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?
Yes. In the US, issuing banking licenses is very, very political. With a side order of politics and a sprinkle of politics on top.
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?
I doubt they could make it retrospective to measures introduced on the 6th March and implemented before a GE
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.
Budgets have been on a Wednesday for the past 20 or so years IIRC; previously they used to be traditionally on a Tuesday.
Florida shooting: Sister fatally shot over Christmas present row https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67825635 Two teenage brothers have been arrested after their sister was shot and died during a row over Christmas presents. The 23-year-old was shot in the chest by her teenage brother while she had her 10-month-old son in a carrier, the Florida sheriff's office said. The boy was then shot by his older brother who took out his own gun, Pinellas County Sheriff's Office said. It added that the shooting followed an argument over who was getting more presents. Sheriff Bob Gualtieri told reporters the older teenager, aged 15, ran from the scene and tossed his gun away. The younger brother, aged 14, was taken to hospital in a stable condition and will be taken into custody when he is released, police said...
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.
That's not how the rental market works; there is more to it than market rent levels, and not everyne follows them anyway - eg a lot of landlords froze rent levels for a year or three during Covid, or wrote off debts.
Also eg the risks of damage by retaining an existing responsible / knowledgeable tenant are far less than taking a gamble on a new one, and a change of tenants whilst generating a return to market-rent-or-thereabouts also requires perhaps 3-6 months worth of rent to be invested in the property, fees etc.
That then takes a number of years to pay off in a rent increased by perhaps 10-15%.
That's partly why every survey of rent levels in the media based on current advertised rents for the 1-2% of properties on the market consists of bunk.
And don't miss that rent level vs mortgage level is always a fake comparison, since mortgages don't cover maintenance, investment in eg new kitchens and bathrooms, carpets etc, then insurance and all the rest of the expenses.
Florida shooting: Sister fatally shot over Christmas present row https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67825635 Two teenage brothers have been arrested after their sister was shot and died during a row over Christmas presents. The 23-year-old was shot in the chest by her teenage brother while she had her 10-month-old son in a carrier, the Florida sheriff's office said. The boy was then shot by his older brother who took out his own gun, Pinellas County Sheriff's Office said. It added that the shooting followed an argument over who was getting more presents. Sheriff Bob Gualtieri told reporters the older teenager, aged 15, ran from the scene and tossed his gun away. The younger brother, aged 14, was taken to hospital in a stable condition and will be taken into custody when he is released, police said...
Words fail me. It's the sheer bloody pointlessness of it all.
Florida shooting: Sister fatally shot over Christmas present row https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67825635 Two teenage brothers have been arrested after their sister was shot and died during a row over Christmas presents. The 23-year-old was shot in the chest by her teenage brother while she had her 10-month-old son in a carrier, the Florida sheriff's office said. The boy was then shot by his older brother who took out his own gun, Pinellas County Sheriff's Office said. It added that the shooting followed an argument over who was getting more presents. Sheriff Bob Gualtieri told reporters the older teenager, aged 15, ran from the scene and tossed his gun away. The younger brother, aged 14, was taken to hospital in a stable condition and will be taken into custody when he is released, police said...
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?
I doubt they could make it retrospective to measures introduced on the 6th March and implemented before a GE
No - as both Bart and myself pointed out earlier - you would simply replace inheritance tax with something else - you could say it's a capital gain so you could simply subject it to capital gains tax or you could say it's income and subject it to income tax.
In both cases it would raise far more money than inheritance tax currently does - would meet Labours criteria of being a progressive tax and would be hard to argue against..
Inheritance tax is one of those areas where changing it would be a very brave thing to do as there are easier options which raise far more but can't be implemented because inheritance tax currently exists. Remove it and suddenly those options become implementable...
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?
Its an interesting concept. A giveaway budget immediately before an election everyone expects them to lose is basically a fantasy budget - won't come into effect.
Labour need to say not that they will overturn the budget proposals. Simply have their own shadow budget draft ready and read off that. Tory budget - take from the poor to give to the rich. Labour budget - get our services functioning again. etc
Florida shooting: Sister fatally shot over Christmas present row https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67825635 Two teenage brothers have been arrested after their sister was shot and died during a row over Christmas presents. The 23-year-old was shot in the chest by her teenage brother while she had her 10-month-old son in a carrier, the Florida sheriff's office said. The boy was then shot by his older brother who took out his own gun, Pinellas County Sheriff's Office said. It added that the shooting followed an argument over who was getting more presents. Sheriff Bob Gualtieri told reporters the older teenager, aged 15, ran from the scene and tossed his gun away. The younger brother, aged 14, was taken to hospital in a stable condition and will be taken into custody when he is released, police said...
What the fuckity fuck is wrong with America?
(Other than the 2nd Amendment, obviously.)
Christmas lunches are always tricky with the odd family disagreement.
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?
I doubt they could make it retrospective to measures introduced on the 6th March and implemented before a GE
No - as both Bart and myself pointed out earlier - you would simply replace inheritance tax with something else - you could say it's a capital gain so you could simply subject it to capital gains tax or you could say it's income and subject it to income tax.
In both cases it would raise far more money than inheritance tax currently does - would meet Labours criteria of being a progressive tax and would be hard to argue against..
Inheritance tax is one of those areas where changing it would be a very brave thing to do as there are easier options which raise far more but can't be implemented because inheritance tax currently exists. Remove it and suddenly those options become implementable...
I very much support that change but my point is that any tax change including IHT that has taken place before a GE a new government could not reclaim the tax benefits already received
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.
Bart, are you saying that there were no charities operating in the UK before 2010? Are you bonkers? Shelter was founded in 1966. The Trussell Trust was founded in 1997. FareShare was founded in 1994 by Crisis. Crisis were founded in 1967. Church Action on Poverty was founded in 1982.
The welfare state has multiple mechanisms to support people with short-term problems, as has been true for decades. Councils can provide emergency funds and also have specific help for housing costs. Councils can also provide interest-free loans. The DWP can provide interest-free advances on universal credit. The DWP also has budgeting advances and budgeting loans.
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.
PB's equivalent of the Godwin law is that all discussions lead eventually to housing.
Florida shooting: Sister fatally shot over Christmas present row https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67825635 Two teenage brothers have been arrested after their sister was shot and died during a row over Christmas presents. The 23-year-old was shot in the chest by her teenage brother while she had her 10-month-old son in a carrier, the Florida sheriff's office said. The boy was then shot by his older brother who took out his own gun, Pinellas County Sheriff's Office said. It added that the shooting followed an argument over who was getting more presents. Sheriff Bob Gualtieri told reporters the older teenager, aged 15, ran from the scene and tossed his gun away. The younger brother, aged 14, was taken to hospital in a stable condition and will be taken into custody when he is released, police said...
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?
I doubt they could make it retrospective to measures introduced on the 6th March and implemented before a GE
No - as both Bart and myself pointed out earlier - you would simply replace inheritance tax with something else - you could say it's a capital gain so you could simply subject it to capital gains tax or you could say it's income and subject it to income tax.
In both cases it would raise far more money than inheritance tax currently does - would meet Labours criteria of being a progressive tax and would be hard to argue against..
Inheritance tax is one of those areas where changing it would be a very brave thing to do as there are easier options which raise far more but can't be implemented because inheritance tax currently exists. Remove it and suddenly those options become implementable...
Given the choice, I will pay my tax after my life rather than during, thanks all the same.
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.
Bart, are you saying that there were no charities operating in the UK before 2010? Are you bonkers? Shelter was founded in 1966. The Trussell Trust was founded in 1997. FareShare was founded in 1994 by Crisis. Crisis were founded in 1967. Church Action on Poverty was founded in 1982.
The welfare state has multiple mechanisms to support people with short-term problems, as has been true for decades. Councils can provide emergency funds and also have specific help for housing costs. Councils can also provide interest-free loans. The DWP can provide interest-free advances on universal credit. The DWP also has budgeting advances and budgeting loans.
There were charities yes, but very, very limited supply of aid for people facing too much month at the end of their money.
Which is precisely where firms like Wonga stepped in, to fill the void, and were making tens of millions in profits from desperate people who were in vicious debt spirals.
Since then, charitable donations to the likes of Trussel Trust have utterly surged and Wonga have gone out of business.
Loans are not as good a solution to people who face sudden unexpected hardship as charitable safety nets are, since loans need to be repaid - even interest free loans.
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?
I doubt they could make it retrospective to measures introduced on the 6th March and implemented before a GE
No - as both Bart and myself pointed out earlier - you would simply replace inheritance tax with something else - you could say it's a capital gain so you could simply subject it to capital gains tax or you could say it's income and subject it to income tax.
In both cases it would raise far more money than inheritance tax currently does - would meet Labours criteria of being a progressive tax and would be hard to argue against..
Inheritance tax is one of those areas where changing it would be a very brave thing to do as there are easier options which raise far more but can't be implemented because inheritance tax currently exists. Remove it and suddenly those options become implementable...
I very much support that change but my point is that any tax change including IHT that has taken place before a GE a new government could not reclaim the tax benefits already received
Why not? Just cancel them, and blame Mr Sunak. It's not as if folk are going to die earlier to spite the new Chencellor - or so one hopes. Mind, the way some Tories talk as if inheritance is their right and indeed only way tdo keep their God-given divine right to a superior socio-economic status, one also hopes that Inspector Morse is taking a keen interest in any unexpected deceases.
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.
Bart, are you saying that there were no charities operating in the UK before 2010? Are you bonkers? Shelter was founded in 1966. The Trussell Trust was founded in 1997. FareShare was founded in 1994 by Crisis. Crisis were founded in 1967. Church Action on Poverty was founded in 1982.
The welfare state has multiple mechanisms to support people with short-term problems, as has been true for decades. Councils can provide emergency funds and also have specific help for housing costs. Councils can also provide interest-free loans. The DWP can provide interest-free advances on universal credit. The DWP also has budgeting advances and budgeting loans.
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.
Budgets have been on a Wednesday for the past 20 or so years IIRC; previously they used to be traditionally on a Tuesday.
It's quite hard to unlearn what you absorbed at a particular age. Derby day is a Wednesday. Budget Day is a Tuesday. Boat race is a Saturday. Kick off is 3 pm Saturday. Shops close on Good Friday except for fish, no papers, no racing. Test matches go Thursday to Tuesday with no play on the Sunday. Shops close for half day on Thursday. Early closing in central London is Saturday. Christmas decorations go up about 21st December. Tree bought for 7/6 (37p) on Saturday before Christmas. Entire nation stops for FA Cup final, which, amazingly, is broadcast live. On BBC and ITV.
Florida shooting: Sister fatally shot over Christmas present row https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67825635 Two teenage brothers have been arrested after their sister was shot and died during a row over Christmas presents. The 23-year-old was shot in the chest by her teenage brother while she had her 10-month-old son in a carrier, the Florida sheriff's office said. The boy was then shot by his older brother who took out his own gun, Pinellas County Sheriff's Office said. It added that the shooting followed an argument over who was getting more presents. Sheriff Bob Gualtieri told reporters the older teenager, aged 15, ran from the scene and tossed his gun away. The younger brother, aged 14, was taken to hospital in a stable condition and will be taken into custody when he is released, police said...
The lesson being that the 10-month old should also have had a gun.
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?
No. Because neither of those two are able to be realistically legislated against. It'd be like trying to legislate that some far away country was guaranteed to be safe, and who'd be so ridiculous as to try that?
I was of course being tongue-in-cheek about my suggestion for a free weekly issue of healthy food to every person or household but there is some logic in it.
We have heard the idea of a Universal Income being mooted in recent years; a Universal Food issue would be another flavour (sorry) of that. It could be used to try to nudge people away from unhealthy, high-sugar, ultra-processed foods; not complusion but encouragement.
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.
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.
Budgets have been on a Wednesday for the past 20 or so years IIRC; previously they used to be traditionally on a Tuesday.
It's quite hard to unlearn what you absorbed at a particular age. Derby day is a Wednesday. Budget Day is a Tuesday. Boat race is a Saturday. Kick off is 3 pm Saturday. Shops close on Good Friday except for fish, no papers, no racing. Test matches go Thursday to Tuesday with no play on the Sunday. Shops close for half day on Thursday. Early closing in central London is Saturday. Christmas decorations go up about 21st December. Tree bought for 7/6 (37p) on Saturday before Christmas. Entire nation stops for FA Cup final, which, amazingly, is broadcast live. On BBC and ITV.
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?
I doubt they could make it retrospective to measures introduced on the 6th March and implemented before a GE
No - as both Bart and myself pointed out earlier - you would simply replace inheritance tax with something else - you could say it's a capital gain so you could simply subject it to capital gains tax or you could say it's income and subject it to income tax.
In both cases it would raise far more money than inheritance tax currently does - would meet Labours criteria of being a progressive tax and would be hard to argue against..
Inheritance tax is one of those areas where changing it would be a very brave thing to do as there are easier options which raise far more but can't be implemented because inheritance tax currently exists. Remove it and suddenly those options become implementable...
