Why Tory Remain seats could be a struggle for BoJo – politicalbetting.com
Options
Comments
-
Yep turkey sucks. That tradition needs to go the way of public statues of slavers.Anabobazina said:
Very wise. Turkey is rubbish. Were it any good, we’d eat it year round. I usually do rib. I’m toying with the idea of a capon this year (but have never cooked one).Benpointer said:
Yep we're off to the farm shop tomorrow to pre-order a rib of beef for Christmas day. You can't beat it imo.LostPassword said:
I expect so, but a lot of people who are used to buying without ordering in advance will find that they are disappointed. My wife has expressed a preference for roast beef this year, so we'll probably do our bit to minimise the turkey crisis of 2021.Benpointer said:
Of course they're available for order... but will they be delivered?Big_G_NorthWales said:
Just done a search on line and plenty of turkeys available for order and door to door delivery in DecemberMexicanpete said:
Off Topic anecdote alert.kinabalu said:
It doesn't bear thinking about. End of Johnson if it happens. Not even he would be able to spin Christmas dinner out of a tin as a Brexit dividend.gealbhan said:
No. You are completely missing it. Take another look. Fuel stockpiling madness stoked by front pages like this. The front of this paper is saying other families are stockpiling for Christmas what are you going to do wait till it’s too late?HYUFD said:
Looks like we will just have to swap stilton for brie and drink English and Australian wines.Leon said:
Who has French Turkey and French Christmas puddings anyway? It is normally British all the way
If the Mail gets away with this and it takes hold, it will dwarf closed petrol pumps and bog roll banditry. Your family missing out on Christmas has the most strong emotive pull.
The huge Tesco on Western Avenue in Cardiff had a rather forlorn looking seasonal aisle this evening. I just assumed the lazy staff hadn't restocked the shelves. To be fair I really don't need a bumper tin of Quality Street, so good on Johnson.
Mrs Mexicanpete visiting her mother in her old people's home found the Manager making Mother-In-Law's breakfast. Staff shortages to the bone apparently. They must have all retrained as HGV tanker drivers.4 -
By sheer force of Will to Power.Philip_Thompson said:
It hasn't happened in recent decades, so time to shake it up.Gallowgate said:
Wages keeping up with inflation? I’ll believe it when I see it.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
But people are crying havoc about a wage led inflation now, instead of a cost-led inflation. Suck it up and pay people a fair market wage is what I have to say.
Believe in Brexit. Thy will be done.0 -
Or efficient and modern smokeless wood pellet boilers.Fysics_Teacher said:
Aka wood burning stoves…Gallowgate said:
Biomassgealbhan said:
So… hold on a mo 🤔.Gallowgate said:
They’ll work but they won’t be very efficient as you’ll need a high flow temperature through the rads. The price of gas vs electric will obviously dictate whether there’s money to be savedgealbhan said:
Really?Gallowgate said:
No they won’t - you need good insulation for heat pumps. They’re only really suitable for homes built within the last 20 years.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Gas combi will be replaced with heat pumps within the next few years once the price has fallen from £10,000gealbhan said:
🤙 That’s a win.Big_G_NorthWales said:
We are receiving hydro electric power from Norway now at a connector coming ashore in Blyth in an exclusive UK - Norway dealgealbhan said:the increase in Gas production in Norway, do we get any of that or does it all go to the EU?
But not good news on the extra Norway gas then, Dozy Daisy gets it?
Can the UK build some like giant gas jerrycan things?
Your the one Big G who suggested two weeks ago, new gas combi is the only future proof option.
It’s been a long two weeks, any second thoughts?
Governments been planting story’s in the press about plans for a gas attack
But the government is definitely floating in the press resolve to push everything electric very quickly aren’t they?
What happens in older houses when gas becomes that much more expensive than electric and runs out completely?0 -
Since only 1.6% of reported rapes end up in court, and these are presumably the most provable cases, how can we possibly know what percentage of the remaining 98.4% of reported rapes are false allegations?noneoftheabove said:
Can I play unders at seven trillion a minute? I'll take 1.01, if we are talking this planet and just counting one personality per person. I don't need to know how many there are to know that there are more unreported cases than there are fake reported cases, I just need to listen.Leon said:
if they are unreported, by definition you have no fucking clue how many there are. There might be seven trillion a minutenoneoftheabove said:
It seems fairly obvious that unreported rapes, that are not in the alleged column, significantly outweigh the alleged but untrue rapes.Leon said:Emily Maitlis just said, repeatedly:
"1.6% of rapes end in a successful prosecution" then she said "1.6% end in a charge"
This is an outright lie, however she puts it. Also, a dangerously misleading lie. 1.6% of ALLEGED rapes end in Whatever Maitlis Says
ALLEGED is a long way from ACTUAL
This is no better than Fox News. Indeed, worse. Fuck the BBC. If you want the licence fee then make sure your flagship news programme gets stuff like this completely right.
The women of this country have a huge and justified grievance against the police, as we all know. And the judicial system, perhaps. But trotting out ridiculous statistical lies is beyond irresponsible
So the real answer is going to be much less than 1% of actual rapes end in a successful prosecution. If you include repeated rapes in marriage and long term relationships I would not be surprised if it is less than 0.1% of rapes that end in a conviction.
I am not attempting to minimise the scale of violence against women. The Everard case sobers us all, stuff we all see daily. But if you are a senior British TV journalist you can't run out with clearly bogus statistics aimed at furthering your agenda (which might change tomorrow). This turns the BBC into DailyExpressNews.
