Ah the sneering Remoaner. Is it any wonder you lost. Fwiw, the UK has one of the largest tourism deficits in the world, outside of London every part of the UK has a tourism deficit, more tourism is exactly what the doctor ordered.
lol very good. The Greek route of an economy based on devaluation and tourism it is then.
The UK has an enormous mixed economy. We also have a double deficit. Boosting tourism isn't going to harm manufacturing or services. The Greek problem is that they don't also have strength in other areas - they only have tourism. Our trade deficit would be much much better if we could import less energy or export more of anything. Tourism is an easy route to the latter.
Tourism is fine but as a contributor to the health of the nation its not something I'd get too excited about. Ironically it will benefit most the areas that voted Remain (London, Edinburgh) but do little to help the left behind Leavers of Sunderland. If we are going to use our new Brexit freedoms to improve the country then we need to aim a bit higher than a bump in tourism income.
Well I have stayed in the Lake District, Peak District, York and Warwick just lately. All voted leave. All totally chokka with foreign tourists. Maybe the word is getting out that there is more to the UK than London.
Good for antiquarian book sales abroad, too....
I couldn't agree more - most small budget end hotels are just dismal. I'd rather end up in an antiseptic Travelodge than a random Best Western with a giant waterstain on the woodchip ceiling or limescale smothered taps.
Travelodge is the McDonalds of hotels. It's not great, and with a bit of research you'd probably find somewhere much better, but when you're in a strange town late at night you know exactly what you'll get.
I've found plenty of hotels and guest houses in the UK that are nice to stay in, and reasonably priced. But, you need to shop around. I find Bookings.Com is an excellent service.
Absolutely. I used to do loads of driving for work in the UK, and when it got to 9pm and still three hours from home a Travelodge was a safe bet. This was before the fancy booking websites we have today, which as you say make it much easier to find the nice guesthouse in the sea of crap ones.
Why is the Y-Axis Dodgy? Is it the wrong numbers? You don't need to zero base line charts.
Not a surprise as the school leaving age is now 18. Let's raise it to 24 and that fall will look even bigger. Yay.
Also - the Mail was moaning the fall of average GCSE grades - omitting that the ones that failed English and Maths last year had to re-sit. Thus increasing the cohort of low achievers.
Could The Donald do what Brexit achieved, which is to bring people out to vote who haven't voted for years and years and years?
If so, as with Brexit, Pollsters won't be able to "find" these people... And yet another polling fiasco could be about to emerge...
That's my feeling. I find it most revealing that the commentators talkdown the potential of DNVWhites, but were full of delight over Obama 'inspiring' DNVBlacks.
TBH, I think PB is doing another Brexit - and too prone to lazy feelgood-about-myself stereotyping. HRC talking about Farage as 'far right' made me LOL. It was pathetic nonsense.
Is there another lesson from Brexit though? President Obama went down like a cup of cold sick when he lectured Britons on the perils of life at the back of the queue. Will Americans be more ready to listen to the equally foreign Farage? What does the editor of The Guardian think?
Remain were ahead within the margin of error. Clinton is ahead by a much more massive degree.
Also, the networks all refer to farage as far right. That is how he is viewed in the US.
It seems to me that Clinton/Trump margin (5-6% on average) isn't much different from the Remain/Leave margin, prior to the last fortnight of the campaign, albeit, I would expect a polling upset to be less likely in a Presidential election than in a referendum.
Edit: Being behind by 5% in polls probably means that you win about one time out of five. That's quite a fair chance of winning, but it also means that 4 times out of 5 you lose. So, while the Brexit vote can give some comfort to Trump, it doesn't alter the fact that he's likely to lose on current polling.
But, if Professor Godwin's et al research is to be believed, Leave were ahead all along.
In hindsight, the turning point was purdah. And I bet until his dying day Cameron/Lidington will regret conceding to the Jenkyns amendment on that.
At the time it seemed like a minor technicality.
What difference would it have made in practice? What could the government have done that they didn't do anyway?
Tourism is fine but as a contributor to the health of the nation its not something I'd get too excited about.
Tourism currently accounts for something like 9% of GDP and of all jobs in the UK. So it's a biggie. It's also a sector where there are good growth prospects.
It's also a sector where the UK has been living beyond its means. We have a truly massive tourism deficit, holidaying in Britain has gone out of fashion at the same time as when we had a relatively strong currency. It hurt seaside towns the most IMO.
In a putting my money where my mouth is sort of way, my gf and I have cancelled our trip to Italy this summer and are heading to the Scottish Highlands tomorrow morning until Wednesday. I haven't been before so I'm looking forward to it.
The UK is the 5th largest economy but only the 8th biggest tourism destination (though London is on some measures the most visited city). The weak pound may help UK tourism
F1: Lewis has a new complete PU for P2, and will get another new one overnight. Great call on this by @MaxPB a couple of weeks ago. Alonso also has new PU, will start just in front of Lewis on the grid.
I know I'll sound like the old git I am, but that's one of statements that make no sense. People usually work because (a) it gets them out the house (b) they use the extra money for 'luxuries'.
My mother did odd bits of cleaning work for the money and to get out of the house. With six children and no child minders, she had little choice. My father was a labourer (always employed) but money was tight, much tighter than today, even with the advantage of a council house.
The other statement is along the lines of "We're far busier and more stressed than we used to be."
Look back a hundred years and people worked about 60 hours a week, but I suppose they enjoyed not having to worry about spending money that didn't have. No poring over holiday brochures, no problems about the right labels on your hand-me-downs, no worry about the leccy bill, because candles were cheap enough.
You tell the kids today and they won't believe you, will they? Not even in Yorkshire.
Labour we are told is tearing itself apart, completely unelectable, doomed for a decade, etc. etc., yet it is still polling around about the same as it got at last years GE. Someone is wrong somewhere.
That said, I think polls at this stage of the electoral cycle are pretty useless as so few electors actually pay much attention to politics and those done in the holiday period are even less worthwhile.
Probably going to be controversial here - but I think a parent should take responsibility for bringing up their own children. And that means being there to actually look after them. Not hand them off to others, because you'd rather be doing something else.
Plato says close the boarding schools. Radical!
??? Why would I be in favour of boarding schools? A very silly comment from you here.
I can't imagine anything worse myself - they may be suited to a certain sort of occupation [if your parents are in the Armed Services and you don't want to relocate a lot] or if your home-life environment is awful and it'd be an escape/safer place.
Otherwise - nope.
Oh, come on. Boarding schools are ace. Most of the children who go through them have a killer time.
I hated mine. My experiences there were almost enough to tip from the conservative into the liberal democrat camp, and even today I have fairly liberal views on prison reform (yes, really) in no small part because of it.
Although I understand they are a bit different now.
The UK is full to bursting with tourists at the moment. That must help the trade balance.
Devaluation is an easy but shortlived economic stimulus, and an addictive one.
lol very good. The Greek route of an economy based on devaluation and tourism it is then.
Probably a function of the currency.
I stay in lots of mediocre hotels and pubs whilst travelling to auctions - some of these are tremendously expensive. Hiltons and Holiday Inns look cheap compared to small hotels. Must be offputting to tourists - especially when compared to the Med.
But now - we're 20% cheaper.
Good for antiquarian book sales abroad, too....
I couldn't agree more - most small budget end hotels are just dismal. I'd rather end up in an antiseptic Travelodge than a random Best Western with a giant waterstain on the woodchip ceiling or limescale smothered taps.
Travelodge is the McDonalds of hotels. It's not great, and with a bit of research you'd probably find somewhere much better, but when you're in a strange town late at night you know exactly what you'll get.
I never understood the Holiday Inn concept of 'same lightswitch, in the same place, controlling the same lights' until I'd spent rather too much time in random places when tired and grumpy...
If I had to pick the one thing that'd make me choose one hotel chain over another it'd be the shower controls. I HATE the fiddling about. Then it'd be the room service menu = edible club sandwich with fries please. Oh, and a big button that turns the TV - complete with greeting/my name spelled incorrectly off.
Yeah, what's that all about?
The way some showers seem to be set up you'd like it'd be simpler to operate the Large Hadron Collider.
I know I'll sound like the old git I am, but that's one of statements that make no sense. People usually work because (a) it gets them out the house (b) they use the extra money for 'luxuries'.
My mother did odd bits of cleaning work for the money and to get out of the house. With six children and no child minders, she had little choice. My father was a labourer (always employed) but money was tight, much tighter than today, even with the advantage of a council house.
The other statement is along the lines of "We're far busier and more stressed than we used to be."
Look back a hundred years and people worked about 60 hours a week, but I suppose they enjoyed not having to worry about spending money that didn't have. No poring over holiday brochures, no problems about the right labels on your hand-me-downs, no worry about the leccy bill, because candles were cheap enough.
You tell the kids today and they won't believe you, will they? Not even in Yorkshire.
Maybe 30 years ago having a second earner was a luxury, but with housing costs as they are it's essential for most households these days. A simple examination of median wages and mortgage/rent payments will show this.
Sadly the world in which children don't get farmed out requires far tighter restrictions on bank lending and house prices that aren't 5-10 times a families income...
There seems to be a vicious cycle of:
1. Desire to go out to work as it's more fun than being at home/baby brain 2. Being paid to childmind has become riven with costs that push prices way up 3. So going out to work barely covers the rising costs of paying someone else 4. Two incomes are required for property/lifestyle sustaining reasons 5. Kids are farmed out because of 1-4.
And now we hear a great deal about childhood depression/anxiety/lack of self worth et al. I can't help feeling it's not a coincidence. And bugger all to do with Twitter or Facebook. That just amplifies it.
There was an attempt by the Tories in the coalition to reduce the cost of child care by increasing the number of kids a childminder could look after (I think from 3 to 4).
The LibDems for all "won't someone think if the children" and nixed the idea. because I guess they don't struggle with living costs.
Labour we are told is tearing itself apart, completely unelectable, doomed for a decade, etc. etc., yet it is still polling around about the same as it got at last years GE. Someone is wrong somewhere.
That said, I think polls at this stage of the electoral cycle are pretty useless as so few electors actually pay much attention to politics and those done in the holiday period are even less worthwhile.
29%? YouGov are having a laugh. 22% more likely in a real GE.
Probably going to be controversial here - but I think a parent should take responsibility for bringing up their own children. And that means being there to actually look after them. Not hand them off to others, because you'd rather be doing something else.
Plato says close the boarding schools. Radical!
??? Why would I be in favour of boarding schools? A very silly comment from you here.
I can't imagine anything worse myself - they may be suited to a certain sort of occupation [if your parents are in the Armed Services and you don't want to relocate a lot] or if your home-life environment is awful and it'd be an escape/safer place.
Otherwise - nope.
Oh, come on. Boarding schools are ace. Most of the children who go through them have a killer time.
I hated mine. My experiences there were almost enough to tip from the conservative into the liberal democrat camp, and even today I have fairly liberal views on prison reform (yes, really) in no small part because of it.
Although I understand they are a bit different now.
Interesting; I'm a few years your senior. Where did you attend?
F1: Lewis has a new complete PU for P2, and will get another new one overnight. Great call on this by @MaxPB a couple of weeks ago. Alonso also has new PU, will start just in front of Lewis on the grid.
That's three sets of new parts. It means Hamilton has spares for the rest of the season. Cunning move by Mercedes. If Lewis can limit the damage this weekend with a top five finish then he will surely be favourite for the title becauae he won't have any more penalties coming his way.
