would likely have maxxed out the nation's credit cards before Covid and then the cost of living crisis hit. It does not bear thinking about....)
COVID and the Russian invasion of Ukraine are convenient disasters to blame, but they came after nearly a decade of Conservative Party Prime Ministers.
A decade during which private debt levels fell and donations to charity rose.
"Total household debt in the UK rose sharply from the late 1990s up until the financial crisis began in 2008.
"Debt as a proportion of household income rose from 85% in 1996 to 156% at its peak in 2008.
"During the 2008/09 recession, banks were much more reluctant to lend money and consumers were less inclined to take on credit. As a result, the household debt-to-income ratio fell to 128% by late 2015. Starting in early 2016, growth in household debt levels accelerated, leading to the debt-to-income ratio to increase from 132% in Q4 2015 to 136% in Q4 2017, before falling to 132% in late 2019.
"During the coronavirus pandemic, total household debt and the debt-to-income ratio rose slowly, driven by rising mortgage debt but tempered by consumers repaying unsecured debt. From Q1 2022, the debt-to-income ratio started falling and reached 129% in Q1 2023, partly due to higher interest rates."
That matches what I said. Over the decade from 2010 debt levels fell well below its peak, its falling still today.
Comments
Ironically we did a pile of shopping when in Florence in the Conad by the Ponte Vecchio and then went to the Savoy for drinks. And the bag deposited the contents on the ground as we stood up to leave...
But that really wasn't the point of my request - it was more when a politican says something that is clearly implausible (a new wine size will grow the overall economy) ask them to fill in the missing steps between steal underpants and profit)....
for those that don't get the reference it's from South Park
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOYGS7W1Fo0
Rory & Alastair at The Rest is Politics hand out notional gongs.
That's not unique to me or my workplace, its been happening all across the country, which is precisely why food bank "demand" (as in parcels handed out) has to by definition be higher now than it was in 2018, because people are more charitable now with it than they were in the past.
This should be celebrated to the rafters, not bemoaned. I would have more confidence in an incoming Labour government if they were talking up things like this and wanting to encourage more like it, rather than less.
People have always fallen on hard times, had unexpected bills etc. Having food available so that people can concentrate on their problems, rather than turn to predators instead getting into vicious debt spirals, is an unquestioningly good thing that we should want in this country. We should want more good things like that too.
Lest we forget Labour were promising cuts deeper than Thatcher if they won GE2010.
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2010/mar/25/alistair-darling-cut-deeper-margaret-thatcher
Excellent. It might have changed my vote in 2016 if I'd seen this pledge on the side of a bus.
Anyhow, I do hope everyone beat my Christmas. Hard not to. What Santa brought me was Covid. Ghastly little man he is. I'm blocking up the chimney next year.
Why is one handout deemed to be good while another is deemed to be a disgrace ?
If society was unkind and uncaring then food banks wouldn't exist, since nobody would be donating to them.
Wonga would exist instead.
One problem solves another - on both sides of the political divide.
Selling in 500ml bottles makes it easier to export outside of the UK for the big boys and the little guys can't afford to get the bottle manufacturers to make larger bottles.
Pints are about a fiver in the pubs round here, where you can buy three badger bottles of 500ml for a fiver in the supermarket.
I'm entirely in favour of businesses like Wonga being able to conduct their business.
I'm also entirely in favour of businesses like Wonga finding they don't have any demand, as people have a better, healthier alternative like food banks instead.
That firms like Wonga have gone out of business at the same time as food bank donations have surged is one of the best things that's happened to this country.
Because the demand for free stuff is effectively unlimited.
Rein it in please.
Or increased spending on the NHS, provided more foreign holidays, guaranteed their football team would be successful or a myriad of other niche demands.
I'd maybe look more seriously at subsidising healthy food, and teaching home economics/simple cooking to all, but I think a price must be paid for it to be valued and appreciated.
I wouldn't use them now as there are more options for free credit but at the time I did.
The evidence has been posted and you've completely dismissed it. It is quite evident that the rise in food banks is not because "Wonga" has disappeared. The destruction of our social fabric via austerity has caused it, at least in a significant part.
I really thought better of you Bart. I've always come to your defence in the past but now you're being a prat.
Because they weren't just selling it for 15p a bag or even giving it away free on Christmas Eve, they're still giving it away free.
I say this as somebody that will end up paying IHT, as I should.
The point is currently when people face an unexpected hardship, they're used to paying for food but have an alternative available as a temporary solution, which relieves their bills and acts as a safety cushion or shock absorber.
This enables them to concentrate on solving their problems, in a healthy manner.
If people were used to getting food handed out for "free" then when they got into difficulty, that shock absorber would be gone. They'd still be in difficulty, due to whatever caused it such as unexpected bills, but with no extra support available they'd face the full impact of such a shock.
The purpose of safety nets is to help people by flexibly absorbing the impact of falling down in a safe manner so you don't break instead. Remove the safety net, make it a way of life, then when people fall there's nothing there to cushion the blow.