I won't pay for it. Either the BBC shapes up or it can fuck off
Since the whole thing turns entirely on the state of mind of one person at a particular moment in time where they either consent or don't, it's simply impossible to know how many of the unprovable he said/she said reported rapes are real, and how many are false allegations. I can't see that there is any form of statistical tools which can help us either, as there is no way to generate a usable sample of cases where the truth is known without getting massive levels of sample bias.
Anyone who claims they know that there are more unreported rapes (there are statistical tools which may allow us to make realistic estimates for these) than false allegations is just giving a very definitive gut opinion. They may be right, but they may well also be wrong.
I wouldn't want to guess if the true answer is 30% of allegations are false or 0.1%, based on the data available.0 -
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.0 -
ALLEGEDLostPassword said:
Using the Crime Survey of England and Wales figures for 2020, 1.2 million women have experienced rape at least once since they were 16 (upto age 74), about half of those more than once, and about one-fifth more than three times, making a minimum of about 2.1 million rapes. The age range covers 58 years, so these rapes will have occurred over an average of [roughly] 29 years, making for a rough lower-bound estimate of 70,000 rapes per year.Leon said:
I have read widely on this subject and the honest answer is: no one knows. It is so hard to break down, in a reliable wayLostPassword said:
What would you estimate the rate of false allegations to be?Leon said:Emily Maitlis just said, repeatedly:
"1.6% of rapes end in a successful prosecution" then she said "1.6% end in a charge"
This is an outright lie, however she puts it. Also, a dangerously misleading lie. 1.6% of ALLEGED rapes end in Whatever Maitlis Says
ALLEGED is a long way from ACTUAL
This is no better than Fox News. Indeed, worse. Fuck the BBC. If you want the licence fee then make sure your flagship news programme gets stuff like this completely right.
The women of this country have a huge and justified grievance against the police, as we all know. And the judicial system, perhaps. But trotting out ridiculous statistical lies is beyond irresponsible
Estimates range from the lowest - 2% of claims are false - (a figure first put about by a feminist group in NYC, aided by Susan Brownmiller, in the 1970s!) - to as many as 40% (the estimate of some forensic scientists in the 1990s)
Basically: nobody knows - and maybe they never will, given the enigmatic nature of the crime, because consent is an ambiguous concept (but we should still try to know). But it is highly irresponsible for someone as influential as Maitlis to say "1.9% of rapes end in a charge". For a start she is telling women: don't bother complaining about rape, you won't be heard, and the rapists always get away with it
This is dangerous nonsense. More than 50% of rape trials, in the UK, end in a conviction. Maybe she should tell women THAT. At least it has the advantage of being true
There were 1,439 convictions for rape in 2019-20.
I make that 2.1% of rapes ending in a successful prosecution, as a rough upper bound.
There are doubtless many things wrong with the citation of the statistic, but it looks like it is pretty accurate.
Jesus how hard is this. A woman may feel she has been raped, the man may feel very differently. If they were both blind drunk, who do we trust?
Neither?
0 -
He also says that coal prices are up 90% over the last four weeks to an all-time high.rottenborough said:In 1972 we had the oil shock. Are we living thru the gas shock?
Javier Blas
@JavierBlas
If I was the British government, I would be rather worried about this chart; very, very worried. UK natural gas has now breached the equivalent to $40 per million Btu barrier (~300 pence per therm). In oil terms, it's now trading above $230 per barrel of oil equivalent.0 -
If you're in the public sector, or anyone not blessed by a miraculous huge pay hike, you'll have a cozy warm brazier to stand around as you picket for a 10% inflation matching payrise.Gallowgate said:
Or efficient and modern smokeless wood pellet boilers.Fysics_Teacher said:
Aka wood burning stoves…Gallowgate said:
Biomassgealbhan said:
So… hold on a mo 🤔.Gallowgate said:
They’ll work but they won’t be very efficient as you’ll need a high flow temperature through the rads. The price of gas vs electric will obviously dictate whether there’s money to be savedgealbhan said:
Really?Gallowgate said:
No they won’t - you need good insulation for heat pumps. They’re only really suitable for homes built within the last 20 years.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Gas combi will be replaced with heat pumps within the next few years once the price has fallen from £10,000gealbhan said:
🤙 That’s a win.Big_G_NorthWales said:
We are receiving hydro electric power from Norway now at a connector coming ashore in Blyth in an exclusive UK - Norway dealgealbhan said:the increase in Gas production in Norway, do we get any of that or does it all go to the EU?
But not good news on the extra Norway gas then, Dozy Daisy gets it?
Can the UK build some like giant gas jerrycan things?
Your the one Big G who suggested two weeks ago, new gas combi is the only future proof option.
It’s been a long two weeks, any second thoughts?
Governments been planting story’s in the press about plans for a gas attack
But the government is definitely floating in the press resolve to push everything electric very quickly aren’t they?
What happens in older houses when gas becomes that much more expensive than electric and runs out completely?
And quite right too. The benevolence of the Brexit dividend must be shared by all the workers.