Sadly the world in which children don't get farmed out requires far tighter restrictions on bank lending and house prices that aren't 5-10 times a families income...
There seems to be a vicious cycle of:
1. Desire to go out to work as it's more fun than being at home/baby brain 2. Being paid to childmind has become riven with costs that push prices way up 3. So going out to work barely covers the rising costs of paying someone else 4. Two incomes are required for property/lifestyle sustaining reasons 5. Kids are farmed out because of 1-4.
And now we hear a great deal about childhood depression/anxiety/lack of self worth et al. I can't help feeling it's not a coincidence. And bugger all to do with Twitter or Facebook. That just amplifies it.
There was an attempt by the Tories in the coalition to reduce the cost of child care by increasing the number of kids a childminder could look after (I think from 3 to 4).
The LibDems for all "won't someone think if the children" and nixed the idea. because I guess they don't struggle with living costs.
So we're simultaneously arguing that putting kids in nursery is bad for kids, but reducing the quality of the provision is fine
The proposal to increase the childcare ratios went against all expert advice and evidence, though I appreciate that sort of thing is no longer in fashion.
Labour we are told is tearing itself apart, completely unelectable, doomed for a decade, etc. etc., yet it is still polling around about the same as it got at last years GE. Someone is wrong somewhere.
That said, I think polls at this stage of the electoral cycle are pretty useless as so few electors actually pay much attention to politics and those done in the holiday period are even less worthwhile.
Labour is polling 2% more than Foot got (with no SDP) and less than Kinnock and Miliband and the same as Brown, hardly implausible
F1: Lewis has a new complete PU for P2, and will get another new one overnight. Great call on this by @MaxPB a couple of weeks ago. Alonso also has new PU, will start just in front of Lewis on the grid.
That's three sets of new parts. It means Hamilton has spares for the rest of the season. Cunning move by Mercedes. If Lewis can limit the damage this weekend with a top five finish then he will surely be favourite for the title becauae he won't have any more penalties coming his way.
Agreed. The only thing against him would be if Meredes deliver a massively improved PU to Rosberg before the end of the season, and Lewis then either has to either take another penalty or drop points to Nico.
Lewis is a very stingy 2 (evens) for a podium this weekend on Betfair. Maybe the strategy is to lay that for now and back at higher prices when everyone wakes up to the fact of him starting at the back.
I know I'll sound like the old git I am, but that's one of statements that make no sense. People usually work because (a) it gets them out the house (b) they use the extra money for 'luxuries'.
My mother did odd bits of cleaning work for the money and to get out of the house. With six children and no child minders, she had little choice. My father was a labourer (always employed) but money was tight, much tighter than today, even with the advantage of a council house.
The other statement is along the lines of "We're far busier and more stressed than we used to be."
Look back a hundred years and people worked about 60 hours a week, but I suppose they enjoyed not having to worry about spending money that didn't have. No poring over holiday brochures, no problems about the right labels on your hand-me-downs, no worry about the leccy bill, because candles were cheap enough.
You tell the kids today and they won't believe you, will they? Not even in Yorkshire.
Someone on an average salary brings in, say, around £1600 per month after tax. If that has to cover living costs for him or her, the stay-at-hoe parent and at least one child, then it needs to cover housing costs - at least £800 a month. So that leaves £800. Another £150 or so goes on Council tax, another £150 say on utilities, and that leaves £500. If the family runs a car, then that's probably another £200 a month. That leaves £300 a month for food, living costs, getting to work clothing: I dare say it can be done, but it's damned tight. And that's all your money gone for a month before you get to luxuries, and doesn't include any element of saving for a rainy day, and leaves you unable to pay a unexpected bill - a trip to the dentist, a pair of glasses etc. This leaves a pretty limited life for the stay-at-home parent and the child. I maintain that people work because they need to..
Why is the Y-Axis Dodgy? Is it the wrong numbers? You don't need to zero base line charts.
Not a surprise as the school leaving age is now 18. Let's raise it to 24 and that fall will look even bigger. Yay.
Also - the Mail was moaning the fall of average GCSE grades - omitting that the ones that failed English and Maths last year had to re-sit. Thus increasing the cohort of low achievers.
The Mail was moaning about rising GCSE grades before, whatever happens the Mail is guaranteed to moan about it!
But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.
Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
.
A centres.
Yes, because children grow up to be tax payers and the better start hey have in life the more tax they pay later.
Isnt minimum wage?
Massively depends on the parent. Don't see why they should be forced to stopped working if they don't want to.
If they don't want to look after their own children, they shouldn't have them. Nobody forced them.
FFS, putting children in nursery during working hours isn't "not looking after them"
In any case, it's in the state's interest to encourage a healthy birth rate, unless you want our already problematic demographics to get even worse.
Of course it and childcare concerns.
Well said. If you don't want to look after your own offspring because you prefer being at work/find them difficult or boring company most of the time - don't have them. Choose cats instead, or tropical fish.
Hardly anybody would rather be at work than at home looking after their children. This is a meme which tends to be trotted about by well-educated people with good jobs who assume most people enjoy work as much as they do. Of course most people would rather stay at home and look after their children. But it's a compromise that people have to make in order to afford things like food, shelter and electricity.
Precisely. If you live in London or in many other parts of the SE and beyond, you have to be extremely well off or fortunate in other ways to have kids and just one parent going to work. Or you have to be totally dependent on the state.
And this country needs its working age population to have children.
I know I'll sound like the old git I am, but that's one of statements that make no sense. People usually work because (a) it gets them out the house (b) they use the extra money for 'luxuries'.
My mother did odd bits of cleaning work for the money and to get out of the house. With six children and no child minders, she had little choice. My father was a labourer (always employed) but money was tight, much tighter than today, even with the advantage of a council house.
The other statement is along the lines of "We're far busier and more stressed than we used to be."
Look back a hundred years and people worked about 60 hours a week, but I suppose they enjoyed not having to worry about spending money that didn't have. No poring over holiday brochures, no problems about the right labels on your hand-me-downs, no worry about the leccy bill, because candles were cheap enough.
You tell the kids today and they won't believe you, will they? Not even in Yorkshire.
Someone on an average salary brings in, say, around £1600 per month after tax. If that has to cover living costs for him or her, the stay-at-hoe parent and at least one child, then it needs to cover housing costs - at least £800 a month. So that leaves £800. Another £150 or so goes on Council tax, another £150 say on utilities, and that leaves £500. If the family runs a car, then that's probably another £200 a month. That leaves £300 a month for food, living costs, getting to work clothing: I dare say it can be done, but it's damned tight. And that's all your money gone for a month before you get to luxuries, and doesn't include any element of saving for a rainy day, and leaves you unable to pay a unexpected bill - a trip to the dentist, a pair of glasses etc. This leaves a pretty limited life for the stay-at-home parent and the child. I maintain that people work because they need to..
Exactly what I was saying. It's astonishing how little appreciation some people have of modern living costs, especially the older generation.
I know I'll sound like the old git I am, but that's one of statements that make no sense. People usually work because (a) it gets them out the house (b) they use the extra money for 'luxuries'.
My mother did odd bits of cleaning work for the money and to get out of the house. With six children and no child minders, she had little choice. My father was a labourer (always employed) but money was tight, much tighter than today, even with the advantage of a council house.
The other statement is along the lines of "We're far busier and more stressed than we used to be."
Look back a hundred years and people worked about 60 hours a week, but I suppose they enjoyed not having to worry about spending money that didn't have. No poring over holiday brochures, no problems about the right labels on your hand-me-downs, no worry about the leccy bill, because candles were cheap enough.
You tell the kids today and they won't believe you, will they? Not even in Yorkshire.
Maybe 30 years ago having a second earner was a luxury, but with housing costs as they are it's essential for most households these days. A simple examination of median wages and mortgage/rent payments will show this.
Isn't that where this conversation started early this morning? And as per some of those comments the second wage is not always the benefit it seems to be. There was an example of a couple one of whom after tax income was £1400, but £1000 of that went on childcare, take out the costs of working (clothes, travel, meals, etc) and it is not at all clear that there is much of a financial benefit at all. In fact that family would be better off if that partner stayed at home and they made some minor adjustments to their lifestyle.
I know I'll sound like the old git I am, but that's one of statements that make no sense. People usually work because (a) it gets them out the house (b) they use the extra money for 'luxuries'.
My mother did odd bits of cleaning work for the money and to get out of the house. With six children and no child minders, she had little choice. My father was a labourer (always employed) but money was tight, much tighter than today, even with the advantage of a council house.
The other statement is along the lines of "We're far busier and more stressed than we used to be."
Look back a hundred years and people worked about 60 hours a week, but I suppose they enjoyed not having to worry about spending money that didn't have. No poring over holiday brochures, no problems about the right labels on your hand-me-downs, no worry about the leccy bill, because candles were cheap enough.
You tell the kids today and they won't believe you, will they? Not even in Yorkshire.
Maybe 30 years ago having a second earner was a luxury, but with housing costs as they are it's essential for most households these days. A simple examination of median wages and mortgage/rent payments will show this.
Many increasingly rely on the bank of mum and dad for a deposit to buy a property too as well as both couples earning
If so, as with Brexit, Pollsters won't be able to "find" these people... And yet another polling fiasco could be about to emerge...
That's my feeling. I find it most revealing that the commentators talkdown the potential of DNVWhites, but were full of delight over Obama 'inspiring' DNVBlacks.
TBH, I think PB is doing another Brexit - and too prone to lazy feelgood-about-myself stereotyping. HRC talking about Farage as 'far right' made me LOL. It was pathetic nonsense.
Is there another lesson from Brexit though? President Obama went down like a cup of cold sick when he lectured Britons on the perils of life at the back of the queue. Will Americans be more ready to listen to the equally foreign Farage? What does the editor of The Guardian think?
Remain were ahead within the margin of error. Clinton is ahead by a much more massive degree.
Also, the networks all refer to farage as far right. That is how he is viewed in the US.
It seems to me that Clinton/Trump margin (5-6% on average) isn't much different from the Remain/Leave margin, prior to the last fortnight of the campaign, albeit, I would expect a polling upset to be less likely in a Presidential election than in a referendum.
Edit: Being behind by 5% in polls probably means that you win about one time out of five. That's quite a fair chance of winning, but it also means that 4 times out of 5 you lose. So, while the Brexit vote can give some comfort to Trump, it doesn't alter the fact that he's likely to lose on current polling.
But, if Professor Godwin's et al research is to be believed, Leave were ahead all along.
In hindsight, the turning point was purdah. And I bet until his dying day Cameron/Lidington will regret conceding to the Jenkyns amendment on that.
At the time it seemed like a minor technicality.
What difference would it have made in practice? What could the government have done that they didn't do anyway?
Sack Andrew Cooper.
So many of the Government and Remain's problems came from a fundamental misreading of the mood of the electorate, that was compounded by Cooper's partiality and pompous campaigning style.
Even Cameron's approach to negotiating and selling the deal would have probably been different if they'd known they could be in some serious sauce from day one.
The UK is full to bursting with tourists at the moment. That must help the trade balance.
Devaluation is an easy but shortlived economic stimulus, and an addictive one.
Tourism is also one of those high productivity, high tech businesses that we really want to grow as well of course....
Ah the sneering Remoaner. Is it any wonder you lost. Fwiw, the UK has one of the largest tourism deficits in the world, outside of London every part of the UK has a tourism deficit, more tourism is exactly what the doctor ordered.