Austerity killed off the economy.
The only evidence that has been posted is the rise of food bank donations. Which matches with a collapse in loan sharks and debt levels.
That shows society is more caring than it was in the past.
Food bank usage = food bank donations, unless you think that over a decade ago the level of donations was the same as now but 95% of the donations were going to landfill instead?
You're the one being a prat, calling people uncaring for donating to charity.
At least he's following a consultation that told him his Govt was gibbering.
Wasn't there another one this morning that the Govt is still wazzocking on about reducing its revenue by abolishing iHT, whilst still running a deficit of around £100bn a year? When what we need is investment.
That has the theoretical advantage of appearing to be attractive to less wealthy people whilst actually only cutting taxes for 30k of the not-quite-richest (the richest dodge it) households per annum.
That’s a really comforting header TSE, thank you.
I’m not convinced of the electoral science of word heat maps though, on the reason so much value can be placed on them, but they could change. If they are part of a controlled sequence and the changes across the sequence are given to us, I would find that more useful. Does that make sense? For example, that same group of respondents in 9 months might be saying he “wants to make America great again” on basis they have decided they don’t want to vote for the opponent so talking themselves into this vote.
As I said, I have come to your defence multiple times because I know whilst we disagree on mostly everything you are here for the right reasons.
12.45 Kempton - Rock House
1.55 Kempton - Master Chewy
2.30 Kempton - Elixir Du Nutz
2.50 Chepstow - Chambard
Shiskin. What more can be said - the Frank Spencer of horses. Some mares do have em
There is no serious way you believe that people donating to charity is uncaring.
So you must be trolling. Or you're really, really thick, but I don't believe that.
People donating to charity is not uncaring, the fact they have to, is.
We are done here mate. You're a prat.
The Left view that unlimited public spending pays for itself is no different to the US Republicans' view that tax cuts pay for themselves.
In the US, they have considerable political power, in some places, being tied into grass root political activism for the Democratic Party.
People will always face hardships though, always have done, always will do.
When they do, having charity available is better than predators available.
If debt problems were rising and food bank donations were falling, then yes I'd agree that would be a problem.
But debt problems are falling and food bank usage (read: donations) are rising, so that is unquestioningly an excellent thing.
I can't think of something that would show the Tories as more out of touch than tackling IHT. Labour will love to demonstrate how it will benefit Rishi and his friends.
So that is exactly what Rishi will do. He just seems a bit thick.
Under Labour they weren't, but then people who faced unexpected hardships were turning to Wonga instead.
Was that better - or worse?
This should be in the school syllabus -
I always assumed that they charged little or zero interest.
Thinking about it I suppose they would need to charge a high enough rate to allow for defaults, of which there must be many.
That has to be paid for and explains in part the public finances today.
MoonRabbits found mystical/historical/religious crossword that’s way too tough for her
Across
2. Greatest dedication to a single holy carving? (10) 4. The erstwhile lord of the ring. (7) 5. There were more than you could shake a stick at, but Dee only played in this one. (7) 7. Rest for a mystic month. (10) 10. Kelley perhaps owned this man’s hand-written nothing. (7) 13. Veracious and loyal kinsman. (8) 15. Chamber of Dee’s interrogation. (4) 16. Very good residence of the hospitable lord. (6) 17. This grandson stood by his man. (3) 21. The subject of a burly attempt at reform. (8) 25. Quality of these seven daughters. (8) 27. Deferred, but not of this lady’s blessed memory forgotten. (9) 28. He used to see on the road to Damascus. (4) 29. A bit tall, but otherwise what else could he be? (6) 30. Eponymous river. (3) 31. A thesaurus of this language is hard to find. (6)
Down
1. A retreating Greek might call this book holy. (5) 3. Spiritual movements. (7) 4. Royal cousin of blood-soaked Bess. (7) 6. Witness of the destruction by fire. (5) 8. The secret of this wood was its mysterious inner bark. (5) 9. Bibliophile lord apparently known to the Danes! (9) 11. Jonson’s caricature of Dee is hardly this. (6) 12. Dee caused this to ascend the highest heaven of invention. (6) 14. Divine diction. (8) 18. I hear it rumoured a painful harvest for these two. (4) 19. The Light of God. (5) 20. Not uncouth, a philosopher. (5) 22. Soothing ancestor of the Spanish Ambassador. (4) 23. Sulphur. (6) 24. The impecunious Palatine. (5) 26. Before whose countenance Dee wrote. (6)
As I always say, I am usually wrong. Wouldn't use my posts as anything but rambling much of the time (as most posts are).
1) No overdraft.
2) Online
3) Card
4) No cheque book, but free transfer to any other bank account.
5) Cash point access
The above to be free (I think they would charge $5 for a physical card).
The idea was to have virtually no financial criteria for the above. Just the minimum requirements about KYC.
When they hit the political level, a Congressional Committee dropped a bridge on them. All kinds of weird accusations - as if they were the worst kind of loan sharks.
The political consultants explained that the community activists were heavily tied into the community banking thing, and saw stripped down banking facilities as a terrible threat.