Join a Union.0 -
Nope. Deflating private sector pay and having private sector employees being imported for minimum wage, with Universal Credit and Housing Allowance paid by the state to them, and them then demand more services from the state . . . that provided no way for the public sector to get pay rises.Gallowgate said:
And if it did happen it will cause loads of problems in itself as no way the Government gives NHS and other public sector workers double digit pay rises so those sectors will get gutted.Philip_Thompson said:
It hasn't happened in recent decades, so time to shake it up.Gallowgate said:
Wages keeping up with inflation? I’ll believe it when I see it.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
However if the private sector gets pay rises then the government gets a slice of those pay rises via NI and Income Tax. They also get a slice of those pay rises via reduced UC costs. They also get a slice of those pay rises via increased VAT from what those employees spend their cash on. This pays for the public sectors salaries and makes pay rises affordable.0 -
The whole thing was a bit wierd. Plaid were supporting the bill until and hour before. It turns out the proposals weren't Stasi enough for Plaid.Anabobazina said:
This seems, on the face of it at least, utterly ridiculous and undemocratic. Were any other members denied similarly?HYUFD said:The Senedd approves mandatory vaccine passports by 1 vote after a Conservative Member with Zoom issues was not allowed to vote
'https://twitter.com/RWTaylors/status/1445445022535413762?s=200 -
You think that women are making false allegations of rape to the Crime Survey of England and Wales? What on earth would their motivation be for that?Leon said:
ALLEGEDLostPassword said:
Using the Crime Survey of England and Wales figures for 2020, 1.2 million women have experienced rape at least once since they were 16 (upto age 74), about half of those more than once, and about one-fifth more than three times, making a minimum of about 2.1 million rapes. The age range covers 58 years, so these rapes will have occurred over an average of [roughly] 29 years, making for a rough lower-bound estimate of 70,000 rapes per year.Leon said:
I have read widely on this subject and the honest answer is: no one knows. It is so hard to break down, in a reliable wayLostPassword said:
What would you estimate the rate of false allegations to be?Leon said:Emily Maitlis just said, repeatedly:
"1.6% of rapes end in a successful prosecution" then she said "1.6% end in a charge"
This is an outright lie, however she puts it. Also, a dangerously misleading lie. 1.6% of ALLEGED rapes end in Whatever Maitlis Says
ALLEGED is a long way from ACTUAL
This is no better than Fox News. Indeed, worse. Fuck the BBC. If you want the licence fee then make sure your flagship news programme gets stuff like this completely right.
The women of this country have a huge and justified grievance against the police, as we all know. And the judicial system, perhaps. But trotting out ridiculous statistical lies is beyond irresponsible
Estimates range from the lowest - 2% of claims are false - (a figure first put about by a feminist group in NYC, aided by Susan Brownmiller, in the 1970s!) - to as many as 40% (the estimate of some forensic scientists in the 1990s)
Basically: nobody knows - and maybe they never will, given the enigmatic nature of the crime, because consent is an ambiguous concept (but we should still try to know). But it is highly irresponsible for someone as influential as Maitlis to say "1.9% of rapes end in a charge". For a start she is telling women: don't bother complaining about rape, you won't be heard, and the rapists always get away with it
This is dangerous nonsense. More than 50% of rape trials, in the UK, end in a conviction. Maybe she should tell women THAT. At least it has the advantage of being true
There were 1,439 convictions for rape in 2019-20.
I make that 2.1% of rapes ending in a successful prosecution, as a rough upper bound.
There are doubtless many things wrong with the citation of the statistic, but it looks like it is pretty accurate.
Jesus how hard is this. A woman may feel she has been raped, the man may feel very differently. If they were both blind drunk, who do we trust?
Neither?1 -
Thanks for that accolade equivalent to, a Blue Peter badge. 🙂rottenborough said:
One of the most obscure references in a long time on PB.gealbhan said:
I found an Opera on the net based on Breaking The Waves I thought was very good.Leon said:Shit it's midnight and I have nothing to watch. Squid Game was superb. Midnight Mass is shite
HELP
I don’t know if that helps at all?
(NB: Wonderful film).
Yet tiz https://my.mail.ru/video/embed/11808321949611364120 -
Christmas is far better without that shite polluting the house. It should be a celebration of great food and drink, not mass produced sweets. If panic buying results in me avoiding unwanted gifts of cheap chocolate, I’m all for it.Mexicanpete said:
It was just all the Christmas tat plus sweets cakes and biscuits. None of which any of us need.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Just done a search on line and plenty of turkeys available for order and door to door delivery in DecemberMexicanpete said:
Off Topic anecdote alert.kinabalu said:
It doesn't bear thinking about. End of Johnson if it happens. Not even he would be able to spin Christmas dinner out of a tin as a Brexit dividend.gealbhan said:
No. You are completely missing it. Take another look. Fuel stockpiling madness stoked by front pages like this. The front of this paper is saying other families are stockpiling for Christmas what are you going to do wait till it’s too late?HYUFD said:
Looks like we will just have to swap stilton for brie and drink English and Australian wines.Leon said:
Who has French Turkey and French Christmas puddings anyway? It is normally British all the way
If the Mail gets away with this and it takes hold, it will dwarf closed petrol pumps and bog roll banditry. Your family missing out on Christmas has the most strong emotive pull.
The huge Tesco on Western Avenue in Cardiff had a rather forlorn looking seasonal aisle this evening. I just assumed the lazy staff hadn't restocked the shelves. To be fair I really don't need a bumper tin of Quality Street, so good on Johnson.