I very much support that change but my point is that any tax change including IHT that has taken place before a GE a new government could not reclaim the tax benefits already received
Indeed not, but why on earth would the Tories make an IHT repeal take effect before the GE? Much more effective to set it up as "vote for us and you'll get this change, vote Labour and it'll never happen" than for it to be something voters see as their already having been given and so not relevant to their choice of who to vote for. (For that matter, probably as effective to simply stick it in the manifesto.)
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?
No. Because neither of those two are able to be realistically legislated against. It'd be like trying to legislate that some far away country was guaranteed to be safe, and who'd be so ridiculous as to try that?
I was of course being tongue-in-cheek about my suggestion for a free weekly issue of healthy food to every person or household but there is some logic in it.
We have heard the idea of a Universal Income being mooted in recent years; a Universal Food issue would be another flavour (sorry) of that. It could be used to try to nudge people away from unhealthy, high-sugar, ultra-processed foods; not complusion but encouragement.
That's the point, you can't legislate against breakdowns or hardships, they've always existed and always will.
A family suddenly burdened with an unexpected £500 bill can end up in hardship. There's nothing that can be done to prevent that. Having charity there, rather than predators there, when that happens is a good thing.
There will always be a need for either loan sharks or food banks or something like that, no matter what. Better the latter than the former.
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?
I doubt they could make it retrospective to measures introduced on the 6th March and implemented before a GE
No - as both Bart and myself pointed out earlier - you would simply replace inheritance tax with something else - you could say it's a capital gain so you could simply subject it to capital gains tax or you could say it's income and subject it to income tax.
In both cases it would raise far more money than inheritance tax currently does - would meet Labours criteria of being a progressive tax and would be hard to argue against..
Inheritance tax is one of those areas where changing it would be a very brave thing to do as there are easier options which raise far more but can't be implemented because inheritance tax currently exists. Remove it and suddenly those options become implementable...
I very much support that change but my point is that any tax change including IHT that has taken place before a GE a new government could not reclaim the tax benefits already received
Why not? Just cancel them, and blame Mr Sunak. It's not as if folk are going to die earlier to spite the new Chencellor - or so one hopes. Mind, the way some Tories talk as if inheritance is their right and indeed only way tdo keep their God-given divine right to a superior socio-economic status, one also hopes that Inspector Morse is taking a keen interest in any unexpected deceases.
I do not support a change in IHT which gives more to the wealthy and as others have said beneficiaries could be taxed at their normal tax rate on any inheritance
However, if a change is implemented in April and an estate is sold before a GE, possibly in October, then the incoming government could not recover that benefit
‘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 fill in the missing steps between steal underpants and profit)....
for those that don't get the reference it's from South Park
The problem with wine in non standard sizes are very limited rage, and often not short of the price of a full bottle.
I tend to drink a bottle over a few days. Often reds are better the next day for it.
This is the best packaging. Gin in sachets, and nice gin it is too.
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.
Budgets have been on a Wednesday for the past 20 or so years IIRC; previously they used to be traditionally on a Tuesday.
It's quite hard to unlearn what you absorbed at a particular age. Derby day is a Wednesday. Budget Day is a Tuesday. Boat race is a Saturday. Kick off is 3 pm Saturday. Shops close on Good Friday except for fish, no papers, no racing. Test matches go Thursday to Tuesday with no play on the Sunday. Shops close for half day on Thursday. Early closing in central London is Saturday. Christmas decorations go up about 21st December. Tree bought for 7/6 (37p) on Saturday before Christmas. Entire nation stops for FA Cup final, which, amazingly, is broadcast live. On BBC and ITV.
Shops close for half day on a Wednesday....
Early-closing day varied by region (Thursday for us). I'd like to imagine grand committees debating the evidence for one day rather than another.
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?
I doubt they could make it retrospective to measures introduced on the 6th March and implemented before a GE
No - as both Bart and myself pointed out earlier - you would simply replace inheritance tax with something else - you could say it's a capital gain so you could simply subject it to capital gains tax or you could say it's income and subject it to income tax.
In both cases it would raise far more money than inheritance tax currently does - would meet Labours criteria of being a progressive tax and would be hard to argue against..
Inheritance tax is one of those areas where changing it would be a very brave thing to do as there are easier options which raise far more but can't be implemented because inheritance tax currently exists. Remove it and suddenly those options become implementable...
I very much support that change but my point is that any tax change including IHT that has taken place before a GE a new government could not reclaim the tax benefits already received
Why not? Just cancel them, and blame Mr Sunak. It's not as if folk are going to die earlier to spite the new Chencellor - or so one hopes. Mind, the way some Tories talk as if inheritance is their right and indeed only way tdo keep their God-given divine right to a superior socio-economic status, one also hopes that Inspector Morse is taking a keen interest in any unexpected deceases.
I do not support a change in IHT which gives more to the wealthy and as others have said beneficiaries could be taxed at their normal tax rate on any inheritance
However, if a change is implemented in April and an estate is sold before a GE, possibly in October, then the incoming government could not recover that benefit
Okay, but remember it's usually the date of death not probate that determines such things: certainly, the allowance on the house passing to children is determined by date of death.
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.
Because home ownership is falling.
Actually home ownership rates in 2019 were higher than in 2014, even though private debt was lower.
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?
I doubt they could make it retrospective to measures introduced on the 6th March and implemented before a GE
No - as both Bart and myself pointed out earlier - you would simply replace inheritance tax with something else - you could say it's a capital gain so you could simply subject it to capital gains tax or you could say it's income and subject it to income tax.
In both cases it would raise far more money than inheritance tax currently does - would meet Labours criteria of being a progressive tax and would be hard to argue against..
Inheritance tax is one of those areas where changing it would be a very brave thing to do as there are easier options which raise far more but can't be implemented because inheritance tax currently exists. Remove it and suddenly those options become implementable...
I very much support that change but my point is that any tax change including IHT that has taken place before a GE a new government could not reclaim the tax benefits already received
Indeed not, but why on earth would the Tories make an IHT repeal take effect before the GE? Much more effective to set it up as "vote for us and you'll get this change, vote Labour and it'll never happen" than for it to be something voters see as their already having been given and so not relevant to their choice of who to vote for. (For that matter, probably as effective to simply stick it in the manifesto.)
You make a good point to be fair and possibly more likely
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.
There's some nuance in the issue of foodbanks, yes, but much of their increasing popularity will almost certainly be due to greater levels of financial distress amongst the badly off. Even if some of it is replacing loan sharks the situation as a whole, ie foodbanks on the rise, cannot be described as "fantastic". This is not an apt use of that word. Fantastic would be people not needing to use either charity or loan sharks to feed themselves and their families.
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?
No. Because neither of those two are able to be realistically legislated against. It'd be like trying to legislate that some far away country was guaranteed to be safe, and who'd be so ridiculous as to try that?
I was of course being tongue-in-cheek about my suggestion for a free weekly issue of healthy food to every person or household but there is some logic in it.
We have heard the idea of a Universal Income being mooted in recent years; a Universal Food issue would be another flavour (sorry) of that. It could be used to try to nudge people away from unhealthy, high-sugar, ultra-processed foods; not complusion but encouragement.
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.
Bart, are you saying that there were no charities operating in the UK before 2010? Are you bonkers? Shelter was founded in 1966. The Trussell Trust was founded in 1997. FareShare was founded in 1994 by Crisis. Crisis were founded in 1967. Church Action on Poverty was founded in 1982.
The welfare state has multiple mechanisms to support people with short-term problems, as has been true for decades. Councils can provide emergency funds and also have specific help for housing costs. Councils can also provide interest-free loans. The DWP can provide interest-free advances on universal credit. The DWP also has budgeting advances and budgeting loans.
There were charities yes, but very, very limited supply of aid for people facing too much month at the end of their money.
Which is precisely where firms like Wonga stepped in, to fill the void, and were making tens of millions in profits from desperate people who were in vicious debt spirals.
Since then, charitable donations to the likes of Trussel Trust have utterly surged and Wonga have gone out of business.
Loans are not as good a solution to people who face sudden unexpected hardship as charitable safety nets are, since loans need to be repaid - even interest free loans.
This is fantasy, Bart. Show me a source saying there was a “very, very limited supply of aid” before 2010. Show me a source saying there was any causal relationship between the rise of food banks and Wonga going out of business.
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.
There's some nuance in the issue of foodbanks, yes, but much of their increasing popularity will almost certainly be due to greater levels of financial distress amongst the badly off. Even if some of it is replacing loan sharks the situation as a whole, ie foodbanks on the rise, cannot be described as "fantastic". This is not an apt use of that word. Fantastic would be people not needing to use either charity or loan sharks to feed themselves and their families.
Don't be ridiculous, people always have and always will run into hardship.
If someone's car breaks down and it costs £500 to fix it, then that's going to cause hardship.
In that situation, would you rather they borrow money from Wonga to get through to next payday, or go to a foodbank and get some charity to take them through to next payday?
Their increased popularity is due to awareness and people donating to them, rather than food going to landfill. That's a good thing, there's no downside.
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?
No. Because neither of those two are able to be realistically legislated against. It'd be like trying to legislate that some far away country was guaranteed to be safe, and who'd be so ridiculous as to try that?
I was of course being tongue-in-cheek about my suggestion for a free weekly issue of healthy food to every person or household but there is some logic in it.
We have heard the idea of a Universal Income being mooted in recent years; a Universal Food issue would be another flavour (sorry) of that. It could be used to try to nudge people away from unhealthy, high-sugar, ultra-processed foods; not complusion but encouragement.
That's the point, you can't legislate against breakdowns or hardships, they've always existed and always will.
A family suddenly burdened with an unexpected £500 bill can end up in hardship. There's nothing that can be done to prevent that. Having charity there, rather than predators there, when that happens is a good thing.
There will always be a need for either loan sharks or food banks or something like that, no matter what. Better the latter than the former.
True, but the number of households in the population who find themselves in need of charity when that unexpected bill comes in depends on how close to the edge they were living at that point. So increased demand for food banks suggests that more people are in more marginal financial situations than was the case in past decades, which suggests a systematic problem which the government should act to deal with, not something that we should be OK with merely having charities around to patch up the symptoms afterwards.
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?
No. Because neither of those two are able to be realistically legislated against. It'd be like trying to legislate that some far away country was guaranteed to be safe, and who'd be so ridiculous as to try that?
I was of course being tongue-in-cheek about my suggestion for a free weekly issue of healthy food to every person or household but there is some logic in it.
We have heard the idea of a Universal Income being mooted in recent years; a Universal Food issue would be another flavour (sorry) of that. It could be used to try to nudge people away from unhealthy, high-sugar, ultra-processed foods; not complusion but encouragement.
The point of quality of food is a good one that you raise, as it is important more generally - it is difficult to get a proper diet in many poor areas, and relatively expensive (fruit and vegetables, in particular).
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.
Budgets have been on a Wednesday for the past 20 or so years IIRC; previously they used to be traditionally on a Tuesday.
It's quite hard to unlearn what you absorbed at a particular age. Derby day is a Wednesday. Budget Day is a Tuesday. Boat race is a Saturday. Kick off is 3 pm Saturday. Shops close on Good Friday except for fish, no papers, no racing. Test matches go Thursday to Tuesday with no play on the Sunday. Shops close for half day on Thursday. Early closing in central London is Saturday. Christmas decorations go up about 21st December. Tree bought for 7/6 (37p) on Saturday before Christmas. Entire nation stops for FA Cup final, which, amazingly, is broadcast live. On BBC and ITV.
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.
Bart, are you saying that there were no charities operating in the UK before 2010? Are you bonkers? Shelter was founded in 1966. The Trussell Trust was founded in 1997. FareShare was founded in 1994 by Crisis. Crisis were founded in 1967. Church Action on Poverty was founded in 1982.
The welfare state has multiple mechanisms to support people with short-term problems, as has been true for decades. Councils can provide emergency funds and also have specific help for housing costs. Councils can also provide interest-free loans. The DWP can provide interest-free advances on universal credit. The DWP also has budgeting advances and budgeting loans.
There were charities yes, but very, very limited supply of aid for people facing too much month at the end of their money.
Which is precisely where firms like Wonga stepped in, to fill the void, and were making tens of millions in profits from desperate people who were in vicious debt spirals.
Since then, charitable donations to the likes of Trussel Trust have utterly surged and Wonga have gone out of business.
Loans are not as good a solution to people who face sudden unexpected hardship as charitable safety nets are, since loans need to be repaid - even interest free loans.
This is fantasy, Bart. Show me a source saying there was a “very, very limited supply of aid” before 2010. Show me a source saying there was any causal relationship between the rise of food banks and Wonga going out of business.
First show me a source saying that the Trussel Trust was sending 99% of its donations to landfill rather than giving them to people in need before 2010.
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?
I doubt they could make it retrospective to measures introduced on the 6th March and implemented before a GE
No - as both Bart and myself pointed out earlier - you would simply replace inheritance tax with something else - you could say it's a capital gain so you could simply subject it to capital gains tax or you could say it's income and subject it to income tax.
In both cases it would raise far more money than inheritance tax currently does - would meet Labours criteria of being a progressive tax and would be hard to argue against..