That quality food now goes to those who could never have afforded it is one of the better outcomes of recent years.
To be fair, they generally charge less than the most rapacious lenders. But it's still eye watering levels of interest.
TANSTAAFL
Hence why the existence of alternatives (like food banks) to provide support to people who are in need, is an entirely good thing.
People face things breaking down at home, or their car breaking down, or other problems that suddenly blow their finances. Always have, always will.
In the past the only solution was to get into a vicious debt spiral. Now they can turn to support instead.
That's not bad, that's fantastic.
To the extent higher foodbank use is destroying the loan-shark business, yes that's good. To the extent it's caused by hard up people feeling even more hard up than they did before, no it isn't.
All can be happy, I think, now I've put it like this?
But some cannot afford to properly house themselves and their families.
It is the cost of housing which can affect people's ability to spend on other things not the cost of food.
Food is cheap.
Housing is expensive.
So the pre-vaccine lockdowns were necessary, because protecting the ability of the NHS to treat the population as a whole was worth the cost & preventing widespread economic damage from haphazard self-imposed lockdowns with central support for a government run lockdown was also necessary. Those lockdowns should, in retrospect, (and arguably for those of us at the time who looked at the figures clearly) should have come in earlier & harder, because then they would have been shorter & less damaging.
Post-vaccine lockdowns I honestly could go either way on - on net I think they probably caused more damage that they saved, but the effects on NHS staff of being overwhelmed by back to back waves of infections were real. But so was the damaging psychological effects on individuals & economic effects on the country as a whole.
15AStar (from Star Chamber to which John Dee was hauled)
28A Saul?
31A try occult
4d - cousin of Elizabeth of England (pejorative name for the latter) but the obvious one, Mary/Marie Stuart of Scotland, doesn't fit
24d must refer to the Poor Palatines, immigrants from the Holy Roman Empire.
Doesn't mean things can't be better.
And of course its the cost of housing which utterly dwarfs the cost of food. Food is a total distraction when it comes to hardship, but the rise of food banks is fantastic not miserable.
That's a fantastically good thing.
I know people poorer than me, who are spending more actual money (not percentage) on accommodation. Because they are renting (effectively paying a 100% mortgage). Their food spend is pretty much the small charge left over.
Spring budget day announced by Hunt for the 6th March
All the speculation about tax and IHT cuts will be revealed then, but I doubt IHT changes are high in the list of priorities, even the Telegraph said they are 3rd in line for consideration and they have an agenda
Received an e mail today from conservative home which confirms the members backbencher of the year is none other than Jacob Rees Mogg
Says it all about the membership really
I'm paying considerably less on my house now I own my own, than I did when I was renting last year.
Even if I were to remortgage at current rates, that would still be true.
The fact people including the government are standing in the way of building the ten million extra homes we need is the problem.
Plus the "trivial" amount has to be paid back on top of what you couldn't afford so borrowed instead of course.
Getting stuff that you normally pay for, for free, as a temporary solution is a far superior solution than borrowing and having to repay what you couldn't afford plus a "trivial" amount.
And Wonga was making tens of millions in profits, not trivial profits.
Would you legislate so that people never end up in hardship?
The price of rent is determined by Supply and Demand - the fact Landlords make a profit is because the market equilibrium for rental properties results in a higher market price than the monthly mortgage.
And that is not necessarily true everywhere..
The welfare state was not a fix for short-term problems. Wonga was then, food banks are today.
If Sunak sets a Hail Mary, Save My Butt budget, including say the abolition of IHT, as trailed in the media this morning, is there anything to stop the Opposition saying that they will cancel it, and unwind the changes to restore the Status Quo Ante?
(Clearly that becomes untenable after a period of time).
Do we have any examples of incoming Governments unwinding previous measures in this way, except for when a Court decrees it?
"Total household debt in the UK rose sharply from the late 1990s up until the financial crisis began in 2008.
"Debt as a proportion of household income rose from 85% in 1996 to 156% at its peak in 2008.
"During the 2008/09 recession, banks were much more reluctant to lend money and consumers were less inclined to take on credit. As a result, the household debt-to-income ratio fell to 128% by late 2015. Starting in early 2016, growth in household debt levels accelerated, leading to the debt-to-income ratio to increase from 132% in Q4 2015 to 136% in Q4 2017, before falling to 132% in late 2019.
"During the coronavirus pandemic, total household debt and the debt-to-income ratio rose slowly, driven by rising mortgage debt but tempered by consumers repaying unsecured debt. From Q1 2022, the debt-to-income ratio started falling and reached 129% in Q1 2023, partly due to higher interest rates."
The incoming Coalition government cancelled many of Brown and Darling's measures, including for example a National Insurance rise.
But not every free market is healthy at all times.
I used to own a shared equity flat. Built on Crown Estate land. To subsidise housing, the last 40% couldn’t be sold or have rent charged against it.
All the original owners had moved out and were subletting - the delta between the cheap price and letting rate was very nice…