Mrs Mexicanpete visiting her mother in her old people's home found the Manager making Mother-In-Law's breakfast. Staff shortages to the bone apparently. They must have all retrained as HGV tanker drivers.1 -
No need for unions to set pay, let supply and demand do it. If your skills are valuable and needed then you should get a pay rise. If they're not, then sorry but there is a minimum wage.dixiedean said:
If you're in the public sector, or anyone not blessed by a miraculous huge pay hike, you'll have a cozy warm brazier to stand around as you picket for a 10% inflation matching payrise.Gallowgate said:
Or efficient and modern smokeless wood pellet boilers.Fysics_Teacher said:
Aka wood burning stoves…Gallowgate said:
Biomassgealbhan said:
So… hold on a mo 🤔.Gallowgate said:
They’ll work but they won’t be very efficient as you’ll need a high flow temperature through the rads. The price of gas vs electric will obviously dictate whether there’s money to be savedgealbhan said:
Really?Gallowgate said:
No they won’t - you need good insulation for heat pumps. They’re only really suitable for homes built within the last 20 years.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Gas combi will be replaced with heat pumps within the next few years once the price has fallen from £10,000gealbhan said:
🤙 That’s a win.Big_G_NorthWales said:
We are receiving hydro electric power from Norway now at a connector coming ashore in Blyth in an exclusive UK - Norway dealgealbhan said:the increase in Gas production in Norway, do we get any of that or does it all go to the EU?
But not good news on the extra Norway gas then, Dozy Daisy gets it?
Can the UK build some like giant gas jerrycan things?
Your the one Big G who suggested two weeks ago, new gas combi is the only future proof option.
It’s been a long two weeks, any second thoughts?
Governments been planting story’s in the press about plans for a gas attack
But the government is definitely floating in the press resolve to push everything electric very quickly aren’t they?
What happens in older houses when gas becomes that much more expensive than electric and runs out completely?
And quite right too. The benevolence of the Brexit dividend must be shared by all the workers.
Join a Union.0 -
How many Tory Remain seats are there with majorities of less than 20%? (ie. vulnerable to a 10% swing). I'm not sure there are 40 of them, which would wipe out the Conservative overall majority.1
-
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.3 -
So, in summary, MrEd was obsequiously congratulated on PB for repeating an inaccurate prediction on another forum about the detail of a newspaper article which was entirely untrue.dixiedean said:
What’s more he didn't. That came much earlier in the discussion via the Vote UK forum.Anabobazina said:
Several PBers were obsequiously congratulating MrEd on Sunday for successfully identifying one of the trio. In all fairness, nobody else in the world has identified any of them.NickPalmer said:
It's a tabloid using the word "could", so usual rule applies.Leon said:
How are those three defectors coming along?
Nonetheless. If there were only one, it would be him.1 -
It’s not even a proper tradition, or so I’m told, but a US import from Thanksgiving. The traditional bird is goose I think.Gallowgate said:
Yep turkey sucks. That tradition needs to go the way of public statues of slavers.Anabobazina said:
Very wise. Turkey is rubbish. Were it any good, we’d eat it year round. I usually do rib. I’m toying with the idea of a capon this year (but have never cooked one).Benpointer said:
Yep we're off to the farm shop tomorrow to pre-order a rib of beef for Christmas day. You can't beat it imo.LostPassword said:
I expect so, but a lot of people who are used to buying without ordering in advance will find that they are disappointed. My wife has expressed a preference for roast beef this year, so we'll probably do our bit to minimise the turkey crisis of 2021.Benpointer said:
Of course they're available for order... but will they be delivered?Big_G_NorthWales said:
Just done a search on line and plenty of turkeys available for order and door to door delivery in DecemberMexicanpete said:
Off Topic anecdote alert.kinabalu said:
It doesn't bear thinking about. End of Johnson if it happens. Not even he would be able to spin Christmas dinner out of a tin as a Brexit dividend.gealbhan said:
No. You are completely missing it. Take another look. Fuel stockpiling madness stoked by front pages like this. The front of this paper is saying other families are stockpiling for Christmas what are you going to do wait till it’s too late?HYUFD said:
Looks like we will just have to swap stilton for brie and drink English and Australian wines.Leon said:
Who has French Turkey and French Christmas puddings anyway? It is normally British all the way
If the Mail gets away with this and it takes hold, it will dwarf closed petrol pumps and bog roll banditry. Your family missing out on Christmas has the most strong emotive pull.
The huge Tesco on Western Avenue in Cardiff had a rather forlorn looking seasonal aisle this evening. I just assumed the lazy staff hadn't restocked the shelves. To be fair I really don't need a bumper tin of Quality Street, so good on Johnson.
Mrs Mexicanpete visiting her mother in her old people's home found the Manager making Mother-In-Law's breakfast. Staff shortages to the bone apparently. They must have all retrained as HGV tanker drivers.0 -
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?0 -
It's important to find a reason to praise right-wing posters from time to time, even at the risk of doing so spuriously, otherwise we'd risk scaring them all away!Anabobazina said:
So, in summary, MrEd was obsequiously congratulated on PB for repeating an inaccurate prediction on another forum about the detail of a newspaper article which was entirely untrue.dixiedean said:
What’s more he didn't. That came much earlier in the discussion via the Vote UK forum.Anabobazina said:
Several PBers were obsequiously congratulating MrEd on Sunday for successfully identifying one of the trio. In all fairness, nobody else in the world has identified any of them.NickPalmer said:
It's a tabloid using the word "could", so usual rule applies.Leon said:
How are those three defectors coming along?