Inheritance tax is one of those areas where changing it would be a very brave thing to do as there are easier options which raise far more but can't be implemented because inheritance tax currently exists. Remove it and suddenly those options become implementable...
I very much support that change but my point is that any tax change including IHT that has taken place before a GE a new government could not reclaim the tax benefits already received
Why not? Just cancel them, and blame Mr Sunak. It's not as if folk are going to die earlier to spite the new Chencellor - or so one hopes. Mind, the way some Tories talk as if inheritance is their right and indeed only way tdo keep their God-given divine right to a superior socio-economic status, one also hopes that Inspector Morse is taking a keen interest in any unexpected deceases.
I do not support a change in IHT which gives more to the wealthy and as others have said beneficiaries could be taxed at their normal tax rate on any inheritance
However, if a change is implemented in April and an estate is sold before a GE, possibly in October, then the incoming government could not recover that benefit
Okay, but remember it's usually the date of death not probate that determines such things: certainly, the allowance on the house passing to children is determined by date of death.
Indeed and it is unlikely to arise due to the short time span from April to the GE in May or October
As @pm215 has suggested any IHT change is likely to be planned post the GE or a manifesto commitment
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.
31 across is obviously going to be enochian. “A thesaurus of this language is hard to find. (6)” Let me count the letters.
Nope too many letters.
Is the Thesaurus hard to find because it’s in a hidden cavern full of snakes?
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?
No. Because neither of those two are able to be realistically legislated against. It'd be like trying to legislate that some far away country was guaranteed to be safe, and who'd be so ridiculous as to try that?
I was of course being tongue-in-cheek about my suggestion for a free weekly issue of healthy food to every person or household but there is some logic in it.
We have heard the idea of a Universal Income being mooted in recent years; a Universal Food issue would be another flavour (sorry) of that. It could be used to try to nudge people away from unhealthy, high-sugar, ultra-processed foods; not complusion but encouragement.
That's the point, you can't legislate against breakdowns or hardships, they've always existed and always will.
A family suddenly burdened with an unexpected £500 bill can end up in hardship. There's nothing that can be done to prevent that. Having charity there, rather than predators there, when that happens is a good thing.
There will always be a need for either loan sharks or food banks or something like that, no matter what. Better the latter than the former.
True, but the number of households in the population who find themselves in need of charity when that unexpected bill comes in depends on how close to the edge they were living at that point. So increased demand for food banks suggests that more people are in more marginal financial situations than was the case in past decades, which suggests a systematic problem which the government should act to deal with, not something that we should be OK with merely having charities around to patch up the symptoms afterwards.
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.
There's some nuance in the issue of foodbanks, yes, but much of their increasing popularity will almost certainly be due to greater levels of financial distress amongst the badly off. Even if some of it is replacing loan sharks the situation as a whole, ie foodbanks on the rise, cannot be described as "fantastic". This is not an apt use of that word. Fantastic would be people not needing to use either charity or loan sharks to feed themselves and their families.
Don't be ridiculous, people always have and always will run into hardship.
If someone's car breaks down and it costs £500 to fix it, then that's going to cause hardship.
In that situation, would you rather they borrow money from Wonga to get through to next payday, or go to a foodbank and get some charity to take them through to next payday?
Their increased popularity is due to awareness and people donating to them, rather than food going to landfill. That's a good thing, there's no downside.
The key measure here is arguably how much people have saved for emergencies. There has been a deterioration in this measure in recent years - so there is clearly a problem, which feeds eventually into short term crises and foodbank use.
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?
No. Because neither of those two are able to be realistically legislated against. It'd be like trying to legislate that some far away country was guaranteed to be safe, and who'd be so ridiculous as to try that?
I was of course being tongue-in-cheek about my suggestion for a free weekly issue of healthy food to every person or household but there is some logic in it.
We have heard the idea of a Universal Income being mooted in recent years; a Universal Food issue would be another flavour (sorry) of that. It could be used to try to nudge people away from unhealthy, high-sugar, ultra-processed foods; not complusion but encouragement.
That's the point, you can't legislate against breakdowns or hardships, they've always existed and always will.
A family suddenly burdened with an unexpected £500 bill can end up in hardship. There's nothing that can be done to prevent that. Having charity there, rather than predators there, when that happens is a good thing.
There will always be a need for either loan sharks or food banks or something like that, no matter what. Better the latter than the former.
True, but the number of households in the population who find themselves in need of charity when that unexpected bill comes in depends on how close to the edge they were living at that point. So increased demand for food banks suggests that more people are in more marginal financial situations than was the case in past decades, which suggests a systematic problem which the government should act to deal with, not something that we should be OK with merely having charities around to patch up the symptoms afterwards.
Where is the evidence for increased demand?
All we have is the evidence for increased supply of donations.
Unless the donations were previously going to landfill, supply of donations = what is given out.
Demand is infinite, it is supply that is finite. Number of parcels = donations, not demand.
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.
Bart, are you saying that there were no charities operating in the UK before 2010? Are you bonkers? Shelter was founded in 1966. The Trussell Trust was founded in 1997. FareShare was founded in 1994 by Crisis. Crisis were founded in 1967. Church Action on Poverty was founded in 1982.
The welfare state has multiple mechanisms to support people with short-term problems, as has been true for decades. Councils can provide emergency funds and also have specific help for housing costs. Councils can also provide interest-free loans. The DWP can provide interest-free advances on universal credit. The DWP also has budgeting advances and budgeting loans.
The RNLI was founded in 1864
Charities are as old as the hills. Barts was founded in 1123. Until the modern state almost all education, health and relief of poverty was in the voluntary and religious sector.
BTW it would be interesting to know what percentage of total food consumption in the UK is obtained from charitable/voluntary outfits of any sort. My wild guess is it is well under 1%. Any data?
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.
31 across is obviously going to be enochian. “A thesaurus of this language is hard to find. (6)” Let me count the letters.
Nope too many letters.
Is the Thesaurus hard to find because it’s in a hidden cavern full of snakes?
Awww. What's wrong with occult? An occult language is hidden/unknown by definition. (But I'd only pencil it in till I was sure it fitted other clues.)
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.
Bart, are you saying that there were no charities operating in the UK before 2010? Are you bonkers? Shelter was founded in 1966. The Trussell Trust was founded in 1997. FareShare was founded in 1994 by Crisis. Crisis were founded in 1967. Church Action on Poverty was founded in 1982.
The welfare state has multiple mechanisms to support people with short-term problems, as has been true for decades. Councils can provide emergency funds and also have specific help for housing costs. Councils can also provide interest-free loans. The DWP can provide interest-free advances on universal credit. The DWP also has budgeting advances and budgeting loans.
There were charities yes, but very, very limited supply of aid for people facing too much month at the end of their money.
Which is precisely where firms like Wonga stepped in, to fill the void, and were making tens of millions in profits from desperate people who were in vicious debt spirals.
Since then, charitable donations to the likes of Trussel Trust have utterly surged and Wonga have gone out of business.
Loans are not as good a solution to people who face sudden unexpected hardship as charitable safety nets are, since loans need to be repaid - even interest free loans.
This is fantasy, Bart. Show me a source saying there was a “very, very limited supply of aid” before 2010. Show me a source saying there was any causal relationship between the rise of food banks and Wonga going out of business.
First show me a source saying that the Trussel Trust was sending 99% of its donations to landfill rather than giving them to people in need before 2010.
Why? I’ve not made that claim.
You’ve made a claim. Show your evidence.
Given you’ve already claimed there was no charity 1997-2010 and that the welfare state has no emergency funding systems, both errant nonsense, I presume you don’t have any evidence.
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.
Budgets have been on a Wednesday for the past 20 or so years IIRC; previously they used to be traditionally on a Tuesday.
It's quite hard to unlearn what you absorbed at a particular age. Derby day is a Wednesday. Budget Day is a Tuesday. Boat race is a Saturday. Kick off is 3 pm Saturday. Shops close on Good Friday except for fish, no papers, no racing. Test matches go Thursday to Tuesday with no play on the Sunday. Shops close for half day on Thursday. Early closing in central London is Saturday. Christmas decorations go up about 21st December. Tree bought for 7/6 (37p) on Saturday before Christmas. Entire nation stops for FA Cup final, which, amazingly, is broadcast live. On BBC and ITV.
Shops close for half day on a Wednesday....
The pubs are only open all day on market day.
Fish and chips are wrapped in newspaper and cost 2/6 (12.5p).
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.
Bart, are you saying that there were no charities operating in the UK before 2010? Are you bonkers? Shelter was founded in 1966. The Trussell Trust was founded in 1997. FareShare was founded in 1994 by Crisis. Crisis were founded in 1967. Church Action on Poverty was founded in 1982.
The welfare state has multiple mechanisms to support people with short-term problems, as has been true for decades. Councils can provide emergency funds and also have specific help for housing costs. Councils can also provide interest-free loans. The DWP can provide interest-free advances on universal credit. The DWP also has budgeting advances and budgeting loans.
There were charities yes, but very, very limited supply of aid for people facing too much month at the end of their money.
Which is precisely where firms like Wonga stepped in, to fill the void, and were making tens of millions in profits from desperate people who were in vicious debt spirals.
Since then, charitable donations to the likes of Trussel Trust have utterly surged and Wonga have gone out of business.
Loans are not as good a solution to people who face sudden unexpected hardship as charitable safety nets are, since loans need to be repaid - even interest free loans.
This is fantasy, Bart. Show me a source saying there was a “very, very limited supply of aid” before 2010. Show me a source saying there was any causal relationship between the rise of food banks and Wonga going out of business.
First show me a source saying that the Trussel Trust was sending 99% of its donations to landfill rather than giving them to people in need before 2010.
Why? I’ve not made that claim.
You’ve made a claim. Show your evidence.
Given you’ve already claimed there was no charity 1997-2010 and that the welfare state has no emergency funding systems, both errant nonsense, I presume you don’t have any evidence.
I never said no charity, I said less charity.
There's more charity (like food bank donations) now.
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.
Bart, are you saying that there were no charities operating in the UK before 2010? Are you bonkers? Shelter was founded in 1966. The Trussell Trust was founded in 1997. FareShare was founded in 1994 by Crisis. Crisis were founded in 1967. Church Action on Poverty was founded in 1982.
The welfare state has multiple mechanisms to support people with short-term problems, as has been true for decades. Councils can provide emergency funds and also have specific help for housing costs. Councils can also provide interest-free loans. The DWP can provide interest-free advances on universal credit. The DWP also has budgeting advances and budgeting loans.
There were charities yes, but very, very limited supply of aid for people facing too much month at the end of their money.
Which is precisely where firms like Wonga stepped in, to fill the void, and were making tens of millions in profits from desperate people who were in vicious debt spirals.
Since then, charitable donations to the likes of Trussel Trust have utterly surged and Wonga have gone out of business.
Loans are not as good a solution to people who face sudden unexpected hardship as charitable safety nets are, since loans need to be repaid - even interest free loans.
This is fantasy, Bart. Show me a source saying there was a “very, very limited supply of aid” before 2010. Show me a source saying there was any causal relationship between the rise of food banks and Wonga going out of business.
First show me a source saying that the Trussel Trust was sending 99% of its donations to landfill rather than giving them to people in need before 2010.
Why? I’ve not made that claim.
You’ve made a claim. Show your evidence.
Given you’ve already claimed there was no charity 1997-2010 and that the welfare state has no emergency funding systems, both errant nonsense, I presume you don’t have any evidence.
I never said no charity, I said less charity.
There's more charity now.
You said, “In the past the only solution was to get into a vicious debt spiral.” That is not true.
Provide a source saying there is more charity now.
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.
Bart, are you saying that there were no charities operating in the UK before 2010? Are you bonkers? Shelter was founded in 1966. The Trussell Trust was founded in 1997. FareShare was founded in 1994 by Crisis. Crisis were founded in 1967. Church Action on Poverty was founded in 1982.
The welfare state has multiple mechanisms to support people with short-term problems, as has been true for decades. Councils can provide emergency funds and also have specific help for housing costs. Councils can also provide interest-free loans. The DWP can provide interest-free advances on universal credit. The DWP also has budgeting advances and budgeting loans.
There were charities yes, but very, very limited supply of aid for people facing too much month at the end of their money.
Which is precisely where firms like Wonga stepped in, to fill the void, and were making tens of millions in profits from desperate people who were in vicious debt spirals.
Since then, charitable donations to the likes of Trussel Trust have utterly surged and Wonga have gone out of business.
Loans are not as good a solution to people who face sudden unexpected hardship as charitable safety nets are, since loans need to be repaid - even interest free loans.
This is fantasy, Bart. Show me a source saying there was a “very, very limited supply of aid” before 2010. Show me a source saying there was any causal relationship between the rise of food banks and Wonga going out of business.
First show me a source saying that the Trussel Trust was sending 99% of its donations to landfill rather than giving them to people in need before 2010.
Why? I’ve not made that claim.
You’ve made a claim. Show your evidence.
Given you’ve already claimed there was no charity 1997-2010 and that the welfare state has no emergency funding systems, both errant nonsense, I presume you don’t have any evidence.
I never said no charity, I said less charity.
There's more charity now.