And, although this is never mentioned AFAICS - people should buy goods and services from local shops so that the money stays longer in the community. Other than the South-East, money is constantly leached from communities as they spend it in Lidl, Morrisons, Asda, Amazon, etc - and in the worst case has to be replenished in the form of tax credits and benefits from central Government. (One of the many reasons why the North is so poor.)
Do people in the south east all shop at the local farmers' market for their weekly shop or something ?
Lidl and Aldi have a strong middle class customer base now- I see they are taking them from the big four.
When compare to Sainsburys you can get twice as much hummus for half the price at the local Lidl.
Probably going to be controversial here - but I think a parent should take responsibility for bringing up their own children. And that means being there to actually look after them. Not hand them off to others, because you'd rather be doing something else.
Plato says close the boarding schools. Radical!
??? Why would I be in favour of boarding schools? A very silly comment from you here.
I can't imagine anything worse myself - they may be suited to a certain sort of occupation [if your parents are in the Armed Services and you don't want to relocate a lot] or if your home-life environment is awful and it'd be an escape/safer place.
Otherwise - nope.
Oh, come on. Boarding schools are ace. Most of the children who go through them have a killer time.
I hated mine. My experiences there were almost enough to tip from the conservative into the liberal democrat camp, and even today I have fairly liberal views on prison reform (yes, really) in no small part because of it.
Although I understand they are a bit different now.
Interesting; I'm a few years your senior. Where did you attend?
Early - mid 1990s. So very recently.
I couldn't believe what they were getting away with even then, in "modern" times.
I know I'll sound like the old git I am, but that's one of statements that make no sense. People usually work because (a) it gets them out the house (b) they use the extra money for 'luxuries'.
My mother did odd bits of cleaning work for the money and to get out of the house. With six children and no child minders, she had little choice. My father was a labourer (always employed) but money was tight, much tighter than today, even with the advantage of a council house.
The other statement is along the lines of "We're far busier and more stressed than we used to be."
Look back a hundred years and people worked about 60 hours a week, but I suppose they enjoyed not having to worry about spending money that didn't have. No poring over holiday brochures, no problems about the right labels on your hand-me-downs, no worry about the leccy bill, because candles were cheap enough.
You tell the kids today and they won't believe you, will they? Not even in Yorkshire.
Maybe 30 years ago having a second earner was a luxury, but with housing costs as they are it's essential for most households these days. A simple examination of median wages and mortgage/rent payments will show this.
Isn't that where this conversation started early this morning? And as per some of those comments the second wage is not always the benefit it seems to be. There was an example of a couple one of whom after tax income was £1400, but £1000 of that went on childcare, take out the costs of working (clothes, travel, meals, etc) and it is not at all clear that there is much of a financial benefit at all. In fact that family would be better off if that partner stayed at home and they made some minor adjustments to their lifestyle.
Given the average house price is now over £200k and the average salary is £27k and you can normally get a maximum mortgage of 4 times salary, if only one partner in a couple works we become a nation of renters!
The UK is full to bursting with tourists at the moment. That must help the trade balance.
Devaluation is an easy but shortlived economic stimulus, and an addictive one.
Tourism is also one of those high productivity, high tech businesses that we really want to grow as well of course....
Ah the sneering Remoaner. Is it any wonder you lost. Fwiw, the UK has one of the largest tourism deficits in the world, outside of London every part of the UK has a tourism deficit, more tourism is exactly what the doctor ordered.
And, although this is never mentioned AFAICS - people should buy goods and services from local shops so that the money stays longer in the community. Other than the South-East, money is constantly leached from communities as they spend it in Lidl, Morrisons, Asda, Amazon, etc - and in the worst case has to be replenished in the form of tax credits and benefits from central Government. (One of the many reasons why the North is so poor.)
Do people in the south east all shop at the local farmers' market for their weekly shop or something ?
Lidl and Aldi have a strong middle class customer base now- I see they are taking them from the big four.
When compare to Sainsburys you can get twice as much hummus for half the price at the local Lidl.
I don't understand the Sainsburys brand positioning....if you want cheap there is Aldi, Lidl, cheap with more variety, Asda or Tescos. If you want posho, Waitrose or M&S...for cheap high quality bulk buying there is Costco.
Sainsburys to me if neither cheap nor excellent quality and many of their stores are very dated. Some of the newer ones are ok, but there is a wide variety and none are as nice as Waitrose.
"with housing costs as they are it's essential for most households these days."
The council house was cheap - 21 shillings a week, rates included, and we had an inside toilet for the first time. Luxury, young Obadiah. No worry about interest rates or disposable income.
We never expected to buy a house, it was more a queue to get on the council house waiting-list. The good old days, eh? We lucky sods missed all the stresses from being too affluent.
Do I miss all my simple pleasures like polio and consumption, and washing with cold water? And working on the land during every school holiday except for Christman? Nope, not at all. And trying to pretend it was a golden age compared with today is amusing.
What's the phrase ... Affluenza? Is it catching? It sounds like it.
We'll know what the result is pretty much when New Hampshire declares. If Hillary has won that by 4+ %, it is over. If Trump has come very close there then it is game on - if he has won, it is also over .
Not so. New Hampshire is a cherry on the cake. If Trump edges it and also takes Nevada and Iowa he still requires one of FOP.
The UK is full to bursting with tourists at the moment. That must help the trade balance.
Devaluation is an easy but shortlived economic stimulus, and an addictive one.
Tourism is also one of those high productivity, high tech businesses that we really want to grow as well of course....
Ah the sneering Remoaner. Is it any wonder you lost. Fwiw, the UK has one of the largest tourism deficits in the world, outside of London every part of the UK has a tourism deficit, more tourism is exactly what the doctor ordered.
And, although this is never mentioned AFAICS - people should buy goods and services from local shops so that the money stays longer in the community. Other than the South-East, money is constantly leached from communities as they spend it in Lidl, Morrisons, Asda, Amazon, etc - and in the worst case has to be replenished in the form of tax credits and benefits from central Government. (One of the many reasons why the North is so poor.)
Do people in the south east all shop at the local farmers' market for their weekly shop or something ?
Lidl and Aldi have a strong middle class customer base now- I see they are taking them from the big four.
When compare to Sainsburys you can get twice as much hummus for half the price at the local Lidl.
I don't understand the Sainsburys brand positioning....if you want cheap there is Aldi, Lidl, Asda or Tescos. If you want posho, Waitrose or M&S...
Sainsburys to me if neither cheap nor excellent quality and many of their stores are very dated. Some of the newer ones are ok, but there is a wide variety and none are as nice as Waitrose.
Sainsburys is a little posher than Tesco and Asda, a little less than Waitrose and M & S
The UK is full to bursting with tourists at the moment. That must help the trade balance.
Devaluation is an easy but shortlived economic stimulus, and an addictive one.
Tourism is also one of those high productivity, high tech businesses that we really want to grow as well of course....
Ah the sneering Remoaner. Is it any wonder you lost. Fwiw, the UK has one of the largest tourism deficits in the world, outside of London every part of the UK has a tourism deficit, more tourism is exactly what the doctor ordered.
And, although this is never mentioned AFAICS - people should buy goods and services from local shops so that the money stays longer in the community. Other than the South-East, money is constantly leached from communities as they spend it in Lidl, Morrisons, Asda, Amazon, etc - and in the worst case has to be replenished in the form of tax credits and benefits from central Government. (One of the many reasons why the North is so poor.)
Do people in the south east all shop at the local farmers' market for their weekly shop or something ?
Lidl and Aldi have a strong middle class customer base now- I see they are taking them from the big four.
When compare to Sainsburys you can get twice as much hummus for half the price at the local Lidl.
I don't understand the Sainsburys brand positioning....if you want cheap there is Aldi, Lidl, Asda or Tescos. If you want posho, Waitrose or M&S...
Sainsburys to me if neither cheap nor excellent quality and many of their stores are very dated. Some of the newer ones are ok, but there is a wide variety and none are as nice as Waitrose.
Sainsbury is a little posher than Tesco and Asda, a little less than Waitrose and M & S
Yes, but (for me at least) not significantly enough to justify more expense or lesser quality. There doesn't seem to be a defining reason to go there.
I think there numbers are holding up, but I wonder. In the ultra competitive world of supermarkets, we know Tescos are struggling and I don't see them with a real USP.
I know I'll sound like the old git I am, but that's one of statements that make no sense. People usually work because (a) it gets them out the house (b) they use the extra money for 'luxuries'.
My mother did odd bits of cleaning work for the money and to get out of the house. With six children and no child minders, she had little choice. My father was a labourer (always employed) but money was tight, much tighter than today, even with the advantage of a council house.
The other statement is along the lines of "We're far busier and more stressed than we used to be."
Look back a hundred years and people worked about 60 hours a week, but I suppose they enjoyed not having to worry about spending money that didn't have. No poring over holiday brochures, no problems about the right labels on your hand-me-downs, no worry about the leccy bill, because candles were cheap enough.
You tell the kids today and they won't believe you, will they? Not even in Yorkshire.
Maybe 30 years ago having a second earner was a luxury, but with housing costs as they are it's essential for most households these days. A simple examination of median wages and mortgage/rent payments will show this.
Many increasingly rely on the bank of mum and dad for a deposit to buy a property too as well as both couples earning
Well "Mum and Dad" will have benefitted from massive property inflation if they bought their own house, so you could just view it as a backpayment from that and of course to reduce future IHT liabilities.
Probably going to be controversial here - but I think a parent should take responsibility for bringing up their own children. And that means being there to actually look after them. Not hand them off to others, because you'd rather be doing something else.
Plato says close the boarding schools. Radical!
??? Why would I be in favour of boarding schools? A very silly comment from you here.
I can't imagine anything worse myself - they may be suited to a certain sort of occupation [if your parents are in the Armed Services and you don't want to relocate a lot] or if your home-life environment is awful and it'd be an escape/safer place.
Otherwise - nope.
Oh, come on. Boarding schools are ace. Most of the children who go through them have a killer time.
I hated mine. My experiences there were almost enough to tip from the conservative into the liberal democrat camp, and even today I have fairly liberal views on prison reform (yes, really) in no small part because of it.
Although I understand they are a bit different now.
Interesting; I'm a few years your senior. Where did you attend?
Early - mid 1990s. So very recently.
I couldn't believe what they were getting away with even then, in "modern" times.
Apparently they skipped reading lessons, also.
The quality is variable, I think; even so, I went to one of what are laughingly called the great public schools (on a scholarship and a bursary, my family were normal working folk), late 80s to early 90s - it and the various others of its kind (more established or otherwise) I saw through sporting visits/general mixing seemed to be peopled by pretty happy children.
We'll know what the result is pretty much when New Hampshire declares. If Hillary has won that by 4+ %, it is over. If Trump has come very close there then it is game on - if he has won, it is also over .
Not so. New Hampshire is a cherry on the cake. If Trump edges it and also takes Nevada and Iowa he still requires one of FOP.
Labour we are told is tearing itself apart, completely unelectable, doomed for a decade, etc. etc., yet it is still polling around about the same as it got at last years GE. Someone is wrong somewhere.
That said, I think polls at this stage of the electoral cycle are pretty useless as so few electors actually pay much attention to politics and those done in the holiday period are even less worthwhile.
either the polls are still overestimating labour, or else the tribal brand vote is remarkably durable, or Corbyn is right his views are popular (or at least not unprecedentedly unpopular). Without a viable alternative in England still, I'm inclined to think for a lot of people have nowhere else to go and so it's a question of will the tribal vote turn out or not.