Nonetheless. If there were only one, it would be him.1 -
And what if there are strikes? Has this government prepared? In a free market, folk have a right to withdraw their labour. Or maybe the decision whether to work or not is not part of your rugged individualist calculations?Philip_Thompson said:
No need for unions to set pay, let supply and demand do it. If your skills are valuable and needed then you should get a pay rise. If they're not, then sorry but there is a minimum wage.dixiedean said:
If you're in the public sector, or anyone not blessed by a miraculous huge pay hike, you'll have a cozy warm brazier to stand around as you picket for a 10% inflation matching payrise.Gallowgate said:
Or efficient and modern smokeless wood pellet boilers.Fysics_Teacher said:
Aka wood burning stoves…Gallowgate said:
Biomassgealbhan said:
So… hold on a mo 🤔.Gallowgate said:
They’ll work but they won’t be very efficient as you’ll need a high flow temperature through the rads. The price of gas vs electric will obviously dictate whether there’s money to be savedgealbhan said:
Really?Gallowgate said:
No they won’t - you need good insulation for heat pumps. They’re only really suitable for homes built within the last 20 years.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Gas combi will be replaced with heat pumps within the next few years once the price has fallen from £10,000gealbhan said:
🤙 That’s a win.Big_G_NorthWales said:
We are receiving hydro electric power from Norway now at a connector coming ashore in Blyth in an exclusive UK - Norway dealgealbhan said:the increase in Gas production in Norway, do we get any of that or does it all go to the EU?
But not good news on the extra Norway gas then, Dozy Daisy gets it?
Can the UK build some like giant gas jerrycan things?
Your the one Big G who suggested two weeks ago, new gas combi is the only future proof option.
It’s been a long two weeks, any second thoughts?
Governments been planting story’s in the press about plans for a gas attack
But the government is definitely floating in the press resolve to push everything electric very quickly aren’t they?
What happens in older houses when gas becomes that much more expensive than electric and runs out completely?
And quite right too. The benevolence of the Brexit dividend must be shared by all the workers.
Join a Union.0 -
It’s not a maliciously false allegation. It’s what she possibly indeed probably believes. But it can still, in the balance, be wrong. That’s why we have prosecutors, trials, courts and juries to decide these things, that’s why we don’t just rely on the word of a plaintiffLostPassword said:
You think that women are making false allegations of rape to the Crime Survey of England and Wales? What on earth would their motivation be for that?Leon said:
ALLEGEDLostPassword said:
Using the Crime Survey of England and Wales figures for 2020, 1.2 million women have experienced rape at least once since they were 16 (upto age 74), about half of those more than once, and about one-fifth more than three times, making a minimum of about 2.1 million rapes. The age range covers 58 years, so these rapes will have occurred over an average of [roughly] 29 years, making for a rough lower-bound estimate of 70,000 rapes per year.Leon said:
I have read widely on this subject and the honest answer is: no one knows. It is so hard to break down, in a reliable wayLostPassword said:
What would you estimate the rate of false allegations to be?Leon said:Emily Maitlis just said, repeatedly:
"1.6% of rapes end in a successful prosecution" then she said "1.6% end in a charge"
This is an outright lie, however she puts it. Also, a dangerously misleading lie. 1.6% of ALLEGED rapes end in Whatever Maitlis Says
ALLEGED is a long way from ACTUAL
This is no better than Fox News. Indeed, worse. Fuck the BBC. If you want the licence fee then make sure your flagship news programme gets stuff like this completely right.
The women of this country have a huge and justified grievance against the police, as we all know. And the judicial system, perhaps. But trotting out ridiculous statistical lies is beyond irresponsible
Estimates range from the lowest - 2% of claims are false - (a figure first put about by a feminist group in NYC, aided by Susan Brownmiller, in the 1970s!) - to as many as 40% (the estimate of some forensic scientists in the 1990s)
Basically: nobody knows - and maybe they never will, given the enigmatic nature of the crime, because consent is an ambiguous concept (but we should still try to know). But it is highly irresponsible for someone as influential as Maitlis to say "1.9% of rapes end in a charge". For a start she is telling women: don't bother complaining about rape, you won't be heard, and the rapists always get away with it
This is dangerous nonsense. More than 50% of rape trials, in the UK, end in a conviction. Maybe she should tell women THAT. At least it has the advantage of being true
There were 1,439 convictions for rape in 2019-20.
I make that 2.1% of rapes ending in a successful prosecution, as a rough upper bound.
There are doubtless many things wrong with the citation of the statistic, but it looks like it is pretty accurate.
Jesus how hard is this. A woman may feel she has been raped, the man may feel very differently. If they were both blind drunk, who do we trust?
Neither?
A common but erroneous comparison is often made between rape and robbery. If robbery is alleged, and something is taken = robbery
But the comparison is absurd. No one wants to be robbed. Lots of women want to have sex. The encounter is sought. The lines of consent may then be blurred by innumerable things - drink, drugs, regret, delusion, sleep, dreams, revenge.
It’s a minefield. A responsible BBC journalist should be using hard, provable statistics - which are shocking enough, re violence on women - there is no need to resort to Daily Expressery.
And on that note, good night. I might be forced to watch FOUNDATION1 -
I respect an opinion watched and considered over a long course of time, on other hand things tend to move swiftly in politics, have the edges of greens and Labour blurred more in recent years?NickPalmer said:
If one just goes by policy platforms, yes, absolutely. But culturally they're very different, which is why the Greens continue to stand against Corbynite candidates. Labour leftists are predominantly anti-capitalist and worried about poverty, especially in the Third World, and their greenery is a secondary effect - they feel big business is among other things wrecking the planet. Greens are predominantly counter-culture - they have almost no interest in trade unions and they're only anti-capitalist because they see capitalism as part of the establishment culture. I know this sounds all a bit People's Front of Judea if you're not close to it, but they are really very different animals.gealbhan said:
Outside of the Tory and Momentum dirty tricks units, in the real world, it’s not impossible some high profile lefties could jump to the Greens?NickPalmer said:
It's a tabloid using the word "could", so usual rule applies.Leon said:
How are those three defectors coming along?