You said, “In the past the only solution was to get into a vicious debt spiral.” That is not true.
Provide a source saying there is more charity now.
Either the Trussell Trust was sending 99.9% of donations to landfill in the past, or donations have risen tremendously. Which is it?
Mr Gullis tweeted: “Axing inheritance tax is something we should do, just not yet. Tax cuts for Spring 2024 I’d prefer us to prioritise: Raise the higher rate income tax threshold; Cut the basic rate of income tax; Scrap IR35 reforms; Increase VAT registration threshold to £250,000.”
Ignoring IR35 the actual fix for VAT isn't to increase the threshold to £250,000 it would be to reduce it to £25,000 or so and ensure most people have to charge it so the £83,000 level isn't a barrier for expansion..
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.
Bart, are you saying that there were no charities operating in the UK before 2010? Are you bonkers? Shelter was founded in 1966. The Trussell Trust was founded in 1997. FareShare was founded in 1994 by Crisis. Crisis were founded in 1967. Church Action on Poverty was founded in 1982.
The welfare state has multiple mechanisms to support people with short-term problems, as has been true for decades. Councils can provide emergency funds and also have specific help for housing costs. Councils can also provide interest-free loans. The DWP can provide interest-free advances on universal credit. The DWP also has budgeting advances and budgeting loans.
There were charities yes, but very, very limited supply of aid for people facing too much month at the end of their money.
Which is precisely where firms like Wonga stepped in, to fill the void, and were making tens of millions in profits from desperate people who were in vicious debt spirals.
Since then, charitable donations to the likes of Trussel Trust have utterly surged and Wonga have gone out of business.
Loans are not as good a solution to people who face sudden unexpected hardship as charitable safety nets are, since loans need to be repaid - even interest free loans.
This is fantasy, Bart. Show me a source saying there was a “very, very limited supply of aid” before 2010. Show me a source saying there was any causal relationship between the rise of food banks and Wonga going out of business.
First show me a source saying that the Trussel Trust was sending 99% of its donations to landfill rather than giving them to people in need before 2010.
Why? I’ve not made that claim.
You’ve made a claim. Show your evidence.
Given you’ve already claimed there was no charity 1997-2010 and that the welfare state has no emergency funding systems, both errant nonsense, I presume you don’t have any evidence.
Also - food banks tend to have their use validated by the welfare state organizations anyway, such as by referrals, so are arguably a key part of the emergency hardship system.
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?
No. Because neither of those two are able to be realistically legislated against. It'd be like trying to legislate that some far away country was guaranteed to be safe, and who'd be so ridiculous as to try that?
I was of course being tongue-in-cheek about my suggestion for a free weekly issue of healthy food to every person or household but there is some logic in it.
We have heard the idea of a Universal Income being mooted in recent years; a Universal Food issue would be another flavour (sorry) of that. It could be used to try to nudge people away from unhealthy, high-sugar, ultra-processed foods; not complusion but encouragement.
That's the point, you can't legislate against breakdowns or hardships, they've always existed and always will.
A family suddenly burdened with an unexpected £500 bill can end up in hardship. There's nothing that can be done to prevent that. Having charity there, rather than predators there, when that happens is a good thing.
There will always be a need for either loan sharks or food banks or something like that, no matter what. Better the latter than the former.
True, but the number of households in the population who find themselves in need of charity when that unexpected bill comes in depends on how close to the edge they were living at that point. So increased demand for food banks suggests that more people are in more marginal financial situations than was the case in past decades, which suggests a systematic problem which the government should act to deal with, not something that we should be OK with merely having charities around to patch up the symptoms afterwards.
Where is the evidence for increased demand?
All we have is the evidence for increased supply of donations.
Unless the donations were previously going to landfill, supply of donations = what is given out.
Demand is infinite, it is supply that is finite. Number of parcels = donations, not demand.
A bit like cycle lanes - build them and suddenly you have lots of cyclists, as in Paris.
You've previously stated that induced demand isn't a thing, so I think we should all recognise that you can change your mind on something. Good on you pal 👍
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?
No. Because neither of those two are able to be realistically legislated against. It'd be like trying to legislate that some far away country was guaranteed to be safe, and who'd be so ridiculous as to try that?
I was of course being tongue-in-cheek about my suggestion for a free weekly issue of healthy food to every person or household but there is some logic in it.
We have heard the idea of a Universal Income being mooted in recent years; a Universal Food issue would be another flavour (sorry) of that. It could be used to try to nudge people away from unhealthy, high-sugar, ultra-processed foods; not complusion but encouragement.
That's the point, you can't legislate against breakdowns or hardships, they've always existed and always will.
A family suddenly burdened with an unexpected £500 bill can end up in hardship. There's nothing that can be done to prevent that. Having charity there, rather than predators there, when that happens is a good thing.
There will always be a need for either loan sharks or food banks or something like that, no matter what. Better the latter than the former.
True, but the number of households in the population who find themselves in need of charity when that unexpected bill comes in depends on how close to the edge they were living at that point. So increased demand for food banks suggests that more people are in more marginal financial situations than was the case in past decades, which suggests a systematic problem which the government should act to deal with, not something that we should be OK with merely having charities around to patch up the symptoms afterwards.
Where is the evidence for increased demand?
All we have is the evidence for increased supply of donations.
Unless the donations were previously going to landfill, supply of donations = what is given out.
Demand is infinite, it is supply that is finite. Number of parcels = donations, not demand.
A bit like cycle lanes - build them and suddenly you have lots of cyclists, as in Paris.
You've previously stated that induced demand isn't a thing, so I think we should all recognise that you can change your mind on something. Good on you pal 👍
I never said induced demand isn't a thing, don't lie.
I totally support building new cycle lanes and new roads, I've advocated that in fact repeatedly.
I actually said induced demand is a good thing, its called economic growth.
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.
Bart, are you saying that there were no charities operating in the UK before 2010? Are you bonkers? Shelter was founded in 1966. The Trussell Trust was founded in 1997. FareShare was founded in 1994 by Crisis. Crisis were founded in 1967. Church Action on Poverty was founded in 1982.
The welfare state has multiple mechanisms to support people with short-term problems, as has been true for decades. Councils can provide emergency funds and also have specific help for housing costs. Councils can also provide interest-free loans. The DWP can provide interest-free advances on universal credit. The DWP also has budgeting advances and budgeting loans.
The RNLI was founded in 1864
Charities are as old as the hills. Barts was founded in 1123. Until the modern state almost all education, health and relief of poverty was in the voluntary and religious sector.
BTW it would be interesting to know what percentage of total food consumption in the UK is obtained from charitable/voluntary outfits of any sort. My wild guess is it is well under 1%. Any data?
Difficult one - because a lot of food in foodbanks doesn't get formally charged for (donations in kind by people and by supermarkets etc). But much of their cash income goes to operations. Our local one needed cash to replace their van, for instance, for collections and deliveries. So financial data won't work.
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.
Bart, are you saying that there were no charities operating in the UK before 2010? Are you bonkers? Shelter was founded in 1966. The Trussell Trust was founded in 1997. FareShare was founded in 1994 by Crisis. Crisis were founded in 1967. Church Action on Poverty was founded in 1982.
The welfare state has multiple mechanisms to support people with short-term problems, as has been true for decades. Councils can provide emergency funds and also have specific help for housing costs. Councils can also provide interest-free loans. The DWP can provide interest-free advances on universal credit. The DWP also has budgeting advances and budgeting loans.
There were charities yes, but very, very limited supply of aid for people facing too much month at the end of their money.
Which is precisely where firms like Wonga stepped in, to fill the void, and were making tens of millions in profits from desperate people who were in vicious debt spirals.
Since then, charitable donations to the likes of Trussel Trust have utterly surged and Wonga have gone out of business.
Loans are not as good a solution to people who face sudden unexpected hardship as charitable safety nets are, since loans need to be repaid - even interest free loans.
This is fantasy, Bart. Show me a source saying there was a “very, very limited supply of aid” before 2010. Show me a source saying there was any causal relationship between the rise of food banks and Wonga going out of business.
First show me a source saying that the Trussel Trust was sending 99% of its donations to landfill rather than giving them to people in need before 2010.
Why? I’ve not made that claim.
You’ve made a claim. Show your evidence.
Given you’ve already claimed there was no charity 1997-2010 and that the welfare state has no emergency funding systems, both errant nonsense, I presume you don’t have any evidence.
I never said no charity, I said less charity.
There's more charity now.
You said, “In the past the only solution was to get into a vicious debt spiral.” That is not true.
Provide a source saying there is more charity now.
Either the Trussell Trust was sending 99.9% of donations to landfill in the past, or donations have risen tremendously. Which is it?
The Trussell Trust is not the only charity in the country. There are 168,850 charities in the UK, as of March. The Trussell Trust isn't one of the 10 biggest charities in the UK (see https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/sector-data/top-10-charities ). Donations rising to the Trussell Trust does not demonstrate that there is more charity now.
Provide a source saying there is more charity now.
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?
No. Because neither of those two are able to be realistically legislated against. It'd be like trying to legislate that some far away country was guaranteed to be safe, and who'd be so ridiculous as to try that?
I was of course being tongue-in-cheek about my suggestion for a free weekly issue of healthy food to every person or household but there is some logic in it.
We have heard the idea of a Universal Income being mooted in recent years; a Universal Food issue would be another flavour (sorry) of that. It could be used to try to nudge people away from unhealthy, high-sugar, ultra-processed foods; not complusion but encouragement.
That's the point, you can't legislate against breakdowns or hardships, they've always existed and always will.
A family suddenly burdened with an unexpected £500 bill can end up in hardship. There's nothing that can be done to prevent that. Having charity there, rather than predators there, when that happens is a good thing.
There will always be a need for either loan sharks or food banks or something like that, no matter what. Better the latter than the former.
True, but the number of households in the population who find themselves in need of charity when that unexpected bill comes in depends on how close to the edge they were living at that point. So increased demand for food banks suggests that more people are in more marginal financial situations than was the case in past decades, which suggests a systematic problem which the government should act to deal with, not something that we should be OK with merely having charities around to patch up the symptoms afterwards.
Where is the evidence for increased demand?
All we have is the evidence for increased supply of donations.
Unless the donations were previously going to landfill, supply of donations = what is given out.
Demand is infinite, it is supply that is finite. Number of parcels = donations, not demand.
A bit like cycle lanes - build them and suddenly you have lots of cyclists, as in Paris.
You've previously stated that induced demand isn't a thing, so I think we should all recognise that you can change your mind on something. Good on you pal 👍
I never said induced demand isn't a thing, don't lie.
I totally support building new cycle lanes and new roads, I've advocated that in fact repeatedly.
I actually said induced demand is a good thing, its called economic growth.
Yes you did.
A bit like how you can recognise fiscal drag on income tax bands, but not on fuel duty 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.
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.
Bart, are you saying that there were no charities operating in the UK before 2010? Are you bonkers? Shelter was founded in 1966. The Trussell Trust was founded in 1997. FareShare was founded in 1994 by Crisis. Crisis were founded in 1967. Church Action on Poverty was founded in 1982.
The welfare state has multiple mechanisms to support people with short-term problems, as has been true for decades. Councils can provide emergency funds and also have specific help for housing costs. Councils can also provide interest-free loans. The DWP can provide interest-free advances on universal credit. The DWP also has budgeting advances and budgeting loans.
There were charities yes, but very, very limited supply of aid for people facing too much month at the end of their money.
Which is precisely where firms like Wonga stepped in, to fill the void, and were making tens of millions in profits from desperate people who were in vicious debt spirals.
Since then, charitable donations to the likes of Trussel Trust have utterly surged and Wonga have gone out of business.
Loans are not as good a solution to people who face sudden unexpected hardship as charitable safety nets are, since loans need to be repaid - even interest free loans.
This is fantasy, Bart. Show me a source saying there was a “very, very limited supply of aid” before 2010. Show me a source saying there was any causal relationship between the rise of food banks and Wonga going out of business.
First show me a source saying that the Trussel Trust was sending 99% of its donations to landfill rather than giving them to people in need before 2010.
Why? I’ve not made that claim.
You’ve made a claim. Show your evidence.
Given you’ve already claimed there was no charity 1997-2010 and that the welfare state has no emergency funding systems, both errant nonsense, I presume you don’t have any evidence.
I never said no charity, I said less charity.
There's more charity now.
You said, “In the past the only solution was to get into a vicious debt spiral.” That is not true.
Provide a source saying there is more charity now.
Either the Trussell Trust was sending 99.9% of donations to landfill in the past, or donations have risen tremendously. Which is it?
The Trussell Trust is not the only charity in the country. There are 168,850 charities in the UK, as of March. The Trussell Trust isn't one of the 10 biggest charities in the UK (see https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/sector-data/top-10-charities ). Donations rising to the Trussell Trust does not demonstrate that there is more charity now.
Provide a source saying there is more charity now.
We were specifically talking about charities like food banks.
Donations to animal shelter charities, or cancer charities, or heart charities etc don't provide people a way out of hardship when they face unexpected sudden hardship.
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?