Labour we are told is tearing itself apart, completely unelectable, doomed for a decade, etc. etc., yet it is still polling around about the same as it got at last years GE. Someone is wrong somewhere.
That said, I think polls at this stage of the electoral cycle are pretty useless as so few electors actually pay much attention to politics and those done in the holiday period are even less worthwhile.
'Labour' and 'Corbyn-led Labour' are two very different things, Labour identity is still very strong. I know plenty who would happily say they are Labour voters, but then in the next breath 'not that man Corbyn though'. That is why I think ICM (?) bringing back the use of leader-naming is a wise choice for the actual state of things.
The UK is full to bursting with tourists at the moment. That must help the trade balance.
Devaluation is an easy but shortlived economic stimulus, and an addictive one.
Tourism is also one of those high productivity, high tech businesses that we really want to grow as well of course....
Ah the sneering Remoaner. Is it any wonder you lost. Fwiw, the UK has one of the largest tourism deficits in the world, outside of London every part of the UK has a tourism deficit, more tourism is exactly what the doctor ordered.
And, although this is never mentioned AFAICS - people should buy goods and services from local shops so that the money stays longer in the community. Other than the South-East, money is constantly leached from communities as they spend it in Lidl, Morrisons, Asda, Amazon, etc - and in the worst case has to be replenished in the form of tax credits and benefits from central Government. (One of the many reasons why the North is so poor.)
Do people in the south east all shop at the local farmers' market for their weekly shop or something ?
Lidl and Aldi have a strong middle class customer base now- I see they are taking them from the big four.
When compare to Sainsburys you can get twice as much hummus for half the price at the local Lidl.
I don't understand the Sainsburys brand positioning....if you want cheap there is Aldi, Lidl, cheap with more variety, Asda or Tescos. If you want posho, Waitrose or M&S...for cheap high quality bulk buying there is Costco.
Sainsburys to me if neither cheap nor excellent quality and many of their stores are very dated. Some of the newer ones are ok, but there is a wide variety and none are as nice as Waitrose.
Clearly they are doing something right, since they are the only major supermarket to limit most of the damage from the discounters. Asda and Morrison's are in real trouble.
If so, as with Brexit, Pollsters won't be able to "find" these people... And yet another polling fiasco could be about to emerge...
That's my feeling. I find it most revealing that the commentators talkdown the potential of DNVWhites, but were full of delight over Obama 'inspiring' DNVBlacks.
TBH, I think PB is doing another Brexit - and too prone to lazy feelgood-about-myself stereotyping. HRC talking about Farage as 'far right' made me LOL. It was pathetic nonsense.
Is there another lesson from Brexit though? President Obama went down like a cup of cold sick when he lectured....
Remain were ahead within the margin of error. Clinton is ahead by a much more massive degree.
Also, the networks all refer to farage as far right. That is how he is viewed in the US.
It seems to me that Clinton/Trump margin (5-6% on average) isn't much different from the Remain/Leave margin, prior to the last fortnight of the campaign, albeit, I would expect a polling upset to be less likely in a Presidential election than in a referendum.
Edit: Being behind by 5% in polls probably means that you win about one time out of five. That's quite a fair chance of winning, .....g.
But, if Professor Godwin's et al research is to be believed, Leave were ahead all along.
In hindsight, the turning point was purdah. And I bet until his dying day Cameron/Lidington will regret conceding to the Jenkyns amendment on that.
At the time it seemed like a minor technicality.
What difference would it have made in practice? What could the government have done that they didn't do anyway?
Sack Andrew Cooper. So many of the Government and Remain's problems came from a fundamental misreading of the mood of the electorate, that was compounded by Cooper's partiality and pompous campaigning style. Even Cameron's approach to negotiating and selling the deal would have probably been different if they'd known they could be in some serious sauce from day one.
Very true. Cooper, mate of Da Fink and mate of Osborne. What could go wrong with these charlies advising?
The UK is full to bursting with tourists at the moment. That must help the trade balance.
Devaluation is an easy but shortlived economic stimulus, and an addictive one.
Tourism is also one of those high productivity, high tech businesses that we really want to grow as well of course....
Ah the sneering Remoaner. Is it any wonder you lost. Fwiw, the UK has one of the largest tourism deficits in the world, outside of London every part of the UK has a tourism deficit, more tourism is exactly what the doctor ordered.
And, although this is never mentioned AFAICS - people should buy goods and services from local shops so that the money stays longer in the community. Other than the South-East, money is constantly leached from communities as they spend it in Lidl, Morrisons, Asda, Amazon, etc - and in the worst case has to be replenished in the form of tax credits and benefits from central Government. (One of the many reasons why the North is so poor.)
Do people in the south east all shop at the local farmers' market for their weekly shop or something ?
Lidl and Aldi have a strong middle class customer base now- I see they are taking them from the big four.
When compare to Sainsburys you can get twice as much hummus for half the price at the local Lidl.
I don't understand the Sainsburys brand positioning....if you want cheap there is Aldi, Lidl, Asda or Tescos. If you want posho, Waitrose or M&S...
Sainsburys to me if neither cheap nor excellent quality and many of their stores are very dated. Some of the newer ones are ok, but there is a wide variety and none are as nice as Waitrose.
Sainsbury is a little posher than Tesco and Asda, a little less than Waitrose and M & S
Yes, but (for me at least) not significantly enough to justify more expense or lesser quality. There doesn't seem to be a defining reason to go there.
The quality is generally OK, it caters for the upper middle-class who are not wealthy enough to shop at M & S for food and not old enough to shop at Waitrose
The UK is full to bursting with tourists at the moment. That must help the trade balance.
Devaluation is an easy but shortlived economic stimulus, and an addictive one.
Tourism is also one of those high productivity, high tech businesses that we really want to grow as well of course....
Ah the sneering Remoaner. Is it any wonder you lost. Fwiw, the UK has one of the largest tourism deficits in the world, outside of London every part of the UK has a tourism deficit, more tourism is exactly what the doctor ordered.
And, although this is never mentioned AFAICS - people should buy goods and services from local shops so that the money stays longer in the community. Other than the South-East, money is constantly leached from communities as they spend it in Lidl, Morrisons, Asda, Amazon, etc - and in the worst case has to be replenished in the form of tax credits and benefits from central Government. (One of the many reasons why the North is so poor.)
Do people in the south east all shop at the local farmers' market for their weekly shop or something ?
Lidl and Aldi have a strong middle class customer base now- I see they are taking them from the big four.
When compare to Sainsburys you can get twice as much hummus for half the price at the local Lidl.
I don't understand the Sainsburys brand positioning....if you want cheap there is Aldi, Lidl, cheap with more variety, Asda or Tescos. If you want posho, Waitrose or M&S...for cheap high quality bulk buying there is Costco.
Sainsburys to me if neither cheap nor excellent quality and many of their stores are very dated. Some of the newer ones are ok, but there is a wide variety and none are as nice as Waitrose.
In my opinion Sainsburys are nicer than Asda and Tesco. Whilst certain items may not be as nice as Waitrose, e.g. cheese, they have a far wider range of items available.
Clearly they are doing something right, since they are the only major supermarket to limit most of the damage from the discounters. Asda and Morrison's are in real trouble.
I know...there numbers are OK, where as Tescos is struggling. I think what I am saying is I don't really get what it is they are doing right.
Morrisons is a s##t show of a place, Asda are like a really shitty Walmart (yes I know they are owned by them, but Asda's in the UK are like the worst of the worst Walmarts you find in the US).
But Sainsbury's, the stores aren't a particularly nice experience, certainly not what you would expect from upper middle class type outlet and they aren't cheap and they don't stock particular exotic stuff e.g. silly example you can't buy Sierra Nevada or las lagunitas beer in there.
I know...there numbers are OK, where as Tescos is struggling. I think what I am saying is I don't really get what it is they are doing right.
Morrisons is a s##t show of a place, Asda are like a really shitty Walmart.
But Sainsbury's, the stores aren't a particularly nice experience, certainly not what you would expect from upper middle class type outlet and they aren't cheap and they don't stock particular exotic stuff.
Cheaper than Waitrose/M&S, better than Tesco/Asda/Morrison's. I think that's a decent market to claim. The squeezed middle as someone once called it...
I know...there numbers are OK, where as Tescos is struggling. I think what I am saying is I don't really get what it is they are doing right.
Morrisons is a s##t show of a place, Asda are like a really shitty Walmart.
But Sainsbury's, the stores aren't a particularly nice experience, certainly not what you would expect from upper middle class type outlet and they aren't cheap and they don't stock particular exotic stuff.
Cheaper than Waitrose/M&S, better than Tesco/Asda/Morrison's. I think that's a decent market to claim. The squeezed middle as someone once called it...
I guess so. As what I would think is their target market, I can never find a good reason to shop there, but perhaps thats just me. Perhaps I am not "squeezed" enough.
I know I'll sound like the old git I am, but that's one of statements that make no sense. People usually work because (a) it gets them out the house (b) they use the extra money for 'luxuries'.
My mother did odd bits of cleaning work for the money and to get out of the house. With six children and no child minders, she had little choice. My father was a labourer (always employed) but money was tight, much tighter than today, even with the advantage of a council house.
The other statement is along the lines of "We're far busier and more stressed than we used to be."
Look back a hundred years and people worked about 60 hours a week, but I suppose they enjoyed not having to worry about spending money that didn't have. No poring over holiday brochures, no problems about the right labels on your hand-me-downs, no worry about the leccy bill, because candles were cheap enough.
You tell the kids today and they won't believe you, will they? Not even in Yorkshire.
Maybe 30 years ago having a second earner was a luxury, but with housing costs as they are it's essential for most households these days. A simple examination of median wages and mortgage/rent payments will show this.
Many increasingly rely on the bank of mum and dad for a deposit to buy a property too as well as both couples earning
Well "Mum and Dad" will have benefitted from massive property inflation if they bought their own house, so you could just view it as a backpayment from that and of course to reduce future IHT liabilities.
Yes it is only fair 'Mum' and 'Dad' pass some of their unearned wealth on
I know I'll sound like the old git I am, but that's one of statements that make no sense. People usually work because (a) it gets them out the house (b) they use the extra money for 'luxuries'.
My mother did odd bits of cleaning work for the money and to get out of the house. With six children and no child minders, she had little choice. My father was a labourer (always employed) but money was tight, much tighter than today, even with the advantage of a council house.
The other statement is along the lines of "We're far busier and more stressed than we used to be."
Look back a hundred years and people worked about 60 hours a week, but I suppose they enjoyed not having to worry about spending money that didn't have. No poring over holiday brochures, no problems about the right labels on your hand-me-downs, no worry about the leccy bill, because candles were cheap enough.
You tell the kids today and they won't believe you, will they? Not even in Yorkshire.
Maybe 30 years ago having a second earner was a luxury, but with housing costs as they are it's essential for most households these days. A simple examination of median wages and mortgage/rent payments will show this.
Isn't that where this conversation started early this morning? And as per some of those comments the second wage is not always the benefit it seems to be. There was an example of a couple one of whom after tax income was £1400, but £1000 of that went on childcare, take out the costs of working (clothes, travel, meals, etc) and it is not at all clear that there is much of a financial benefit at all. In fact that family would be better off if that partner stayed at home and they made some minor adjustments to their lifestyle.
Or, alternatively, the Government could make some minor adjustments to their childcare bill.