At lower level all this is less true - people switch parties for all kinds of reasons, often to do with personal likings or animosities.0 -
Can't really get my head round the fact that a full 5 years after the Brexit vote that the Right are extolling the moral virtues of shortages, while Lefties make dire warnings of the moral hazards of inflation.4
-
As far as I'm concerned, if people want to withdraw their labour they should be entirely free to do so - and the employer should be free to let them go and replace them immediately with someone else if someone else wants the job on the same terms and conditions that the striking individual is rejecting.dixiedean said:
And what if there are strikes? Has this government prepared? In a free market, folk have a right to withdraw their labour. Or maybe the decision whether to work or not is not part of your rugged individualist calculations?Philip_Thompson said:
No need for unions to set pay, let supply and demand do it. If your skills are valuable and needed then you should get a pay rise. If they're not, then sorry but there is a minimum wage.dixiedean said:
If you're in the public sector, or anyone not blessed by a miraculous huge pay hike, you'll have a cozy warm brazier to stand around as you picket for a 10% inflation matching payrise.Gallowgate said:
Or efficient and modern smokeless wood pellet boilers.Fysics_Teacher said:
Aka wood burning stoves…Gallowgate said:
Biomassgealbhan said:
So… hold on a mo 🤔.Gallowgate said:
They’ll work but they won’t be very efficient as you’ll need a high flow temperature through the rads. The price of gas vs electric will obviously dictate whether there’s money to be savedgealbhan said:
Really?Gallowgate said:
No they won’t - you need good insulation for heat pumps. They’re only really suitable for homes built within the last 20 years.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Gas combi will be replaced with heat pumps within the next few years once the price has fallen from £10,000gealbhan said:
🤙 That’s a win.Big_G_NorthWales said:
We are receiving hydro electric power from Norway now at a connector coming ashore in Blyth in an exclusive UK - Norway dealgealbhan said:the increase in Gas production in Norway, do we get any of that or does it all go to the EU?
But not good news on the extra Norway gas then, Dozy Daisy gets it?
Can the UK build some like giant gas jerrycan things?
Your the one Big G who suggested two weeks ago, new gas combi is the only future proof option.
It’s been a long two weeks, any second thoughts?
Governments been planting story’s in the press about plans for a gas attack
But the government is definitely floating in the press resolve to push everything electric very quickly aren’t they?
What happens in older houses when gas becomes that much more expensive than electric and runs out completely?
And quite right too. The benevolence of the Brexit dividend must be shared by all the workers.
Join a Union.
If wages are too low there'll be nobody else looking to fill those vacancies so the wages would go up.
If wages are too high then there'll be 'scabs' happy to take the jobs that those 'withdrawing their labour' are deciding are beneath them and that'll be that.0 -
At some point reality is going to impinge on the green fad, and that moment looks like it's drawing nigh.Fysics_Teacher said:
Aka wood burning stoves…Gallowgate said:
Biomassgealbhan said:
So… hold on a mo 🤔.Gallowgate said:
They’ll work but they won’t be very efficient as you’ll need a high flow temperature through the rads. The price of gas vs electric will obviously dictate whether there’s money to be savedgealbhan said:
Really?Gallowgate said:
No they won’t - you need good insulation for heat pumps. They’re only really suitable for homes built within the last 20 years.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Gas combi will be replaced with heat pumps within the next few years once the price has fallen from £10,000gealbhan said:
🤙 That’s a win.Big_G_NorthWales said:
We are receiving hydro electric power from Norway now at a connector coming ashore in Blyth in an exclusive UK - Norway dealgealbhan said:the increase in Gas production in Norway, do we get any of that or does it all go to the EU?
But not good news on the extra Norway gas then, Dozy Daisy gets it?
Can the UK build some like giant gas jerrycan things?
Your the one Big G who suggested two weeks ago, new gas combi is the only future proof option.
It’s been a long two weeks, any second thoughts?
Governments been planting story’s in the press about plans for a gas attack
But the government is definitely floating in the press resolve to push everything electric very quickly aren’t they?
What happens in older houses when gas becomes that much more expensive than electric and runs out completely?
There is no viable technology for heating UK homes for anything like the cost of gas fired central heating. There will be no such technology in 2035 either.
Most people's revealed preferences are very clear - they are happy to be green as long as it doesn't cost them anything, or inconvenience them more than very mildly.
Electric cars have some degree of popular acceptance because they are cheaper than ICE vehicles to run (although everyone seems to be overlooking the fact that this is almost entirely a tax arbitrage, rather than a real saving).
Moving the UK's domestic heating to electricity (with or without heat pumps) or hydrogen is going to be very very expensive, both in installation and running costs. It's probably £10k a house to transition, then double the running costs. People don't have that sort of cash spare, and the government can't possibly afford to fund it without massive tax rises.
Currently the green agenda is being kept alive by two things - it hasn't started hitting people hard in the wallet yet, and no serious political party is against it.
It's not going to be long after the costs start to bite before one of the political parties (probably the Tories, their voters are more aware of this stuff) realises there is a lot of votes in binning the whole green agenda. And that will be the end of it.