No. Because neither of those two are able to be realistically legislated against. It'd be like trying to legislate that some far away country was guaranteed to be safe, and who'd be so ridiculous as to try that?
I was of course being tongue-in-cheek about my suggestion for a free weekly issue of healthy food to every person or household but there is some logic in it.
We have heard the idea of a Universal Income being mooted in recent years; a Universal Food issue would be another flavour (sorry) of that. It could be used to try to nudge people away from unhealthy, high-sugar, ultra-processed foods; not complusion but encouragement.
That's the point, you can't legislate against breakdowns or hardships, they've always existed and always will.
A family suddenly burdened with an unexpected £500 bill can end up in hardship. There's nothing that can be done to prevent that. Having charity there, rather than predators there, when that happens is a good thing.
There will always be a need for either loan sharks or food banks or something like that, no matter what. Better the latter than the former.
True, but the number of households in the population who find themselves in need of charity when that unexpected bill comes in depends on how close to the edge they were living at that point. So increased demand for food banks suggests that more people are in more marginal financial situations than was the case in past decades, which suggests a systematic problem which the government should act to deal with, not something that we should be OK with merely having charities around to patch up the symptoms afterwards.
Where is the evidence for increased demand?
All we have is the evidence for increased supply of donations.
Unless the donations were previously going to landfill, supply of donations = what is given out.
Demand is infinite, it is supply that is finite. Number of parcels = donations, not demand.
A bit like cycle lanes - build them and suddenly you have lots of cyclists, as in Paris.
You've previously stated that induced demand isn't a thing, so I think we should all recognise that you can change your mind on something. Good on you pal 👍
I never said induced demand isn't a thing, don't lie.
I totally support building new cycle lanes and new roads, I've advocated that in fact repeatedly.
I actually said induced demand is a good thing, its called economic growth.
Yes you did.
A bit like how you can recognise fiscal drag on income tax bands, but not on fuel duty rates.
[Citation needed]
You're lying, I have always said induced demand is a good thing, I've never denied it exists.
That's why I support building both roads and cycle paths.
The fact we've failed to invest in our transportation is one reason we've had economic stagnation. Because we're artificially restricting demand.
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.
Bart, are you saying that there were no charities operating in the UK before 2010? Are you bonkers? Shelter was founded in 1966. The Trussell Trust was founded in 1997. FareShare was founded in 1994 by Crisis. Crisis were founded in 1967. Church Action on Poverty was founded in 1982.
The welfare state has multiple mechanisms to support people with short-term problems, as has been true for decades. Councils can provide emergency funds and also have specific help for housing costs. Councils can also provide interest-free loans. The DWP can provide interest-free advances on universal credit. The DWP also has budgeting advances and budgeting loans.
There were charities yes, but very, very limited supply of aid for people facing too much month at the end of their money.
Which is precisely where firms like Wonga stepped in, to fill the void, and were making tens of millions in profits from desperate people who were in vicious debt spirals.
Since then, charitable donations to the likes of Trussel Trust have utterly surged and Wonga have gone out of business.
Loans are not as good a solution to people who face sudden unexpected hardship as charitable safety nets are, since loans need to be repaid - even interest free loans.
This is fantasy, Bart. Show me a source saying there was a “very, very limited supply of aid” before 2010. Show me a source saying there was any causal relationship between the rise of food banks and Wonga going out of business.
First show me a source saying that the Trussel Trust was sending 99% of its donations to landfill rather than giving them to people in need before 2010.
Why? I’ve not made that claim.
You’ve made a claim. Show your evidence.
Given you’ve already claimed there was no charity 1997-2010 and that the welfare state has no emergency funding systems, both errant nonsense, I presume you don’t have any evidence.
I never said no charity, I said less charity.
There's more charity now.
You said, “In the past the only solution was to get into a vicious debt spiral.” That is not true.
Provide a source saying there is more charity now.
Either the Trussell Trust was sending 99.9% of donations to landfill in the past, or donations have risen tremendously. Which is it?
The Trussell Trust is not the only charity in the country. There are 168,850 charities in the UK, as of March. The Trussell Trust isn't one of the 10 biggest charities in the UK (see https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/sector-data/top-10-charities ). Donations rising to the Trussell Trust does not demonstrate that there is more charity now.
Provide a source saying there is more charity now.
We were specifically talking about charities like food banks.
Donations to animal shelter charities, or cancer charities, or heart charities etc don't provide people a way out of hardship when they face unexpected sudden hardship.
A heart attack is pretty much the most sudden hardship available.
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.
Bart, are you saying that there were no charities operating in the UK before 2010? Are you bonkers? Shelter was founded in 1966. The Trussell Trust was founded in 1997. FareShare was founded in 1994 by Crisis. Crisis were founded in 1967. Church Action on Poverty was founded in 1982.
The welfare state has multiple mechanisms to support people with short-term problems, as has been true for decades. Councils can provide emergency funds and also have specific help for housing costs. Councils can also provide interest-free loans. The DWP can provide interest-free advances on universal credit. The DWP also has budgeting advances and budgeting loans.
There were charities yes, but very, very limited supply of aid for people facing too much month at the end of their money.
Which is precisely where firms like Wonga stepped in, to fill the void, and were making tens of millions in profits from desperate people who were in vicious debt spirals.
Since then, charitable donations to the likes of Trussel Trust have utterly surged and Wonga have gone out of business.
Loans are not as good a solution to people who face sudden unexpected hardship as charitable safety nets are, since loans need to be repaid - even interest free loans.
This is fantasy, Bart. Show me a source saying there was a “very, very limited supply of aid” before 2010. Show me a source saying there was any causal relationship between the rise of food banks and Wonga going out of business.
First show me a source saying that the Trussel Trust was sending 99% of its donations to landfill rather than giving them to people in need before 2010.
Why? I’ve not made that claim.
You’ve made a claim. Show your evidence.
Given you’ve already claimed there was no charity 1997-2010 and that the welfare state has no emergency funding systems, both errant nonsense, I presume you don’t have any evidence.
I never said no charity, I said less charity.
There's more charity now.
You said, “In the past the only solution was to get into a vicious debt spiral.” That is not true.
Provide a source saying there is more charity now.
Either the Trussell Trust was sending 99.9% of donations to landfill in the past, or donations have risen tremendously. Which is it?
The Trussell Trust is not the only charity in the country. There are 168,850 charities in the UK, as of March. The Trussell Trust isn't one of the 10 biggest charities in the UK (see https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/sector-data/top-10-charities ). Donations rising to the Trussell Trust does not demonstrate that there is more charity now.
Provide a source saying there is more charity now.
We were specifically talking about charities like food banks.
Donations to animal shelter charities, or cancer charities, or heart charities etc don't provide people a way out of hardship when they face unexpected sudden hardship.
Then provide a source saying there is more charity (involving support for sudden hardship) now. The Trussell Trust is not the only charity in this space.
(And animal charities sometimes provide support for people facing unexpected vet bills, cancer charities sometimes provide support for people with cancer facing unexpected sudden hardship, ditto heart charities. Ill health is, of course, a major source of unexpected sudden 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?
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.
Bart, are you saying that there were no charities operating in the UK before 2010? Are you bonkers? Shelter was founded in 1966. The Trussell Trust was founded in 1997. FareShare was founded in 1994 by Crisis. Crisis were founded in 1967. Church Action on Poverty was founded in 1982.
The welfare state has multiple mechanisms to support people with short-term problems, as has been true for decades. Councils can provide emergency funds and also have specific help for housing costs. Councils can also provide interest-free loans. The DWP can provide interest-free advances on universal credit. The DWP also has budgeting advances and budgeting loans.
There were charities yes, but very, very limited supply of aid for people facing too much month at the end of their money.
Which is precisely where firms like Wonga stepped in, to fill the void, and were making tens of millions in profits from desperate people who were in vicious debt spirals.
Since then, charitable donations to the likes of Trussel Trust have utterly surged and Wonga have gone out of business.
Loans are not as good a solution to people who face sudden unexpected hardship as charitable safety nets are, since loans need to be repaid - even interest free loans.
This is fantasy, Bart. Show me a source saying there was a “very, very limited supply of aid” before 2010. Show me a source saying there was any causal relationship between the rise of food banks and Wonga going out of business.
First show me a source saying that the Trussel Trust was sending 99% of its donations to landfill rather than giving them to people in need before 2010.
Why? I’ve not made that claim.
You’ve made a claim. Show your evidence.
Given you’ve already claimed there was no charity 1997-2010 and that the welfare state has no emergency funding systems, both errant nonsense, I presume you don’t have any evidence.
I never said no charity, I said less charity.
There's more charity now.
You said, “In the past the only solution was to get into a vicious debt spiral.” That is not true.
Provide a source saying there is more charity now.
Either the Trussell Trust was sending 99.9% of donations to landfill in the past, or donations have risen tremendously. Which is it?
The Trussell Trust is not the only charity in the country. There are 168,850 charities in the UK, as of March. The Trussell Trust isn't one of the 10 biggest charities in the UK (see https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/sector-data/top-10-charities ). Donations rising to the Trussell Trust does not demonstrate that there is more charity now.
Provide a source saying there is more charity now.
We were specifically talking about charities like food banks.
Donations to animal shelter charities, or cancer charities, or heart charities etc don't provide people a way out of hardship when they face unexpected sudden hardship.
A heart attack is pretty much the most sudden hardship available.
Different kind, Wonga are not an alternative there.
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?
No. Because neither of those two are able to be realistically legislated against. It'd be like trying to legislate that some far away country was guaranteed to be safe, and who'd be so ridiculous as to try that?
I was of course being tongue-in-cheek about my suggestion for a free weekly issue of healthy food to every person or household but there is some logic in it.
We have heard the idea of a Universal Income being mooted in recent years; a Universal Food issue would be another flavour (sorry) of that. It could be used to try to nudge people away from unhealthy, high-sugar, ultra-processed foods; not complusion but encouragement.
That's the point, you can't legislate against breakdowns or hardships, they've always existed and always will.
A family suddenly burdened with an unexpected £500 bill can end up in hardship. There's nothing that can be done to prevent that. Having charity there, rather than predators there, when that happens is a good thing.
There will always be a need for either loan sharks or food banks or something like that, no matter what. Better the latter than the former.
True, but the number of households in the population who find themselves in need of charity when that unexpected bill comes in depends on how close to the edge they were living at that point. So increased demand for food banks suggests that more people are in more marginal financial situations than was the case in past decades, which suggests a systematic problem which the government should act to deal with, not something that we should be OK with merely having charities around to patch up the symptoms afterwards.
Where is the evidence for increased demand?
All we have is the evidence for increased supply of donations.
Unless the donations were previously going to landfill, supply of donations = what is given out.
Demand is infinite, it is supply that is finite. Number of parcels = donations, not demand.
A bit like cycle lanes - build them and suddenly you have lots of cyclists, as in Paris.
You've previously stated that induced demand isn't a thing, so I think we should all recognise that you can change your mind on something. Good on you pal 👍
I never said induced demand isn't a thing, don't lie.
I totally support building new cycle lanes and new roads, I've advocated that in fact repeatedly.
I actually said induced demand is a good thing, its called economic growth.
Yes you did.
A bit like how you can recognise fiscal drag on income tax bands, but not on fuel duty rates.
[Citation needed]
You're lying, I have always said induced demand is a good thing, I've never denied it exists.
That's why I support building both roads and cycle paths.
The fact we've failed to invest in our transportation is one reason we've had economic stagnation. Because we're artificially restricting demand.
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?
No. Because neither of those two are able to be realistically legislated against. It'd be like trying to legislate that some far away country was guaranteed to be safe, and who'd be so ridiculous as to try that?
I was of course being tongue-in-cheek about my suggestion for a free weekly issue of healthy food to every person or household but there is some logic in it.
We have heard the idea of a Universal Income being mooted in recent years; a Universal Food issue would be another flavour (sorry) of that. It could be used to try to nudge people away from unhealthy, high-sugar, ultra-processed foods; not complusion but encouragement.
That's the point, you can't legislate against breakdowns or hardships, they've always existed and always will.
A family suddenly burdened with an unexpected £500 bill can end up in hardship. There's nothing that can be done to prevent that. Having charity there, rather than predators there, when that happens is a good thing.
There will always be a need for either loan sharks or food banks or something like that, no matter what. Better the latter than the former.
True, but the number of households in the population who find themselves in need of charity when that unexpected bill comes in depends on how close to the edge they were living at that point. So increased demand for food banks suggests that more people are in more marginal financial situations than was the case in past decades, which suggests a systematic problem which the government should act to deal with, not something that we should be OK with merely having charities around to patch up the symptoms afterwards.
Where is the evidence for increased demand?
All we have is the evidence for increased supply of donations.
Unless the donations were previously going to landfill, supply of donations = what is given out.
Demand is infinite, it is supply that is finite. Number of parcels = donations, not demand.
A bit like cycle lanes - build them and suddenly you have lots of cyclists, as in Paris.
You've previously stated that induced demand isn't a thing, so I think we should all recognise that you can change your mind on something. Good on you pal 👍
I never said induced demand isn't a thing, don't lie.
I totally support building new cycle lanes and new roads, I've advocated that in fact repeatedly.