In the short term it may not make financial sense the partner to be working, but taking a multi-year career break could significantly impact future earnings. Forcing someone to give up employment if they do not wish to should not be the cost of raising the next generation.
I know I'll sound like the old git I am, but that's one of statements that make no sense. People usually work because (a) it gets them out the house (b) they use the extra money for 'luxuries'.
My mother did odd bits of cleaning work for the money and to get out of the house. With six children and no child minders, she had little choice. My father was a labourer (always employed) but money was tight, much tighter than today, even with the advantage of a council house.
The other statement is along the lines of "We're far busier and more stressed than we used to be."
Look back a hundred years and people worked about 60 hours a week, but I suppose they enjoyed not having to worry about spending money that didn't have. No poring over holiday brochures, no problems about the right labels on your hand-me-downs, no worry about the leccy bill, because candles were cheap enough.
You tell the kids today and they won't believe you, will they? Not even in Yorkshire.
Browsing holiday brochures as window shopping for hols you'd never go on. I'd one pair of shoes most of the time. I was barefoot 90% in preference and as a habit, it's stuck. I only put a pair on now when totally necessary re snow/ice or going into a physical shop. What you experience as a kid is quite a revelation in hindsight!
I know...there numbers are OK, where as Tescos is struggling. I think what I am saying is I don't really get what it is they are doing right.
Morrisons is a s##t show of a place, Asda are like a really shitty Walmart.
But Sainsbury's, the stores aren't a particularly nice experience, certainly not what you would expect from upper middle class type outlet and they aren't cheap and they don't stock particular exotic stuff.
Cheaper than Waitrose/M&S, better than Tesco/Asda/Morrison's. I think that's a decent market to claim. The squeezed middle as someone once called it...
Sainsburys just seemed more expensive than Morrisons to me. What is actually wrong with Morrisons anyway ? I've never had an issue shopping there
Aldi is good and cheap though the ranges are limited and the till queues a bit annoying (probably no self py due to it being in the middle of the village though ).
If I truly want to get something without any faffing around and pay a bit extra, the Coop always has pretty much zero queues and the friendliest staff...
For me the Coop is up the high street too so requires 50m less driving than the Aldi whereas Morrisons is a few miles away.
The UK is full to bursting with tourists at the moment. That must help the trade balance.
Devaluation is an easy but shortlived economic stimulus, and an addictive one.
Tourism is also one of those high productivity, high tech businesses that we really want to grow as well of course....
Ah the sneering Remoaner. Is it any wonder you lost. Fwiw, the UK has one of the largest tourism deficits in the world, outside of London every part of the UK has a tourism deficit, more tourism is exactly what the doctor ordered.
And, although this is never mentioned AFAICS - people should buy goods and services from local shops so that the money stays longer in the community. Other than the South-East, money is constantly leached from communities as they spend it in Lidl, Morrisons, Asda, Amazon, etc - and in the worst case has to be replenished in the form of tax credits and benefits from central Government. (One of the many reasons why the North is so poor.)
Do people in the south east all shop at the local farmers' market for their weekly shop or something ?
Lidl and Aldi have a strong middle class customer base now- I see they are taking them from the big four.
When compare to Sainsburys you can get twice as much hummus for half the price at the local Lidl.
I don't understand the Sainsburys brand positioning....if you want cheap there is Aldi, Lidl, Asda or Tescos. If you want posho, Waitrose or M&S...
Sainsburys to me if neither cheap nor excellent quality and many of their stores are very dated. Some of the newer ones are ok, but there is a wide variety and none are as nice as Waitrose.
Sainsbury is a little posher than Tesco and Asda, a little less than Waitrose and M & S
Yes, but (for me at least) not significantly enough to justify more expense or lesser quality. There doesn't seem to be a defining reason to go there.
The quality is generally OK, it caters for the upper middle-class who are not wealthy enough to shop at M & S for food and not old enough to shop at Waitrose
I never understood how someone could do a weekly shop at M&S as they don't have a wide enough range to cook food from fresh. The only people who I think could get away with it are elderly people buying 7 ready made meals for the week.
You speak glibly about the cost of running a car. A car? We played football on the street because no one ever owned a car. My parents never had driving licenses or a passport. The 1950s were a good time to grow up because were all in the same boat. few ever complained about hand-me-down clothes because it was routine.
By comparison, we are living in luxury nowadays. Phones, colour TVs, hot running water. That's another reason the old gits aren't over-keen on Green issues. I don't want to see my days out living in a Brighton cave and existing on delicious organic grass.
You're wasting your time looking for sympathy from your parents' generation (most of them at least). We are living in a Golden age - enjoy it while you can.
Would be interesting to hear what he makes of the Presidential campaign right now - He had some crackers views but was always value when it came to politics and betting!
Would be interesting to hear what he makes of the Presidential campaign right now - He had some crackers views but was always value when it came to politics and betting!
Robert needs to employ some AI for Rods posting :-) Siri...is this post about polling? (it goes through)...Siri, is this post about Jews? (it disappears down the rabbit hole).
Would be interesting to hear what he makes of the Presidential campaign right now - He had some crackers views but was always value when it came to politics and betting!
Would be interesting to hear what he makes of the Presidential campaign right now - He had some crackers views but was always value when it came to politics and betting!
Rod would be very useful to have back, if he could persuade Mike he would avoid certain subjects late at night...
Probably going to be controversial here - but I think a parent should take responsibility for bringing up their own children. And that means being there to actually look after them. Not hand them off to others, because you'd rather be doing something else.
Plato says close the boarding schools. Radical!
??? Why would I be in favour of boarding schools? A very silly comment from you here.
I can't imagine anything worse myself - they may be suited to a certain sort of occupation [if your parents are in the Armed Services and you don't want to relocate a lot] or if your home-life environment is awful and it'd be an escape/safer place.
Otherwise - nope.
Oh, come on. Boarding schools are ace. Most of the children who go through them have a killer time.
I hated mine. My experiences there were almost enough to tip from the conservative into the liberal democrat camp, and even today I have fairly liberal views on prison reform (yes, really) in no small part because of it.
Although I understand they are a bit different now.
I know...there numbers are OK, where as Tescos is struggling. I think what I am saying is I don't really get what it is they are doing right.
Morrisons is a s##t show of a place, Asda are like a really shitty Walmart.
But Sainsbury's, the stores aren't a particularly nice experience, certainly not what you would expect from upper middle class type outlet and they aren't cheap and they don't stock particular exotic stuff.
Cheaper than Waitrose/M&S, better than Tesco/Asda/Morrison's. I think that's a decent market to claim. The squeezed middle as someone once called it...
I guess so. As what I would think is their target market, I can never find a good reason to shop there, but perhaps thats just me.
I do most of my shopping in Waitrose as it is the nearest supermarket for me, but if I'm at my parents place then I'll go to Sainsbury's. I'd say they prices in waitrose are a solid 10-15% higher, a lot of the tome the quality premium isn't worth it for Waitrose. I find for fresh meat the Sainsbury's counter is better value, but for veg the quality in Waitrose is worth paying the premium. Though, I have to say recently I've been getting my veg from a local Asian shop and he is cheaper and better than both of them, there isn't a decent non-halal butcher near me so I stick to Waitrose for meat. The fishmonger in Shepherds Bush is second to none though. Amazing quality, prices, freshness and service. It takes me a few minutes to fillet and skin fish, he does it for me and will have both fillets done in under 20 seconds. You won't get that at any supermarket.
Sadly the world in which children don't get farmed out requires far tighter restrictions on bank lending and house prices that aren't 5-10 times a families income...
There seems to be a vicious cycle of:
1. Desire to go out to work as it's more fun than being at home/baby brain 2. Being paid to childmind has become riven with costs that push prices way up 3. So going out to work barely covers the rising costs of paying someone else 4. Two incomes are required for property/lifestyle sustaining reasons 5. Kids are farmed out because of 1-4.
And now we hear a great deal about childhood depression/anxiety/lack of self worth et al. I can't help feeling it's not a coincidence. And bugger all to do with Twitter or Facebook. That just amplifies it.
There was an attempt by the Tories in the coalition to reduce the cost of child care by increasing the number of kids a childminder could look after (I think from 3 to 4).
The LibDems for all "won't someone think if the children" and nixed the idea. because I guess they don't struggle with living costs.
So we're simultaneously arguing that putting kids in nursery is bad for kids, but reducing the quality of the provision is fine
The proposal to increase the childcare ratios went against all expert advice and evidence, though I appreciate that sort of thing is no longer in fashion.
Was the evidence really that clear cut? I didn't review it in detail as my wife has chosen to stay at home.
Would be interesting to hear what he makes of the Presidential campaign right now - He had some crackers views but was always value when it came to politics and betting!
I know...there numbers are OK, where as Tescos is struggling. I think what I am saying is I don't really get what it is they are doing right.
Morrisons is a s##t show of a place, Asda are like a really shitty Walmart.
But Sainsbury's, the stores aren't a particularly nice experience, certainly not what you would expect from upper middle class type outlet and they aren't cheap and they don't stock particular exotic stuff.
Cheaper than Waitrose/M&S, better than Tesco/Asda/Morrison's. I think that's a decent market to claim. The squeezed middle as someone once called it...
I guess so. As what I would think is their target market, I can never find a good reason to shop there, but perhaps thats just me.
I do most of my shopping in Waitrose as it is the nearest supermarket for me, but if I'm at my parents place then I'll go to Sainsbury's. I'd say they prices in waitrose are a solid 10-15% higher, a lot of the tome the quality premium isn't worth it for Waitrose. I find for fresh meat the Sainsbury's counter is better value, but for veg the quality in Waitrose is worth paying the premium. Though, I have to say recently I've been getting my veg from a local Asian shop and he is cheaper and better than both of them, there isn't a decent non-halal butcher near me so I stick to Waitrose for meat. The fishmonger in Shepherds Bush is second to none though. Amazing quality, prices, freshness and service. It takes me a few minutes to fillet and skin fish, he does it for me and will have both fillets done in under 20 seconds. You won't get that at any supermarket.
If one doesn't have moral objections to buying it, I've generally found the quality of halal meat to be very good.
The UK is full to bursting with tourists at the moment. That must help the trade balance.
Devaluation is an easy but shortlived economic stimulus, and an addictive one.
Tourism is also one of those high productivity, high tech businesses that we really want to grow as well of course....
Ah the sneering Remoaner. Is it any wonder you lost. Fwiw, the UK has one of the largest tourism deficits in the world, outside of London every part of the UK has a tourism deficit, more tourism is exactly what the doctor ordered.
And, although this is never mentioned AFAICS -
Do people in the south east all shop at the local farmers' market for their weekly shop or something ?
Lidl and Aldi have a strong middle class customer base now- I see they are taking them from the big four.
When compare to Sainsburys you can get twice as much hummus for half the price at the local Lidl.
I don't understand the Sainsburys brand positioning....if you want cheap there is Aldi, Lidl, Asda or Tescos. If you want posho, Waitrose or M&S...
Sainsburys to me if neither cheap nor excellent quality and many of their stores are very dated. Some of the newer ones are ok, but there is a wide variety and none are as nice as Waitrose.
Sainsbury is a little posher than Tesco and Asda, a little less than Waitrose and M & S
Yes, but (for me at least) not significantly enough to justify more expense or lesser quality. There doesn't seem to be a defining reason to go there.