The correct response to climate variability is obviously going to be mitigate, mitigate and mitigate. It's too late for any other outcome now anyway, unless that nice Mr Xi suddenly decides to deindustralise China. We might as well get on with that now, rather than impoverish ourselves trying to stop the inevitable.2 -
Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
It isn't. Housing inflation is dire. You are sound on that. It is shit. The answer isn't to import that into every other aspect of life.Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?0 -
It would be nice if people had been addressing the real hazards of inflation that have really existed for years. Instead inflation has been celebrated as 'prosperity' instead of costs going up for years. I've long been criticising this.dixiedean said:Can't really get my head round the fact that a full 5 years after the Brexit vote that the Right are extolling the moral virtues of shortages, while Lefties make dire warnings of the moral hazards of inflation.
From 1999 to 2020 wages have gone up by 2.8% compound growth in the UK
From 1999 to 2020 costs have gone up 6.2% compound growth in the UK.
Housing costs have now replaced food cost as the highest cost in a household's budget (except for people who don't have to pay housing costs).
What do you call that if not inflation? Inflation that is higher than wages too.0 -
There are only three paths from here and every single one of them is shit.dixiedean said:Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
It isn't. Housing inflation is dire. You are sound on that. It is shit. The answer isn't to import that into every other aspect of life.Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
1: House price crash, millions plunged into negative equity immediately.
2: Years of inflation in wages exceeding inflation in costs (a reversal of past twenty years).
3: Do nothing and see the problem only continue to get worse, or be locked in as a problem forever.
I can't think of a fourth solution, so pick yer poison. Which of those three paths should we take? I'm torn between 1 and 2 but think 2 is better. Alternatively if you can think of a fourth solution I'd love to hear it, I'm all ears.1 -
In climate policy parlance mitigation is the policy of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to reduce the perturbation to the climate consequently produced, and it is adaptation that refers to the policy of rebuilding all our coastal infrastructure on higher ground, rehousing the millions whose homes will be flooded and moving agriculture to chase the changed climate.theProle said:The correct response to climate variability is obviously going to be mitigate, mitigate and mitigate. It's too late for any other outcome now anyway, unless that nice Mr Xi suddenly decides to deindustralise China. We might as well get on with that now, rather than impoverish ourselves trying to stop the inevitable.
It really shouldn't be seen as either/or. Even if we hit the most optimistic emissions reductions pathways, we'd still have to adapt to some changes, and even if we don't hit net zero this century, the more we can reduce emissions the slower we will change the climate, and so the more time we will have to adapt to the changes produced.
The simplest answer is that we should attempt to cut greenhouse gas emissions by as much as we can as fast as we can.0 -
But. That worked with 3 million on the Dole. It doesn't when there aren't any workers.Philip_Thompson said:
As far as I'm concerned, if people want to withdraw their labour they should be entirely free to do so - and the employer should be free to let them go and replace them immediately with someone else if someone else wants the job on the same terms and conditions that the striking individual is rejecting.dixiedean said:
And what if there are strikes? Has this government prepared? In a free market, folk have a right to withdraw their labour. Or maybe the decision whether to work or not is not part of your rugged individualist calculations?Philip_Thompson said:
No need for unions to set pay, let supply and demand do it. If your skills are valuable and needed then you should get a pay rise. If they're not, then sorry but there is a minimum wage.dixiedean said:
If you're in the public sector, or anyone not blessed by a miraculous huge pay hike, you'll have a cozy warm brazier to stand around as you picket for a 10% inflation matching payrise.Gallowgate said:
Or efficient and modern smokeless wood pellet boilers.Fysics_Teacher said:
Aka wood burning stoves…Gallowgate said:
Biomassgealbhan said:
So… hold on a mo 🤔.Gallowgate said:
They’ll work but they won’t be very efficient as you’ll need a high flow temperature through the rads. The price of gas vs electric will obviously dictate whether there’s money to be savedgealbhan said:
Really?Gallowgate said:
No they won’t - you need good insulation for heat pumps. They’re only really suitable for homes built within the last 20 years.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Gas combi will be replaced with heat pumps within the next few years once the price has fallen from £10,000gealbhan said:
🤙 That’s a win.Big_G_NorthWales said:
We are receiving hydro electric power from Norway now at a connector coming ashore in Blyth in an exclusive UK - Norway dealgealbhan said:the increase in Gas production in Norway, do we get any of that or does it all go to the EU?
But not good news on the extra Norway gas then, Dozy Daisy gets it?
Can the UK build some like giant gas jerrycan things?
Your the one Big G who suggested two weeks ago, new gas combi is the only future proof option.
It’s been a long two weeks, any second thoughts?
Governments been planting story’s in the press about plans for a gas attack
But the government is definitely floating in the press resolve to push everything electric very quickly aren’t they?
What happens in older houses when gas becomes that much more expensive than electric and runs out completely?
And quite right too. The benevolence of the Brexit dividend must be shared by all the workers.
Join a Union.
If wages are too low there'll be nobody else looking to fill those vacancies so the wages would go up.
If wages are too high then there'll be 'scabs' happy to take the jobs that those 'withdrawing their labour' are deciding are beneath them and that'll be that.