I actually said induced demand is a good thing, its called economic growth.
Yes you did.
A bit like how you can recognise fiscal drag on income tax bands, but not on fuel duty rates.
[Citation needed]
You're lying, I have always said induced demand is a good thing, I've never denied it exists.
That's why I support building both roads and cycle paths.
The fact we've failed to invest in our transportation is one reason we've had economic stagnation. Because we're artificially restricting demand.
Nah, you are.
Bullshit.
Why was I advocating new roads and new cycle paths?
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?
No. Because neither of those two are able to be realistically legislated against. It'd be like trying to legislate that some far away country was guaranteed to be safe, and who'd be so ridiculous as to try that?
I was of course being tongue-in-cheek about my suggestion for a free weekly issue of healthy food to every person or household but there is some logic in it.
We have heard the idea of a Universal Income being mooted in recent years; a Universal Food issue would be another flavour (sorry) of that. It could be used to try to nudge people away from unhealthy, high-sugar, ultra-processed foods; not complusion but encouragement.
That's the point, you can't legislate against breakdowns or hardships, they've always existed and always will.
A family suddenly burdened with an unexpected £500 bill can end up in hardship. There's nothing that can be done to prevent that. Having charity there, rather than predators there, when that happens is a good thing.
There will always be a need for either loan sharks or food banks or something like that, no matter what. Better the latter than the former.
True, but the number of households in the population who find themselves in need of charity when that unexpected bill comes in depends on how close to the edge they were living at that point. So increased demand for food banks suggests that more people are in more marginal financial situations than was the case in past decades, which suggests a systematic problem which the government should act to deal with, not something that we should be OK with merely having charities around to patch up the symptoms afterwards.
Where is the evidence for increased demand?
All we have is the evidence for increased supply of donations.
Unless the donations were previously going to landfill, supply of donations = what is given out.
Demand is infinite, it is supply that is finite. Number of parcels = donations, not demand.
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?
No. Because neither of those two are able to be realistically legislated against. It'd be like trying to legislate that some far away country was guaranteed to be safe, and who'd be so ridiculous as to try that?
I was of course being tongue-in-cheek about my suggestion for a free weekly issue of healthy food to every person or household but there is some logic in it.
We have heard the idea of a Universal Income being mooted in recent years; a Universal Food issue would be another flavour (sorry) of that. It could be used to try to nudge people away from unhealthy, high-sugar, ultra-processed foods; not complusion but encouragement.
That's the point, you can't legislate against breakdowns or hardships, they've always existed and always will.
A family suddenly burdened with an unexpected £500 bill can end up in hardship. There's nothing that can be done to prevent that. Having charity there, rather than predators there, when that happens is a good thing.
There will always be a need for either loan sharks or food banks or something like that, no matter what. Better the latter than the former.
True, but the number of households in the population who find themselves in need of charity when that unexpected bill comes in depends on how close to the edge they were living at that point. So increased demand for food banks suggests that more people are in more marginal financial situations than was the case in past decades, which suggests a systematic problem which the government should act to deal with, not something that we should be OK with merely having charities around to patch up the symptoms afterwards.
Where is the evidence for increased demand?
All we have is the evidence for increased supply of donations.
Unless the donations were previously going to landfill, supply of donations = what is given out.
Demand is infinite, it is supply that is finite. Number of parcels = donations, not demand.
Of course it isn't.
Practically and effectively it is.
Economically the demand for free is effectively infinite.
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?
No. Because neither of those two are able to be realistically legislated against. It'd be like trying to legislate that some far away country was guaranteed to be safe, and who'd be so ridiculous as to try that?
I was of course being tongue-in-cheek about my suggestion for a free weekly issue of healthy food to every person or household but there is some logic in it.
We have heard the idea of a Universal Income being mooted in recent years; a Universal Food issue would be another flavour (sorry) of that. It could be used to try to nudge people away from unhealthy, high-sugar, ultra-processed foods; not complusion but encouragement.
That's the point, you can't legislate against breakdowns or hardships, they've always existed and always will.
A family suddenly burdened with an unexpected £500 bill can end up in hardship. There's nothing that can be done to prevent that. Having charity there, rather than predators there, when that happens is a good thing.
There will always be a need for either loan sharks or food banks or something like that, no matter what. Better the latter than the former.
True, but the number of households in the population who find themselves in need of charity when that unexpected bill comes in depends on how close to the edge they were living at that point. So increased demand for food banks suggests that more people are in more marginal financial situations than was the case in past decades, which suggests a systematic problem which the government should act to deal with, not something that we should be OK with merely having charities around to patch up the symptoms afterwards.
Where is the evidence for increased demand?
All we have is the evidence for increased supply of donations.
Unless the donations were previously going to landfill, supply of donations = what is given out.
Demand is infinite, it is supply that is finite. Number of parcels = donations, not demand.
Of course it isn't.
Practically and effectively it is.
Economically the demand for free is effectively infinite.
For some purposes, economists might treat demand as infinite. Real mathematicians know that demand is finite and much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much closer to zero than to infinity.
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?
No. Because neither of those two are able to be realistically legislated against. It'd be like trying to legislate that some far away country was guaranteed to be safe, and who'd be so ridiculous as to try that?
I was of course being tongue-in-cheek about my suggestion for a free weekly issue of healthy food to every person or household but there is some logic in it.
We have heard the idea of a Universal Income being mooted in recent years; a Universal Food issue would be another flavour (sorry) of that. It could be used to try to nudge people away from unhealthy, high-sugar, ultra-processed foods; not complusion but encouragement.
That's the point, you can't legislate against breakdowns or hardships, they've always existed and always will.
A family suddenly burdened with an unexpected £500 bill can end up in hardship. There's nothing that can be done to prevent that. Having charity there, rather than predators there, when that happens is a good thing.
There will always be a need for either loan sharks or food banks or something like that, no matter what. Better the latter than the former.
True, but the number of households in the population who find themselves in need of charity when that unexpected bill comes in depends on how close to the edge they were living at that point. So increased demand for food banks suggests that more people are in more marginal financial situations than was the case in past decades, which suggests a systematic problem which the government should act to deal with, not something that we should be OK with merely having charities around to patch up the symptoms afterwards.
Where is the evidence for increased demand?
All we have is the evidence for increased supply of donations.
Unless the donations were previously going to landfill, supply of donations = what is given out.
Demand is infinite, it is supply that is finite. Number of parcels = donations, not demand.
Of course it isn't.
Practically and effectively it is.
Economically the demand for free is effectively infinite.
For some purposes, economists might treat demand as infinite. Real mathematicians know that demand is finite and much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much closer to zero than to infinity.
Of course, but we're not talking mathematics, for practical purposes its unlimited.
If supply were unlimited then hundreds of millions of parcels could be demanded per annum. But parcels are capped by supply, not demand.
‘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."
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?
No. Because neither of those two are able to be realistically legislated against. It'd be like trying to legislate that some far away country was guaranteed to be safe, and who'd be so ridiculous as to try that?
I was of course being tongue-in-cheek about my suggestion for a free weekly issue of healthy food to every person or household but there is some logic in it.
We have heard the idea of a Universal Income being mooted in recent years; a Universal Food issue would be another flavour (sorry) of that. It could be used to try to nudge people away from unhealthy, high-sugar, ultra-processed foods; not complusion but encouragement.
That's the point, you can't legislate against breakdowns or hardships, they've always existed and always will.
A family suddenly burdened with an unexpected £500 bill can end up in hardship. There's nothing that can be done to prevent that. Having charity there, rather than predators there, when that happens is a good thing.
There will always be a need for either loan sharks or food banks or something like that, no matter what. Better the latter than the former.
True, but the number of households in the population who find themselves in need of charity when that unexpected bill comes in depends on how close to the edge they were living at that point. So increased demand for food banks suggests that more people are in more marginal financial situations than was the case in past decades, which suggests a systematic problem which the government should act to deal with, not something that we should be OK with merely having charities around to patch up the symptoms afterwards.
Where is the evidence for increased demand?
All we have is the evidence for increased supply of donations.
Unless the donations were previously going to landfill, supply of donations = what is given out.
Demand is infinite, it is supply that is finite. Number of parcels = donations, not demand.
A bit like cycle lanes - build them and suddenly you have lots of cyclists, as in Paris.
You've previously stated that induced demand isn't a thing, so I think we should all recognise that you can change your mind on something. Good on you pal 👍
I never said induced demand isn't a thing, don't lie.
I totally support building new cycle lanes and new roads, I've advocated that in fact repeatedly.
I actually said induced demand is a good thing, its called economic growth.
Yes you did.
A bit like how you can recognise fiscal drag on income tax bands, but not on fuel duty rates.
[Citation needed]
You're lying, I have always said induced demand is a good thing, I've never denied it exists.
That's why I support building both roads and cycle paths.
The fact we've failed to invest in our transportation is one reason we've had economic stagnation. Because we're artificially restricting demand.
Nah, you are.
Bullshit.
Why was I advocating new roads and new cycle paths?
Ignoramus.
if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand (October '23)
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.
31 across is obviously going to be enochian. “A thesaurus of this language is hard to find. (6)” Let me count the letters.
Nope too many letters.
Is the Thesaurus hard to find because it’s in a hidden cavern full of snakes?
I don't know. But I know the boat it was transported in has been extensively maintained, with every part replaced. A Ship of Thesaurus, if you will... 😃
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?
No. Because neither of those two are able to be realistically legislated against. It'd be like trying to legislate that some far away country was guaranteed to be safe, and who'd be so ridiculous as to try that?
I was of course being tongue-in-cheek about my suggestion for a free weekly issue of healthy food to every person or household but there is some logic in it.
We have heard the idea of a Universal Income being mooted in recent years; a Universal Food issue would be another flavour (sorry) of that. It could be used to try to nudge people away from unhealthy, high-sugar, ultra-processed foods; not complusion but encouragement.
That's the point, you can't legislate against breakdowns or hardships, they've always existed and always will.
A family suddenly burdened with an unexpected £500 bill can end up in hardship. There's nothing that can be done to prevent that. Having charity there, rather than predators there, when that happens is a good thing.
There will always be a need for either loan sharks or food banks or something like that, no matter what. Better the latter than the former.
True, but the number of households in the population who find themselves in need of charity when that unexpected bill comes in depends on how close to the edge they were living at that point. So increased demand for food banks suggests that more people are in more marginal financial situations than was the case in past decades, which suggests a systematic problem which the government should act to deal with, not something that we should be OK with merely having charities around to patch up the symptoms afterwards.
Where is the evidence for increased demand?
All we have is the evidence for increased supply of donations.
Unless the donations were previously going to landfill, supply of donations = what is given out.
Demand is infinite, it is supply that is finite. Number of parcels = donations, not demand.
A bit like cycle lanes - build them and suddenly you have lots of cyclists, as in Paris.
You've previously stated that induced demand isn't a thing, so I think we should all recognise that you can change your mind on something. Good on you pal 👍
I never said induced demand isn't a thing, don't lie.
I totally support building new cycle lanes and new roads, I've advocated that in fact repeatedly.
I actually said induced demand is a good thing, its called economic growth.
Yes you did.
A bit like how you can recognise fiscal drag on income tax bands, but not on fuel duty rates.
[Citation needed]
You're lying, I have always said induced demand is a good thing, I've never denied it exists.
That's why I support building both roads and cycle paths.
The fact we've failed to invest in our transportation is one reason we've had economic stagnation. Because we're artificially restricting demand.
Nah, you are.
Bullshit.
Why was I advocating new roads and new cycle paths?
Ignoramus.
if you believe in the fallacy of induced demand
WOOPS
Yes, because you were using a fallacy.
A real thing, can share its name with a fallacious belief too.
‘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."
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?
No. Because neither of those two are able to be realistically legislated against. It'd be like trying to legislate that some far away country was guaranteed to be safe, and who'd be so ridiculous as to try that?
I was of course being tongue-in-cheek about my suggestion for a free weekly issue of healthy food to every person or household but there is some logic in it.
We have heard the idea of a Universal Income being mooted in recent years; a Universal Food issue would be another flavour (sorry) of that. It could be used to try to nudge people away from unhealthy, high-sugar, ultra-processed foods; not complusion but encouragement.
That's the point, you can't legislate against breakdowns or hardships, they've always existed and always will.
A family suddenly burdened with an unexpected £500 bill can end up in hardship. There's nothing that can be done to prevent that. Having charity there, rather than predators there, when that happens is a good thing.
There will always be a need for either loan sharks or food banks or something like that, no matter what. Better the latter than the former.
True, but the number of households in the population who find themselves in need of charity when that unexpected bill comes in depends on how close to the edge they were living at that point. So increased demand for food banks suggests that more people are in more marginal financial situations than was the case in past decades, which suggests a systematic problem which the government should act to deal with, not something that we should be OK with merely having charities around to patch up the symptoms afterwards.
Where is the evidence for increased demand?
All we have is the evidence for increased supply of donations.
Unless the donations were previously going to landfill, supply of donations = what is given out.
Demand is infinite, it is supply that is finite. Number of parcels = donations, not demand.
Of course it isn't.
Practically and effectively it is.