The quality is generally OK, it caters for the upper middle-class who are not wealthy enough to shop at M & S for food and not old enough to shop at Waitrose
I never understood how someone could do a weekly shop at M&S as they don't have a wide enough range to cook food from fresh. The only people who I think could get away with it are elderly people buying 7 ready made meals for the week.
If your husband works in the City you could buy the basics and ready meals at M & S and eat out or get the rest delivered
Given the average house price is now over £200k and the average salary is £27k and you can normally get a maximum mortgage of 4 times salary, if only one partner in a couple works we become a nation of renters!
You are talking about a different point, Mr. Hyfud, but since you bring it up. A young couple both on the median wage would be unlikely in this day an age to get a mortgage for an average house. Like the young couple up the road from me (who have enough for a deposit and a currently paying £1300 a month rent) the bank would ask them all the questions about their out-goings and then refuse to lend on the basis that they can't afford the repayments despite that they would be far less than the £1300 a month they are paying.
At the time of the crash (2007/8) I remember seeing figures in reputable publications suggesting that house prices would have to fall by about 50% to return to long term trend. Which would have been to the long term good of all, especially if it could have been managed gently. Instead HMG to, I suspect, protect the banks (whose reckless lending had stoked the price bubble) decided to reinflate the housing market. We are now in a crazy position where, especially for the young, accumulation of wealth through saving is impossible, pensions are knackered, house ownership is out of the reach of most who don't have parents who can chip in. And all this after six years of a Conservative or Conservative-led government.
Sadly the world in which children don't get farmed out requires far tighter restrictions on bank lending and house prices that aren't 5-10 times a families income...
There seems to be a vicious cycle of:
1. Desire to go out to work as it's more fun than being at home/baby brain 2. Being paid to childmind has become riven with costs that push prices way up 3. So going out to work barely covers the rising costs of paying someone else 4. Two incomes are required for property/lifestyle sustaining reasons 5. Kids are farmed out because of 1-4.
And now we hear a great deal about childhood depression/anxiety/lack of self worth et al. I can't help feeling it's not a coincidence. And bugger all to do with Twitter or Facebook. That just amplifies it.
There was an attempt by the Tories in the coalition to reduce the cost of child care by increasing the number of kids a childminder could look after (I think from 3 to 4).
The LibDems for all "won't someone think if the children" and nixed the idea. because I guess they don't struggle with living costs.
There's some really weird small-thinking rather than big-thinking going on with this whole subject. Professionalising child-minding strikes me as particularly unhelpful for most people. Next it'll be dog-walking or cat-sitting services that require a degree in Animal Psychology before taking Fido, Rover and Killer for a stroll - and a Diploma in Feline Hygiene for changing litter trays.
I know...there numbers are OK, where as Tescos is struggling. I think what I am saying is I don't really get what it is they are doing right.
Morrisons is a s##t show of a place, Asda are like a really shitty Walmart.
But Sainsbury's, the stores aren't a particularly nice experience, certainly not what you would expect from upper middle class type outlet and they aren't cheap and they don't stock particular exotic stuff.
Cheaper than Waitrose/M&S, better than Tesco/Asda/Morrison's. I think that's a decent market to claim. The squeezed middle as someone once called it...
I guess so. As what I would think is their target market, I can never find a good reason to shop there, but perhaps thats just me.
I do most of my shopping in Waitrose as it is the nearest supermarket for me, but if I'm at my parents place then I'll go to Sainsbury's. I'd say they prices in waitrose are a solid 10-15% higher, a lot of the tome the quality premium isn't worth it for Waitrose. I find for fresh meat the Sainsbury's counter is better value, but for veg the quality in Waitrose is worth paying the premium. Though, I have to say recently I've been getting my veg from a local Asian shop and he is cheaper and better than both of them, there isn't a decent non-halal butcher near me so I stick to Waitrose for meat. The fishmonger in Shepherds Bush is second to none though. Amazing quality, prices, freshness and service. It takes me a few minutes to fillet and skin fish, he does it for me and will have both fillets done in under 20 seconds. You won't get that at any supermarket.
If one doesn't have moral objections to buying it, I've generally found the quality of halal meat to be very good.
The UK is full to bursting with tourists at the moment. That must help the trade balance.
Devaluation is an easy but shortlived economic stimulus, and an addictive one.
Tourism is also one of those high productivity, high tech businesses that we really want to grow as well of course....
Ah the sneering Remoaner. Is it any wonder you lost. Fwiw, the UK has one of the largest tourism deficits in the world, outside of London every part of the UK has a tourism deficit, more tourism is exactly what the doctor ordered.
And, although this is never mentioned AFAICS - people should buy goods and services from local shops so that the money stays longer in the community. Other than the South-East, money is constantly leached from communities as they spend it in Lidl, Morrisons, Asda, Amazon, etc - and in the worst case has to be replenished in the form of tax credits and benefits from central Government. (One of the many reasons why the North is so poor.)
Do people in the south east all shop at the local farmers' market for their weekly shop or something ?
Lidl and Aldi have a strong middle class customer base now- I see they are taking them from the big four.
When compare to Sainsburys you can get twice as much hummus for half the price at the local Lidl.
I don't understand the Sainsburys brand positioning....if you want cheap there is Aldi, Lidl, Asda or Tescos. If you want posho, Waitrose or M&S...
Sainsburys to me if neither cheap nor excellent quality and many of their stores are very dated. Some of the newer ones are ok, but there is a wide variety and none are as nice as Waitrose.
Sainsbury is a little posher than Tesco and Asda, a little less than Waitrose and M & S
Yes, but (for me at least) not significantly enough to justify more expense or lesser quality. There doesn't seem to be a defining reason to go there.
I think there numbers are holding up, but I wonder. In the ultra competitive world of supermarkets, we know Tescos are struggling and I don't see them with a real USP.
I thought Sainsbury's customers were aspirational Waitrose shoppers - those of us who buy at Tescos have never been fashionable.
Would be interesting to hear what he makes of the Presidential campaign right now - He had some crackers views but was always value when it came to politics and betting!
Robert needs to employ some AI for Rods posting :-) Siri...is this post about polling? (it goes through)...Siri, is this post about Jews? (it disappears down the rabbit hole).
That was one of the good things about the old commeting platform, discus.
Words like "Jews" "Holocaust" "denier" could be put in the banned words filter and any posts containing those could be "moderated". Was easier to keep Rod's more nutty views under control then!
Anyway, off to enjoy the glorious August sunshine (has been a really good Summer - Perfect for a Brexit staycation, lol)
Given the average house price is now over £200k and the average salary is £27k and you can normally get a maximum mortgage of 4 times salary, if only one partner in a couple works we become a nation of renters!
You are talking about a different point, Mr. Hyfud, but since you bring it up. A young couple both on the median wage would be unlikely in this day an age to get a mortgage for an average house. Like the young couple up the road from me (who have enough for a deposit and a currently paying £1300 a month rent) the bank would ask them all the questions about their out-goings and then refuse to lend on the basis that they can't afford the repayments despite that they would be far less than the £1300 a month they are paying.
At the time of the crash (2007/8) I remember seeing figures in reputable publications suggesting that house prices would have to fall by about 50% to return to long term trend. Which would have been to the long term good of all, especially if it could have been managed gently. Instead HMG to, I suspect, protect the banks (whose reckless lending had stoked the price bubble) decided to reinflate the housing market. We are now in a crazy position where, especially for the young, accumulation of wealth through saving is impossible, pensions are knackered, house ownership is out of the reach of most who don't have parents who can chip in. And all this after six years of a Conservative or Conservative-led government.
Most in London now rent certainly, at the moment just over 60% UK-wide buy, if what you suggest continues that level will fall further
You speak glibly about the cost of running a car. A car? We played football on the street because no one ever owned a car. My parents never had driving licenses or a passport. The 1950s were a good time to grow up because were all in the same boat. few ever complained about hand-me-down clothes because it was routine.
By comparison, we are living in luxury nowadays. Phones, colour TVs, hot running water. That's another reason the old gits aren't over-keen on Green issues. I don't want to see my days out living in a Brighton cave and existing on delicious organic grass.
You're wasting your time looking for sympathy from your parents' generation (most of them at least). We are living in a Golden age - enjoy it while you can.
I find the moaning and groaning of 'generation rent' pretty pathetic as well. A quick comparison of their 'life chances' with those of my parents and especially grandparents either side of the war makes rapid nonsense of their outbursts.
Given the average house price is now over £200k and the average salary is £27k and you can normally get a maximum mortgage of 4 times salary, if only one partner in a couple works we become a nation of renters!
You are talking about a different point, Mr. Hyfud, but since you bring it up. A young couple both on the median wage would be unlikely in this day an age to get a mortgage for an average house. Like the young couple up the road from me (who have enough for a deposit and a currently paying £1300 a month rent) the bank would ask them all the questions about their out-goings and then refuse to lend on the basis that they can't afford the repayments despite that they would be far less than the £1300 a month they are paying.
At the time of the crash (2007/8) I remember seeing figures in reputable publications suggesting that house prices would have to fall by about 50% to return to long term trend. Which would have been to the long term good of all, especially if it could have been managed gently. Instead HMG to, I suspect, protect the banks (whose reckless lending had stoked the price bubble) decided to reinflate the housing market. We are now in a crazy position where, especially for the young, accumulation of wealth through saving is impossible, pensions are knackered, house ownership is out of the reach of most who don't have parents who can chip in. And all this after six years of a Conservative or Conservative-led government.
At the moment though mortgages are "artificially cheap" due to the very low interest rates. If interest rates head back to proper historical norms of ~4% then that might knock some sense into the housing market.
I know...there numbers are OK, where as Tescos is struggling. I think what I am saying is I don't really get what it is they are doing right.
Morrisons is a s##t show of a place, Asda are like a really shitty Walmart.
But Sainsbury's, the stores aren't a particularly nice experience, certainly not what you would expect from upper middle class type outlet and they aren't cheap and they don't stock particular exotic stuff.
Cheaper than Waitrose/M&S, better than Tesco/Asda/Morrison's. I think that's a decent market to claim. The squeezed middle as someone once called it...
I guess so. As what I would think is their target market, I can never find a good reason to shop there, but perhaps thats just me.
I do most of my shopping in Waitrose as it is the nearest supermarket for me, but if I'm at my parents place then I'll go to Sainsbury's. I'd say they prices in waitrose are a solid 10-15% higher, a lot of the tome the quality premium isn't worth it for Waitrose. I find for fresh meat the Sainsbury's counter is better value, but for veg the quality in Waitrose is worth paying the premium. Though, I have to say recently I've been getting my veg from a local Asian shop and he is cheaper and better than both of them, there isn't a decent non-halal butcher near me so I stick to Waitrose for meat. The fishmonger in Shepherds Bush is second to none though. Amazing quality, prices, freshness and service. It takes me a few minutes to fillet and skin fish, he does it for me and will have both fillets done in under 20 seconds. You won't get that at any supermarket.
If one doesn't have moral objections to buying it, I've generally found the quality of halal meat to be very good.
Moral objections for me, plus no pork.
...just to toss another one into the mix, I find the refreshingly old-fashioned butchers' section at the local Costco rather better than Waitrose, for meat.
I know...there numbers are OK, where as Tescos is struggling. I think what I am saying is I don't really get what it is they are doing right.
Morrisons is a s##t show of a place, Asda are like a really shitty Walmart.
But Sainsbury's, the stores aren't a particularly nice experience, certainly not what you would expect from upper middle class type outlet and they aren't cheap and they don't stock particular exotic stuff.
Cheaper than Waitrose/M&S, better than Tesco/Asda/Morrison's. I think that's a decent market to claim. The squeezed middle as someone once called it...
I guess so. As what I would think is their target market, I can never find a good reason to shop there, but perhaps thats just me.
I do most of my shopping in Waitrose as it is the nearest supermarket for me, but if I'm at my parents place then I'll go to Sainsbury's. I'd say they prices in waitrose are a solid 10-15% higher, a lot of the tome the quality premium isn't worth it for Waitrose. I find for fresh meat the Sainsbury's counter is better value, but for veg the quality in Waitrose is worth paying the premium. Though, I have to say recently I've been getting my veg from a local Asian shop and he is cheaper and better than both of them, there isn't a decent non-halal butcher near me so I stick to Waitrose for meat. The fishmonger in Shepherds Bush is second to none though. Amazing quality, prices, freshness and service. It takes me a few minutes to fillet and skin fish, he does it for me and will have both fillets done in under 20 seconds. You won't get that at any supermarket.
When I lived near an Asian supermarket I could pick up chillies for 0.5p each. I used to come away with a brown paper bag full of them at next to no cost. Compare with say Sainsburys and you would get three chillies for around £1. You could pick up some fantastic deals on fresh vegetables.
I know...there numbers are OK, where as Tescos is struggling. I think what I am saying is I don't really get what it is they are doing right.
Morrisons is a s##t show of a place, Asda are like a really shitty Walmart.
But Sainsbury's, the stores aren't a particularly nice experience, certainly not what you would expect from upper middle class type outlet and they aren't cheap and they don't stock particular exotic stuff.
Cheaper than Waitrose/M&S, better than Tesco/Asda/Morrison's. I think that's a decent market to claim. The squeezed middle as someone once called it...
I guess so. As what I would think is their target market, I can never find a good reason to shop there, but perhaps thats just me.
I do most of my shopping in Waitrose as it is the nearest supermarket for me, but if I'm at my parents place then I'll go to Sainsbury's. I'd say they prices in waitrose are a solid 10-15% higher, a lot of the tome the quality premium isn't worth it for Waitrose. I find for fresh meat the Sainsbury's counter is better value, but for veg the quality in Waitrose is worth paying the premium. Though, I have to say recently I've been getting my veg from a local Asian shop and he is cheaper and better than both of them, there isn't a decent non-halal butcher near me so I stick to Waitrose for meat. The fishmonger in Shepherds Bush is second to none though. Amazing quality, prices, freshness and service. It takes me a few minutes to fillet and skin fish, he does it for me and will have both fillets done in under 20 seconds. You won't get that at any supermarket.
If one doesn't have moral objections to buying it, I've generally found the quality of halal meat to be very good.
Moral objections for me, plus no pork.
...just to toss another one into the mix, I find the refreshingly old-fashioned butchers' section at the local Costco rather better than Waitrose, for meat.
The UK is full to bursting with tourists at the moment. That must help the trade balance.
Devaluation is an easy but shortlived economic stimulus, and an addictive one.
Tourism is also one of those high productivity, high tech businesses that we really want to grow as well of course....
Ah the sneering Remoaner. Is it any wonder you lost. Fwiw, the UK has one of the largest tourism deficits in the world, outside of London every part of the UK has a tourism deficit, more tourism is exactly what the doctor ordered.
Do people in the south east all shop at the local farmers' market for their weekly shop or something ?
Lidl and Aldi have a strong middle class customer base now- I see they are taking them from the big four.
When compare to Sainsburys you can get twice as much hummus for half the price at the local Lidl.
I don't understand the Sainsburys brand positioning....if you want cheap there is Aldi, Lidl, Asda or Tescos. If you want posho, Waitrose or M&S...
Sainsburys to me if neither cheap nor excellent quality and many of their stores are very dated. Some of the newer ones are ok, but there is a wide variety and none are as nice as Waitrose.
Sainsbury is a little posher than Tesco and Asda, a little less than Waitrose and M & S
Yes, but (for me at least) not significantly enough to justify more expense or lesser quality. There doesn't seem to be a defining reason to go there.
The quality is generally OK, it caters for the upper middle-class who are not wealthy enough to shop at M & S for food and not old enough to shop at Waitrose
I never understood how someone could do a weekly shop at M&S as they don't have a wide enough range to cook food from fresh. The only people who I think could get away with it are elderly people buying 7 ready made meals for the week.
I've never considered myself wealthy enough to shop for groceries at M&S - and I once earned quite a lot. It just always struck me as expensive, overly fussy/rich/sweet fayre. I liked Safeways - and then shifted to Tesco in to 90s and stayed. Their big shops are like aircraft hangers - how they manage the inventory is beyond me, my local one must have 200k+ lines.
Is Vince D a regular poster? If so, it would be great to have his usual nom de plume.
Thanks, Vince for the header. I think anyone who makes the effort to support this site through contributions to the headers deserves regular posters' gratitude.
However, when you say that Clinton is ahead in key states such as California and New York, two of the bluest of blue states, it makes me wonder if you know anything about US politics. And who, other than Trump, would be second favorite if Hillary is the current bookies' favorite?
I know...there numbers are OK, where as Tescos is struggling. I think what I am saying is I don't really get what it is they are doing right.
Morrisons is a s##t show of a place, Asda are like a really shitty Walmart.
But Sainsbury's, the stores aren't a particularly nice experience, certainly not what you would expect from upper middle class type outlet and they aren't cheap and they don't stock particular exotic stuff.
Cheaper than Waitrose/M&S, better than Tesco/Asda/Morrison's. I think that's a decent market to claim. The squeezed middle as someone once called it...
I guess so. As what I would think is their target market, I can never find a good reason to shop there, but perhaps thats just me.
I do most of my shopping in Waitrose as it is the nearest supermarket for me, but if I'm at my parents place then I'll go to Sainsbury's. I'd say they prices in waitrose are a solid 10-15% higher, a lot of the tome the quality premium isn't worth it for Waitrose. I find for fresh meat the Sainsbury's counter is better value, but for veg the quality in Waitrose is worth paying the premium. Though, I have to say recently I've been getting my veg from a local Asian shop and he is cheaper and better than both of them, there isn't a decent non-halal butcher near me so I stick to Waitrose for meat. The fishmonger in Shepherds Bush is second to none though. Amazing quality, prices, freshness and service. It takes me a few minutes to fillet and skin fish, he does it for me and will have both fillets done in under 20 seconds. You won't get that at any supermarket.
If one doesn't have moral objections to buying it, I've generally found the quality of halal meat to be very good.
Moral objections for me, plus no pork.
...just to toss another one into the mix, I find the refreshingly old-fashioned butchers' section at the local Costco rather better than Waitrose, for meat.
Agreed, alas the nearest Costco is in Hayes and I don't have a car.
Robert, many thanks for replying in such detail. I bow to your greater knowledge. However, I still do not think that it is a slam dunk that Italy and France will outperform the UK in the near- to medium-future. And I like the UK's longer-term prospects much better than theirs until they show much more progress in economic and labour reforms.
I know...there numbers are OK, where as Tescos is struggling. I think what I am saying is I don't really get what it is they are doing right.
Morrisons is a s##t show of a place, Asda are like a really shitty Walmart.
But Sainsbury's, the stores aren't a particularly nice experience, certainly not what you would expect from upper middle class type outlet and they aren't cheap and they don't stock particular exotic stuff.
Cheaper than Waitrose/M&S, better than Tesco/Asda/Morrison's. I think that's a decent market to claim. The squeezed middle as someone once called it...
I guess so. As what I would think is their target market, I can never find a good reason to shop there, but perhaps thats just me.
I do most of my shopping in Waitrose as it is the nearest supermarket for me, but if I'm at my parents place then I'll go to Sainsbury's. I'd say they prices in waitrose are a solid 10-15% higher, a lot of the tome the quality premium isn't worth it for Waitrose. I find for fresh meat the Sainsbury's counter is better value, but for veg the quality in Waitrose is worth paying the premium. Though, I have to say recently I've been getting my veg from a local Asian shop and he is cheaper and better than both of them, there isn't a decent non-halal butcher near me so I stick to Waitrose for meat. The fishmonger in Shepherds Bush is second to none though. Amazing quality, prices, freshness and service. It takes me a few minutes to fillet and skin fish, he does it for me and will have both fillets done in under 20 seconds. You won't get that at any supermarket.
If one doesn't have moral objections to buying it, I've generally found the quality of halal meat to be very good.
I object so strongly to Halal that I'd rather eat pre-stunned cat burgers.
I know...there numbers are OK, where as Tescos is struggling. I think what I am saying is I don't really get what it is they are doing right.
Morrisons is a s##t show of a place, Asda are like a really shitty Walmart.
But Sainsbury's, the stores aren't a particularly nice experience, certainly not what you would expect from upper middle class type outlet and they aren't cheap and they don't stock particular exotic stuff.
Cheaper than Waitrose/M&S, better than Tesco/Asda/Morrison's. I think that's a decent market to claim. The squeezed middle as someone once called it...
I guess so. As what I would think is their target market, I can never find a good reason to shop there, but perhaps thats just me.
I do most of my shopping in Waitrose as it is the nearest supermarket for me, but if I'm at my parents place then I'll go to Sainsbury's. I'd say they prices in waitrose are a solid 10-15% higher, a lot of the tome the quality premium isn't worth it for Waitrose. I find for fresh meat the Sainsbury's counter is better value, but for veg the quality in Waitrose is worth paying the premium. Though, I have to say recently I've been getting my veg from a local Asian shop and he is cheaper and better than both of them, there isn't a decent non-halal butcher near me so I stick to Waitrose for meat. The fishmonger in Shepherds Bush is second to none though. Amazing quality, prices, freshness and service. It takes me a few minutes to fillet and skin fish, he does it for me and will have both fillets done in under 20 seconds. You won't get that at any supermarket.
If one doesn't have moral objections to buying it, I've generally found the quality of halal meat to be very good.
I object so strongly to Halal that I'd rather eat pre-stunned cat burgers.
Isn't that what Asda own brand burgers are made from?
The slightly scary thing is that things are worse than they appear in the press.
Seriously?! In relation to the conference (which I could believe - security apart, we've heard very little and I could well imagine that there's a lot more that's a long way behind where it should be), or in relation to the party at large?
In relation to the party at large. There is zero trust. A great deal of anger. There is no meaningful communication, to the extent that even the most objective facts are questioned. Conspiracies abound. There are two groups shouting across each other. Individuals who dare to get in the middle or cross between sides get squashed.
It should burn itself out, but shows no sign of doing so. I guess it was like this in the 80s, but it's not something I have seen anywhere else (including some pretty tricky work situations).
There is no Labour party right now. On the plus side, if someone does win and solve this - they will be a formidable candidate.
AIR, the state of the Labour Party is a lot worse now than it was in the 80’s.
Without doubt. But in the end this is a battle the hard left will lose, as most Labour members do want a Labour government. Sadly, it means gifting a very right wing Tory government the next election - and perhaps the one after that too - but the hard left can only ever end up disappointing. What's more, the last few weeks have shown just how piss poor a leader Corbyn is - he can't debate, he won't engage, he is a liar, he has actively undermined a number of his front bench appointees (mostly women), he has given far too much power to the deeply divisive John McDonnell and his PR operation is a shambles. A lot of Corbynistas know this to be the case now, but are still seething with anger at the PLP, so Jezza is a shoo-in to win. That anger will subside soon enough. Smith is taking one for the team, but the team is learning a lot in the meantime.