Economically the demand for free is effectively infinite.
For some purposes, economists might treat demand as infinite. Real mathematicians know that demand is finite and much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much closer to zero than to infinity.
Of course, but we're not talking mathematics, for practical purposes its unlimited.
If supply were unlimited then hundreds of millions of parcels could be demanded per annum. But parcels are capped by supply, not demand.
Household giving is somewhere around £10-12bn I think. Hasn't changed massively over a decade.
Yes, but that's the total, most charitable donations aren't relevant to the conversation.
Donations to Cancer Research UK don't help people who suddenly face an unexpected £500 bill so they don't need to turn to Wonga, donations to the Trussell Trust do.
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?
No. Because neither of those two are able to be realistically legislated against. It'd be like trying to legislate that some far away country was guaranteed to be safe, and who'd be so ridiculous as to try that?
I was of course being tongue-in-cheek about my suggestion for a free weekly issue of healthy food to every person or household but there is some logic in it.
We have heard the idea of a Universal Income being mooted in recent years; a Universal Food issue would be another flavour (sorry) of that. It could be used to try to nudge people away from unhealthy, high-sugar, ultra-processed foods; not complusion but encouragement.
That's the point, you can't legislate against breakdowns or hardships, they've always existed and always will.
A family suddenly burdened with an unexpected £500 bill can end up in hardship. There's nothing that can be done to prevent that. Having charity there, rather than predators there, when that happens is a good thing.
There will always be a need for either loan sharks or food banks or something like that, no matter what. Better the latter than the former.
True, but the number of households in the population who find themselves in need of charity when that unexpected bill comes in depends on how close to the edge they were living at that point. So increased demand for food banks suggests that more people are in more marginal financial situations than was the case in past decades, which suggests a systematic problem which the government should act to deal with, not something that we should be OK with merely having charities around to patch up the symptoms afterwards.
Where is the evidence for increased demand?
All we have is the evidence for increased supply of donations.
Unless the donations were previously going to landfill, supply of donations = what is given out.
Demand is infinite, it is supply that is finite. Number of parcels = donations, not demand.
Of course it isn't.
Practically and effectively it is.
Economically the demand for free is effectively infinite.
For some purposes, economists might treat demand as infinite. Real mathematicians know that demand is finite and much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much closer to zero than to infinity.
Leslie Groves: Are you saying that there's a chance that when we push that button... we destroy the world? J. Robert Oppenheimer: The chances are near zero... Leslie Groves: Near zero? J. Robert Oppenheimer: What do you want from theory alone? Leslie Groves: Zero would be nice!
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.
31 across is obviously going to be enochian. “A thesaurus of this language is hard to find. (6)” Let me count the letters.
Nope too many letters.
Is the Thesaurus hard to find because it’s in a hidden cavern full of snakes?
Awww. What's wrong with occult? An occult language is hidden/unknown by definition. (But I'd only pencil it in till I was sure it fitted other clues.)
Yes. It’s going to need a pencil.
I’ve no problem with snakes though.
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)
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?
I doubt they could make it retrospective to measures introduced on the 6th March and implemented before a GE
No - as both Bart and myself pointed out earlier - you would simply replace inheritance tax with something else - you could say it's a capital gain so you could simply subject it to capital gains tax or you could say it's income and subject it to income tax.
In both cases it would raise far more money than inheritance tax currently does - would meet Labours criteria of being a progressive tax and would be hard to argue against..
Inheritance tax is one of those areas where changing it would be a very brave thing to do as there are easier options which raise far more but can't be implemented because inheritance tax currently exists. Remove it and suddenly those options become implementable...
I very much support that change but my point is that any tax change including IHT that has taken place before a GE a new government could not reclaim the tax benefits already received
Why not? Just cancel them, and blame Mr Sunak. It's not as if folk are going to die earlier to spite the new Chencellor - or so one hopes. Mind, the way some Tories talk as if inheritance is their right and indeed only way tdo keep their God-given divine right to a superior socio-economic status, one also hopes that Inspector Morse is taking a keen interest in any unexpected deceases.
I do not support a change in IHT which gives more to the wealthy and as others have said beneficiaries could be taxed at their normal tax rate on any inheritance
However, if a change is implemented in April and an estate is sold before a GE, possibly in October, then the incoming government could not recover that benefit
Okay, but remember it's usually the date of death not probate that determines such things: certainly, the allowance on the house passing to children is determined by date of death.
Indeed and it is unlikely to arise due to the short time span from April to the GE in May or October
As @pm215 has suggested any IHT change is likely to be planned post the GE or a manifesto commitment
Yes. I expect to see some income tax cuts/threshold changes from 6 April 2024. IHT changes will be 'aspirational'.
Household giving is somewhere around £10-12bn I think. Hasn't changed massively over a decade.
Yes, but that's the total, most charitable donations aren't relevant to the conversation.
Donations to Cancer Research UK don't help people who suddenly face an unexpected £500 bill so they don't need to turn to Wonga, donations to the Trussell Trust do.
1) I will set aside your rather patchy application of induced demand
2) You're probably right that food bank use is a function of supply based on some work I've done previously. But it's mad complex, with it offsetting increased fuel bills, for example, rather than the cost of food.
3) Most food bank users were regulars rather than one offs AFAIK.
4) A very large quantity of food is provided through churches etc, on a traditional soup kitchen basis. I think you'd want to include them in your analysis rather than just food bank charities.
Mr Gullis tweeted: “Axing inheritance tax is something we should do, just not yet. Tax cuts for Spring 2024 I’d prefer us to prioritise: Raise the higher rate income tax threshold; Cut the basic rate of income tax; Scrap IR35 reforms; Increase VAT registration threshold to £250,000.”
Ignoring IR35 the actual fix for VAT isn't to increase the threshold to £250,000 it would be to reduce it to £25,000 or so and ensure most people have to charge it so the £83,000 level isn't a barrier for expansion..
I honestly can't see squillionaire Rishi and millionaire Hunt passing such a nakedly self-serving measure as abolishing inheritance tax. Increasing thresholds, no doubt, as a trap for Labour but complete abolition would see Opposition attack lines writing themselves.
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?
No. Because neither of those two are able to be realistically legislated against. It'd be like trying to legislate that some far away country was guaranteed to be safe, and who'd be so ridiculous as to try that?
I was of course being tongue-in-cheek about my suggestion for a free weekly issue of healthy food to every person or household but there is some logic in it.
We have heard the idea of a Universal Income being mooted in recent years; a Universal Food issue would be another flavour (sorry) of that. It could be used to try to nudge people away from unhealthy, high-sugar, ultra-processed foods; not complusion but encouragement.
That's the point, you can't legislate against breakdowns or hardships, they've always existed and always will.
A family suddenly burdened with an unexpected £500 bill can end up in hardship. There's nothing that can be done to prevent that. Having charity there, rather than predators there, when that happens is a good thing.
There will always be a need for either loan sharks or food banks or something like that, no matter what. Better the latter than the former.
True, but the number of households in the population who find themselves in need of charity when that unexpected bill comes in depends on how close to the edge they were living at that point. So increased demand for food banks suggests that more people are in more marginal financial situations than was the case in past decades, which suggests a systematic problem which the government should act to deal with, not something that we should be OK with merely having charities around to patch up the symptoms afterwards.
Where is the evidence for increased demand?
All we have is the evidence for increased supply of donations.
Unless the donations were previously going to landfill, supply of donations = what is given out.
Demand is infinite, it is supply that is finite. Number of parcels = donations, not demand.
Of course it isn't.
Practically and effectively it is.
Economically the demand for free is effectively infinite.
The food banks we can refer people to require evidence of need and limit each recipient to 3 parcels a year. I imagine some people find a way around that but several times I have asked people if they'd like a voucher for the foodbank and they've told me they've already had 3 so no point.
Another option they have to cover an unexpected bill (nearly always the issue) is a UC advance but that just leaves them struggling on reduced UC for the next year.
Then the government have this marvellous idea called the Household Support Fund, which must be the most inefficient way to get help to the needy ever invented. The HSF operates by HMG giving each Local Authority an allocation of funds in the form of supermarket food vouchers (usually worth £150).
Every month the LA (Dorset in my case) opens up an on-line application scrum on a set day, first come, first served, the only criteria are: annual household net income of less than £30,000, savings of less than £16,000, and not applied for a previous HSF payment within the last 6 months.
In reality, of course, it comes down to those most savvy and on the ball getting the vouchers.
Household giving is somewhere around £10-12bn I think. Hasn't changed massively over a decade.
Yes, but that's the total, most charitable donations aren't relevant to the conversation.
Donations to Cancer Research UK don't help people who suddenly face an unexpected £500 bill so they don't need to turn to Wonga, donations to the Trussell Trust do.
1) I will set aside your rather patchy application of induced demand
2) You're probably right that food bank use is a function of supply based on some work I've done previously. But it's mad complex, with it offsetting increased fuel bills, for example, rather than the cost of food.
3) Most food bank users were regulars rather than one offs AFAIK.
4) A very large quantity of food is provided through churches etc, on a traditional soup kitchen basis. I think you'd want to include them in your analysis rather than just food bank charities.
2) That was literally the very point I was making, thank you for agreeing with me.
If someone is struggling then giving them "for free" something they normally have to pay for acts as a shock absorber that helps stabilise their finances.
Yes soup kitchens etc are another option and a good thing to be available too.
Both are a good thing, and demand will never and should never go away, as people will always face hard times no matter what. If someone's car breaks down, or fuel prices surge, or whatever, or whatever - they'll always need help or if help isn't there, then a temporary crisis can cause a more vicious cycle of longer term problems.
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?
Its an interesting concept. A giveaway budget immediately before an election everyone expects them to lose is basically a fantasy budget - won't come into effect.
Labour need to say not that they will overturn the budget proposals. Simply have their own shadow budget draft ready and read off that. Tory budget - take from the poor to give to the rich. Labour budget - get our services functioning again. etc
Ah yes.
But what about a fantasy budget in March then an Election in September?
Mr Gullis tweeted: “Axing inheritance tax is something we should do, just not yet. Tax cuts for Spring 2024 I’d prefer us to prioritise: Raise the higher rate income tax threshold; Cut the basic rate of income tax; Scrap IR35 reforms; Increase VAT registration threshold to £250,000.”
Ignoring IR35 the actual fix for VAT isn't to increase the threshold to £250,000 it would be to reduce it to £25,000 or so and ensure most people have to charge it so the £83,000 level isn't a barrier for expansion..
I honestly can't see squillionaire Rishi and millionaire Hunt passing such a nakedly self-serving measure as abolishing inheritance tax. Increasing thresholds, no doubt, as a trap for Labour but complete abolition would see Opposition attack lines writing themselves.
Indeed, Labour will argue that the Sunaks stand to gain $800m from abolishing IHT (40% of Akshata Murty's likely inheritance from her father's $4bn wealth).
No doubt the Sunaks will explain that they were going to avoid the IHT anyway due to non-Dom or other tax dodges - a defence that may be counter-productive.
I can’t see any way that could possibly go wrong for him.
It's hard to believe that even Sunak, who is rubbish at politics, would be stupid enough to dig himself into such a hole before a general election. But if anyone is a big enough wally to do so it is Sunak.
Household giving is somewhere around £10-12bn I think. Hasn't changed massively over a decade.
Yes, but that's the total, most charitable donations aren't relevant to the conversation.
Donations to Cancer Research UK don't help people who suddenly face an unexpected £500 bill so they don't need to turn to Wonga, donations to the Trussell Trust do.
1) I will set aside your rather patchy application of induced demand
2) You're probably right that food bank use is a function of supply based on some work I've done previously. But it's mad complex, with it offsetting increased fuel bills, for example, rather than the cost of food.
3) Most food bank users were regulars rather than one offs AFAIK.
4) A very large quantity of food is provided through churches etc, on a traditional soup kitchen basis. I think you'd want to include them in your analysis rather than just food bank charities.
2) That was literally the very point I was making, thank you for agreeing with me.
If someone is struggling then giving them "for free" something they normally have to pay for acts as a shock absorber that helps stabilise their finances.
Yes soup kitchens etc are another option and a good thing to be available too.
Both are a good thing, and demand will never and should never go away, as people will always face hard times no matter what. If someone's car breaks down, or fuel prices surge, or whatever, or whatever - they'll always need help or if help isn't there, then a temporary crisis can cause a more vicious cycle of longer term problems.
You miss the point that these aren't people who are just having a rough few weeks between jobs or something.
The biggest issue for UK poverty is that so many of these people are actually in full time employment, particularly single mothers. This is the profound distinction between us and Nordic countries, whose rates of out-of-work poverty are similar to our own.
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.
Household giving is somewhere around £10-12bn I think. Hasn't changed massively over a decade.
Yes, but that's the total, most charitable donations aren't relevant to the conversation.
Donations to Cancer Research UK don't help people who suddenly face an unexpected £500 bill so they don't need to turn to Wonga, donations to the Trussell Trust do.
1) I will set aside your rather patchy application of induced demand
2) You're probably right that food bank use is a function of supply based on some work I've done previously. But it's mad complex, with it offsetting increased fuel bills, for example, rather than the cost of food.