Probably going to be controversial here - but I think a parent should take responsibility for bringing up their own children. And that means being there to actually look after them. Not hand them off to others, because you'd rather be doing something else.
Plato says close the boarding schools. Radical!
??? Why would I be in favour of boarding schools? A very silly comment from you here.
I can't imagine anything worse myself - they may be suited to a certain sort of occupation [if your parents are in the Armed Services and you don't want to relocate a lot] or if your home-life environment is awful and it'd be an escape/safer place.
Otherwise - nope.
Oh, come on. Boarding schools are ace. Most of the children who go through them have a killer time.
I hated mine. My experiences there were almost enough to tip from the conservative into the liberal democrat camp, and even today I have fairly liberal views on prison reform (yes, really) in no small part because of it.
Although I understand they are a bit different now.
Interesting; I'm a few years your senior. Where did you attend?
Early - mid 1990s. So very recently.
I couldn't believe what they were getting away with even then, in "modern" times.
You should have tried Morrisons Academy in Crieff in the early 70s. Many of the things done were criminal offences even then.
Eg, boys caught by the head master playing cards in the front of a French class with a particularly pathetic teacher. 6 of the belt on each hand but every time they took their hand away he started again. In my house at lunch time their hands were so covered in blisters they could not pick up their cutlery.
"It takes me a few minutes to fillet and skin fish, he does it for me and will have both fillets done in under 20 seconds. You won't get that at any supermarket."
Point of order, Mr. Max. The fish counter at Tescos in Burgess Hill will provide exactly that sort of service. Their fish counter is the best bit of the whole shop which now otherwise only use for household cleaning products.
For Grocery shopping Herself will alternate between Sainsbury's and Tescos depending what she wants (Sicilian Lemonade is a full £1 dearer in Sainsbury's!) for bulk items and Aldi and Waitrose for "nice" things. Veg, meat, bread and booze we get from independent shops in the Village.
Probably going to be controversial here - but I think a parent should take responsibility for bringing up their own children. And that means being there to actually look after them. Not hand them off to others, because you'd rather be doing something else.
Plato says close the boarding schools. Radical!
??? Why would I be in favour of boarding schools? A very silly comment from you here.
I can't imagine anything worse myself - they may be suited to a certain sort of occupation [if your parents are in the Armed Services and you don't want to relocate a lot] or if your home-life environment is awful and it'd be an escape/safer place.
Otherwise - nope.
Oh, come on. Boarding schools are ace. Most of the children who go through them have a killer time.
I hated mine. My experiences there were almost enough to tip from the conservative into the liberal democrat camp, and even today I have fairly liberal views on prison reform (yes, really) in no small part because of it.
Although I understand they are a bit different now.
Interesting; I'm a few years your senior. Where did you attend?
Early - mid 1990s. So very recently.
I couldn't believe what they were getting away with even then, in "modern" times.
You should have tried Morrisons Academy in Crieff in the early 70s. Many of the things done were criminal offences even then.
Eg, boys caught by the head master playing cards in the front of a French class with a particularly pathetic teacher. 6 of the belt on each hand but every time they took their hand away he started again. In my house at lunch time their hands were so covered in blisters they could not pick up their cutlery.
Man should have been locked up.
My friend at Shrewsbury in the 1970s/1980s is eternally grateful that he was not a good-looking boy.
Comments
Alonso also has new PU, will start just in front of Lewis on the grid.
"They work because they have to."
I know I'll sound like the old git I am, but that's one of statements that make no sense. People usually work because (a) it gets them out the house (b) they use the extra money for 'luxuries'.
My mother did odd bits of cleaning work for the money and to get out of the house. With six children and no child minders, she had little choice. My father was a labourer (always employed) but money was tight, much tighter than today, even with the advantage of a council house.
The other statement is along the lines of "We're far busier and more stressed than we used to be."
Look back a hundred years and people worked about 60 hours a week, but I suppose they enjoyed not having to worry about spending money that didn't have. No poring over holiday brochures, no problems about the right labels on your hand-me-downs, no worry about the leccy bill, because candles were cheap enough.
You tell the kids today and they won't believe you, will they? Not even in Yorkshire.
That said, I think polls at this stage of the electoral cycle are pretty useless as so few electors actually pay much attention to politics and those done in the holiday period are even less worthwhile.
Although I understand they are a bit different now.
RNLI
Rips can drag you out to sea in seconds, if you get caught, know what to do https://t.co/XezjxhOR7e #RespectTheWater https://t.co/YcnpHfyiP1
The way some showers seem to be set up you'd like it'd be simpler to operate the Large Hadron Collider.
The LibDems for all "won't someone think if the children" and nixed the idea. because I guess they don't struggle with living costs.
The proposal to increase the childcare ratios went against all expert advice and evidence, though I appreciate that sort of thing is no longer in fashion.
Lewis is a very stingy 2 (evens) for a podium this weekend on Betfair. Maybe the strategy is to lay that for now and back at higher prices when everyone wakes up to the fact of him starting at the back.
This leaves a pretty limited life for the stay-at-home parent and the child.
I maintain that people work because they need to..
And this country needs its working age population to have children.
So many of the Government and Remain's problems came from a fundamental misreading of the mood of the electorate, that was compounded by Cooper's partiality and pompous campaigning style.
Even Cameron's approach to negotiating and selling the deal would have probably been different if they'd known they could be in some serious sauce from day one.
I couldn't believe what they were getting away with even then, in "modern" times.
Sainsburys to me if neither cheap nor excellent quality and many of their stores are very dated. Some of the newer ones are ok, but there is a wide variety and none are as nice as Waitrose.
"with housing costs as they are it's essential for most households these days."
The council house was cheap - 21 shillings a week, rates included, and we had an inside toilet for the first time. Luxury, young Obadiah. No worry about interest rates or disposable income.
We never expected to buy a house, it was more a queue to get on the council house waiting-list. The good old days, eh? We lucky sods missed all the stresses from being too affluent.
Do I miss all my simple pleasures like polio and consumption, and washing with cold water? And working on the land during every school holiday except for Christman? Nope, not at all. And trying to pretend it was a golden age compared with today is amusing.
What's the phrase ... Affluenza? Is it catching? It sounds like it.
I think there numbers are holding up, but I wonder. In the ultra competitive world of supermarkets, we know Tescos are struggling and I don't see them with a real USP.
The quality is variable, I think; even so, I went to one of what are laughingly called the great public schools (on a scholarship and a bursary, my family were normal working folk), late 80s to early 90s - it and the various others of its kind (more established or otherwise) I saw through sporting visits/general mixing seemed to be peopled by pretty happy children.
We're not leaving the ECHR so the EC(ourt of)HR will still opine on UK HR matters.
Freedom!!
Morrisons is a s##t show of a place, Asda are like a really shitty Walmart (yes I know they are owned by them, but Asda's in the UK are like the worst of the worst Walmarts you find in the US).
But Sainsbury's, the stores aren't a particularly nice experience, certainly not what you would expect from upper middle class type outlet and they aren't cheap and they don't stock particular exotic stuff e.g. silly example you can't buy Sierra Nevada or las lagunitas beer in there.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1V6KwNnbBO1q4dDwC1r0rujdcNByLHpVI1O2WKpzNfV8/edit#gid=0
Maine CD2
Iowa
North Carolina
Nevada
Ohio
Florida
Wisconsin
In the short term it may not make financial sense the partner to be working, but taking a multi-year career break could significantly impact future earnings. Forcing someone to give up employment if they do not wish to should not be the cost of raising the next generation.
Aldi is good and cheap though the ranges are limited and the till queues a bit annoying (probably no self py due to it being in the middle of the village though
If I truly want to get something without any faffing around and pay a bit extra, the Coop always has pretty much zero queues and the friendliest staff...
For me the Coop is up the high street too so requires 50m less driving than the Aldi whereas Morrisons is a few miles away.
You speak glibly about the cost of running a car. A car? We played football on the street because no one ever owned a car. My parents never had driving licenses or a passport. The 1950s were a good time to grow up because were all in the same boat. few ever complained about hand-me-down clothes because it was routine.
By comparison, we are living in luxury nowadays. Phones, colour TVs, hot running water. That's another reason the old gits aren't over-keen on Green issues. I don't want to see my days out living in a Brighton cave and existing on delicious organic grass.
You're wasting your time looking for sympathy from your parents' generation (most of them at least). We are living in a Golden age - enjoy it while you can.
Would be interesting to hear what he makes of the Presidential campaign right now - He had some crackers views but was always value when it came to politics and betting!
Completely unbias analysis. "I have nothing to offer but the polls..."
Shows the dangers of generalizing I suppose
I'll keep that in my favourites.
- May: 72%
- Don't know: 20%
- Corbyn: 8%
Source: @YouGov https://t.co/2sLtbWDSIS
At the time of the crash (2007/8) I remember seeing figures in reputable publications suggesting that house prices would have to fall by about 50% to return to long term trend. Which would have been to the long term good of all, especially if it could have been managed gently. Instead HMG to, I suspect, protect the banks (whose reckless lending had stoked the price bubble) decided to reinflate the housing market. We are now in a crazy position where, especially for the young, accumulation of wealth through saving is impossible, pensions are knackered, house ownership is out of the reach of most who don't have parents who can chip in. And all this after six years of a Conservative or Conservative-led government.
Words like "Jews" "Holocaust" "denier" could be put in the banned words filter and any posts containing those could be "moderated". Was easier to keep Rod's more nutty views under control then!
Anyway, off to enjoy the glorious August sunshine (has been a really good Summer - Perfect for a Brexit staycation, lol)
Of such moment, no doubt posted before, but in case not, in the YouGov subsample the Tories are now twice Labour and half the SNP:
Con: 25
Lab: 12
SNP: 50
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ocn4lf00me/TimesResults_160823_VI_Trackers_W.pdf
Thanks, Vince for the header. I think anyone who makes the effort to support this site through contributions to the headers deserves regular posters' gratitude.
However, when you say that Clinton is ahead in key states such as California and New York, two of the bluest of blue states, it makes me wonder if you know anything about US politics. And who, other than Trump, would be second favorite if Hillary is the current bookies' favorite?
Robert, many thanks for replying in such detail. I bow to your greater knowledge. However, I still do not think that it is a slam dunk that Italy and France will outperform the UK in the near- to medium-future. And I like the UK's longer-term prospects much better than theirs until they show much more progress in economic and labour reforms.
Nor was the last.
Eg, boys caught by the head master playing cards in the front of a French class with a particularly pathetic teacher. 6 of the belt on each hand but every time they took their hand away he started again. In my house at lunch time their hands were so covered in blisters they could not pick up their cutlery.
Man should have been locked up.
"It takes me a few minutes to fillet and skin fish, he does it for me and will have both fillets done in under 20 seconds. You won't get that at any supermarket."
Point of order, Mr. Max. The fish counter at Tescos in Burgess Hill will provide exactly that sort of service. Their fish counter is the best bit of the whole shop which now otherwise only use for household cleaning products.
For Grocery shopping Herself will alternate between Sainsbury's and Tescos depending what she wants (Sicilian Lemonade is a full £1 dearer in Sainsbury's!) for bulk items and Aldi and Waitrose for "nice" things. Veg, meat, bread and booze we get from independent shops in the Village.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3759906/Labour-suspends-member-party-posted-love-FOO-FIGHTERS-Facebook.html