3) Most food bank users were regulars rather than one offs AFAIK.
4) A very large quantity of food is provided through churches etc, on a traditional soup kitchen basis. I think you'd want to include them in your analysis rather than just food bank charities.
2) That was literally the very point I was making, thank you for agreeing with me.
If someone is struggling then giving them "for free" something they normally have to pay for acts as a shock absorber that helps stabilise their finances.
Yes soup kitchens etc are another option and a good thing to be available too.
Both are a good thing, and demand will never and should never go away, as people will always face hard times no matter what. If someone's car breaks down, or fuel prices surge, or whatever, or whatever - they'll always need help or if help isn't there, then a temporary crisis can cause a more vicious cycle of longer term problems.
You miss the point that these aren't people who are just having a rough few weeks between jobs or something.
The biggest issue for UK poverty is that so many of these people are actually in full time employment, particularly single mothers. This is the profound distinction between us and Nordic countries, whose rates of out-of-work poverty are similar to our own.
Except that people in full time employment get in financial difficulty, that's not a surprising thing, its inevitable.
Many people live from paycheck to paycheck, no matter their income level, then if they get a bad bill then that means problems.
And when those problems occur, getting support is better than getting into debt.
For temporary unemployment, then welfare may be a solution, for temporary shocks then charity being available is a good thing.
If you want to lower in-work poverty then house costs are the far bigger 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.
Budgets have been on a Wednesday for the past 20 or so years IIRC; previously they used to be traditionally on a Tuesday.
It's quite hard to unlearn what you absorbed at a particular age. Derby day is a Wednesday. Budget Day is a Tuesday. Boat race is a Saturday. Kick off is 3 pm Saturday. Shops close on Good Friday except for fish, no papers, no racing. Test matches go Thursday to Tuesday with no play on the Sunday. Shops close for half day on Thursday. Early closing in central London is Saturday. Christmas decorations go up about 21st December. Tree bought for 7/6 (37p) on Saturday before Christmas. Entire nation stops for FA Cup final, which, amazingly, is broadcast live. On BBC and ITV.
Shops close for half day on a Wednesday....
The pubs are only open all day on market day.
Fish and chips are wrapped in newspaper and cost 2/6 (12.5p).
When adult passengers are standing, children give up their seats.
Anyhoo, the budget is expected to be a giveaway one and it is on 6th March. So plan A remains an election on 2nd May. Which means a week and a half of parliamentary time to get the Finance Bill through before Sunak calls an election late w/c 17th March with a few days of mopping up before it prorogues.
‘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."
How about letting manufacturers choose what size bottle they want, so long as it is clearly and accurately labelled as such?
Why does it need to be 200, 500, 568 or 700?
If someone wants to sell a bottle in 420ml then so long as it clearly says 420ml then why should that be verboten? Or any other number, just make clear what it is and let the consumer decide.
Agree.
However I think the point @Benpointer was probably referring to was probably:
'Our exit from the EU was all about moments just like this'
What an arse. Almost on the same level as 'Blue passports' and straight bananas. Mostly these things are not true i.e. we can do them anyway, but businesses choose not to and even if they couldn't these are mindbogglingly trivial gains. I mean is this really what people wanted from Brexit?
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67825635
Two teenage brothers have been arrested after their sister was shot and died during a row over Christmas presents.
The 23-year-old was shot in the chest by her teenage brother while she had her 10-month-old son in a carrier, the Florida sheriff's office said.
The boy was then shot by his older brother who took out his own gun, Pinellas County Sheriff's Office said.
It added that the shooting followed an argument over who was getting more presents.
Sheriff Bob Gualtieri told reporters the older teenager, aged 15, ran from the scene and tossed his gun away.
The younger brother, aged 14, was taken to hospital in a stable condition and will be taken into custody when he is released, police said...
In a healthy free market anyone who can afford to pay their landlord's mortgage would pay their own instead.
In a healthy free market people don't buy to let with a mortgage, since they'd have nobody to let to profitably.
Healthy free markets exist in other countries. Not ours unfortunately.
So, 2nd May General Election?
Also eg the risks of damage by retaining an existing responsible / knowledgeable tenant are far less than taking a gamble on a new one, and a change of tenants whilst generating a return to market-rent-or-thereabouts also requires perhaps 3-6 months worth of rent to be invested in the property, fees etc.
That then takes a number of years to pay off in a rent increased by perhaps 10-15%.
That's partly why every survey of rent levels in the media based on current advertised rents for the 1-2% of properties on the market consists of bunk.
And don't miss that rent level vs mortgage level is always a fake comparison, since mortgages don't cover maintenance, investment in eg new kitchens and bathrooms, carpets etc, then insurance and all the rest of the expenses.
(Other than the 2nd Amendment, obviously.)
In both cases it would raise far more money than inheritance tax currently does - would meet Labours criteria of being a progressive tax and would be hard to argue against..
Inheritance tax is one of those areas where changing it would be a very brave thing to do as there are easier options which raise far more but can't be implemented because inheritance tax currently exists. Remove it and suddenly those options become implementable...
Labour need to say not that they will overturn the budget proposals. Simply have their own shadow budget draft ready and read off that. Tory budget - take from the poor to give to the rich. Labour budget - get our services functioning again. etc
The welfare state has multiple mechanisms to support people with short-term problems, as has been true for decades. Councils can provide emergency funds and also have specific help for housing costs. Councils can also provide interest-free loans. The DWP can provide interest-free advances on universal credit. The DWP also has budgeting advances and budgeting loans.
Which is precisely where firms like Wonga stepped in, to fill the void, and were making tens of millions in profits from desperate people who were in vicious debt spirals.
Since then, charitable donations to the likes of Trussel Trust have utterly surged and Wonga have gone out of business.
Loans are not as good a solution to people who face sudden unexpected hardship as charitable safety nets are, since loans need to be repaid - even interest free loans.
I was of course being tongue-in-cheek about my suggestion for a free weekly issue of healthy food to every person or household but there is some logic in it.
We have heard the idea of a Universal Income being mooted in recent years; a Universal Food issue would be another flavour (sorry) of that. It could be used to try to nudge people away from unhealthy, high-sugar, ultra-processed foods; not complusion but encouragement.
A family suddenly burdened with an unexpected £500 bill can end up in hardship. There's nothing that can be done to prevent that. Having charity there, rather than predators there, when that happens is a good thing.
There will always be a need for either loan sharks or food banks or something like that, no matter what. Better the latter than the former.
However, if a change is implemented in April and an estate is sold before a GE, possibly in October, then the incoming government could not recover that benefit
I tend to drink a bottle over a few days. Often reds are better the next day for it.
This is the best packaging. Gin in sachets, and nice gin it is too.
It's called universal free school meals.
If someone's car breaks down and it costs £500 to fix it, then that's going to cause hardship.
In that situation, would you rather they borrow money from Wonga to get through to next payday, or go to a foodbank and get some charity to take them through to next payday?
Their increased popularity is due to awareness and people donating to them, rather than food going to landfill. That's a good thing, there's no downside.
As @pm215 has suggested any IHT change is likely to be planned post the GE or a manifesto commitment
Nope too many letters.
Is the Thesaurus hard to find because it’s in a hidden cavern full of snakes?
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/saving/article-12306737/One-three-people-dont-cash-emergencies.html
All we have is the evidence for increased supply of donations.
Unless the donations were previously going to landfill, supply of donations = what is given out.
Demand is infinite, it is supply that is finite. Number of parcels = donations, not demand.
BTW it would be interesting to know what percentage of total food consumption in the UK is obtained from charitable/voluntary outfits of any sort. My wild guess is it is well under 1%. Any data?
You’ve made a claim. Show your evidence.
Given you’ve already claimed there was no charity 1997-2010 and that the welfare state has no emergency funding systems, both errant nonsense, I presume you don’t have any evidence.
There's more charity (like food bank donations) now.
Provide a source saying there is more charity now.
Either the Trussell Trust was sending 99.9% of donations to landfill in the past, or donations have risen tremendously. Which is it?
The article is at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/12/27/tories-rishi-sunak-cut-income-tax-not-inheritance-tax/ but it's this line that is worth quoting from Jonathan Gullis
Mr Gullis tweeted: “Axing inheritance tax is something we should do, just not yet. Tax cuts for Spring 2024 I’d prefer us to prioritise: Raise the higher rate income tax threshold; Cut the basic rate of income tax; Scrap IR35 reforms; Increase VAT registration threshold to £250,000.”
Ignoring IR35 the actual fix for VAT isn't to increase the threshold to £250,000 it would be to reduce it to £25,000 or so and ensure most people have to charge it so the £83,000 level isn't a barrier for expansion..
You've previously stated that induced demand isn't a thing, so I think we should all recognise that you can change your mind on something. Good on you pal 👍
I totally support building new cycle lanes and new roads, I've advocated that in fact repeatedly.
I actually said induced demand is a good thing, its called economic growth.
Provide a source saying there is more charity now.
A bit like how you can recognise fiscal drag on income tax bands, but not on fuel duty rates.
Donations to animal shelter charities, or cancer charities, or heart charities etc don't provide people a way out of hardship when they face unexpected sudden hardship.
You're lying, I have always said induced demand is a good thing, I've never denied it exists.
That's why I support building both roads and cycle paths.
The fact we've failed to invest in our transportation is one reason we've had economic stagnation. Because we're artificially restricting demand.
(And animal charities sometimes provide support for people facing unexpected vet bills, cancer charities sometimes provide support for people with cancer facing unexpected sudden hardship, ditto heart charities. Ill health is, of course, a major source of unexpected sudden hardship.)
Why was I advocating new roads and new cycle paths?
Ignoramus.
Economically the demand for free is effectively infinite.
If supply were unlimited then hundreds of millions of parcels could be demanded per annum. But parcels are capped by supply, not demand.
WOOPS
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/charity-commission-annual-report-and-accounts-2021-to-2022/charity-commission-annual-report-and-accounts-2021-to-2022
A decade earlier, around £55 billion
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c433440f0b62dffde0e99/0970.pdf
Approximately in line with inflation.
Household giving is somewhere around £10-12bn I think. Hasn't changed massively over a decade.
A real thing, can share its name with a fallacious belief too.
Learn the difference.
Donations to Cancer Research UK don't help people who suddenly face an unexpected £500 bill so they don't need to turn to Wonga, donations to the Trussell Trust do.
J. Robert Oppenheimer: The chances are near zero...
Leslie Groves: Near zero?
J. Robert Oppenheimer: What do you want from theory alone?
Leslie Groves: Zero would be nice!
I’ve no problem with snakes though.
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)
The light of God 5 letters?
2) You're probably right that food bank use is a function of supply based on some work I've done previously. But it's mad complex, with it offsetting increased fuel bills, for example, rather than the cost of food.
3) Most food bank users were regulars rather than one offs AFAIK.
4) A very large quantity of food is provided through churches etc, on a traditional soup kitchen basis. I think you'd want to include them in your analysis rather than just food bank charities.
Another option they have to cover an unexpected bill (nearly always the issue) is a UC advance but that just leaves them struggling on reduced UC for the next year.
Then the government have this marvellous idea called the Household Support Fund, which must be the most inefficient way to get help to the needy ever invented. The HSF operates by HMG giving each Local Authority an allocation of funds in the form of supermarket food vouchers (usually worth £150).
Every month the LA (Dorset in my case) opens up an on-line application scrum on a set day, first come, first served, the only criteria are: annual household net income of less than £30,000, savings of less than £16,000, and not applied for a previous HSF payment within the last 6 months.
In reality, of course, it comes down to those most savvy and on the ball getting the vouchers.
If someone is struggling then giving them "for free" something they normally have to pay for acts as a shock absorber that helps stabilise their finances.
Yes soup kitchens etc are another option and a good thing to be available too.
Both are a good thing, and demand will never and should never go away, as people will always face hard times no matter what. If someone's car breaks down, or fuel prices surge, or whatever, or whatever - they'll always need help or if help isn't there, then a temporary crisis can cause a more vicious cycle of longer term problems.
But what about a fantasy budget in March then an Election in September?
No doubt the Sunaks will explain that they were going to avoid the IHT anyway due to non-Dom or other tax dodges - a defence that may be counter-productive.
The biggest issue for UK poverty is that so many of these people are actually in full time employment, particularly single mothers. This is the profound distinction between us and Nordic countries, whose rates of out-of-work poverty are similar to our own.
Many people live from paycheck to paycheck, no matter their income level, then if they get a bad bill then that means problems.
And when those problems occur, getting support is better than getting into debt.
For temporary unemployment, then welfare may be a solution, for temporary shocks then charity being available is a good thing.
If you want to lower in-work poverty then house costs are the far bigger problem.
It's the equivalent of my phone masts obsession, few people care about it except me.
However I think the point @Benpointer was probably referring to was probably:
'Our exit from the EU was all about moments just like this'
What an arse. Almost on the same level as 'Blue passports' and straight bananas. Mostly these things are not true i.e. we can do them anyway, but businesses choose not to and even if they couldn't these are mindbogglingly trivial gains. I mean is this really what people wanted from Brexit?