Free market.0 -
Not arguing with that.dixiedean said:
But. That worked with 3 million on the Dole. It doesn't when there aren't any workers.Philip_Thompson said:
As far as I'm concerned, if people want to withdraw their labour they should be entirely free to do so - and the employer should be free to let them go and replace them immediately with someone else if someone else wants the job on the same terms and conditions that the striking individual is rejecting.dixiedean said:
And what if there are strikes? Has this government prepared? In a free market, folk have a right to withdraw their labour. Or maybe the decision whether to work or not is not part of your rugged individualist calculations?Philip_Thompson said:
No need for unions to set pay, let supply and demand do it. If your skills are valuable and needed then you should get a pay rise. If they're not, then sorry but there is a minimum wage.dixiedean said:
If you're in the public sector, or anyone not blessed by a miraculous huge pay hike, you'll have a cozy warm brazier to stand around as you picket for a 10% inflation matching payrise.Gallowgate said:
Or efficient and modern smokeless wood pellet boilers.Fysics_Teacher said:
Aka wood burning stoves…Gallowgate said:
Biomassgealbhan said:
So… hold on a mo 🤔.Gallowgate said:
They’ll work but they won’t be very efficient as you’ll need a high flow temperature through the rads. The price of gas vs electric will obviously dictate whether there’s money to be savedgealbhan said:
Really?Gallowgate said:
No they won’t - you need good insulation for heat pumps. They’re only really suitable for homes built within the last 20 years.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Gas combi will be replaced with heat pumps within the next few years once the price has fallen from £10,000gealbhan said:
🤙 That’s a win.Big_G_NorthWales said:
We are receiving hydro electric power from Norway now at a connector coming ashore in Blyth in an exclusive UK - Norway dealgealbhan said:the increase in Gas production in Norway, do we get any of that or does it all go to the EU?
But not good news on the extra Norway gas then, Dozy Daisy gets it?
Can the UK build some like giant gas jerrycan things?
Your the one Big G who suggested two weeks ago, new gas combi is the only future proof option.
It’s been a long two weeks, any second thoughts?
Governments been planting story’s in the press about plans for a gas attack
But the government is definitely floating in the press resolve to push everything electric very quickly aren’t they?
What happens in older houses when gas becomes that much more expensive than electric and runs out completely?
And quite right too. The benevolence of the Brexit dividend must be shared by all the workers.
Join a Union.
If wages are too low there'll be nobody else looking to fill those vacancies so the wages would go up.
If wages are too high then there'll be 'scabs' happy to take the jobs that those 'withdrawing their labour' are deciding are beneath them and that'll be that.
Free market.
When there aren't any workers though, there's no need even to strike. Just say to your employer "I can get better elsewhere, what are you going to do about it" and if they don't do better then move.
The problem with wage rises is when we're already past the market equilibrium point and millions are on the dole but wage increases are going ahead due to politics/unions not the market.1 -
Well. Yes. That would have been lovely. Tell that to the home owners and landlords that they need some belt tightening.Philip_Thompson said:
It would be nice if people had been addressing the real hazards of inflation that have really existed for years. Instead inflation has been celebrated as 'prosperity' instead of costs going up for years. I've long been criticising this.dixiedean said:Can't really get my head round the fact that a full 5 years after the Brexit vote that the Right are extolling the moral virtues of shortages, while Lefties make dire warnings of the moral hazards of inflation.
From 1999 to 2020 wages have gone up by 2.8% compound growth in the UK
From 1999 to 2020 costs have gone up 6.2% compound growth in the UK.
Housing costs have now replaced food cost as the highest cost in a household's budget (except for people who don't have to pay housing costs).
What do you call that if not inflation? Inflation that is higher than wages too.
I'm sure that will be most of Boris' speech.0 -
Mathematically, you can have general price inflation of 2%, wage inflation of 3% and house price inflation of 0%, and then you would reduce the cost of housing relative to wages over time, without forcing people to live through a damaging period of high price inflation, or to be trapped in negative equity.Philip_Thompson said:
There are only three paths from here and every single one of them is shit.dixiedean said:Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
It isn't. Housing inflation is dire. You are sound on that. It is shit. The answer isn't to import that into every other aspect of life.Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
1: House price crash, millions plunged into negative equity immediately.
2: Years of inflation in wages exceeding inflation in costs (a reversal of past twenty years).
3: Do nothing and see the problem only continue to get worse, or be locked in as a problem forever.
I can't think of a fourth solution, so pick yer poison. Which of those three paths should we take? I'm torn between 1 and 2 but think 2 is better. Alternatively if you can think of a fourth solution I'd love to hear it, I'm all ears.1 -
I'm not Boris. My opinions are my own.dixiedean said:
Well. Yes. That would have been lovely. Tell that to the home owners and landlords that they need some belt tightening.Philip_Thompson said:
It would be nice if people had been addressing the real hazards of inflation that have really existed for years. Instead inflation has been celebrated as 'prosperity' instead of costs going up for years. I've long been criticising this.dixiedean said:Can't really get my head round the fact that a full 5 years after the Brexit vote that the Right are extolling the moral virtues of shortages, while Lefties make dire warnings of the moral hazards of inflation.
From 1999 to 2020 wages have gone up by 2.8% compound growth in the UK
From 1999 to 2020 costs have gone up 6.2% compound growth in the UK.
Housing costs have now replaced food cost as the highest cost in a household's budget (except for people who don't have to pay housing costs).
What do you call that if not inflation? Inflation that is higher than wages too.
I'm sure that will be most of Boris' speech.
But if Boris's actions meets my opinions then I'd be happy to rejoin the party and vote for him again in the future. If he doesn't and Starmer does then I'd be happy to lend Labour my vote.0 -
Mathematically possible, not realistically possible as you'll always have variation and any variation from 0% could be dropping people into negative equity, which will affect how the Banks approve mortgages too. Plus it'd take an extremely long time to reverse the damage of the past couple of decades. You'd be looking at over two decades of that implausible scenario to reverse the damage.LostPassword said:
Mathematically, you can have general price inflation of 2%, wage inflation of 3% and house price inflation of 0%, and then you would reduce the cost of housing relative to wages over time, without forcing people to live through a damaging period of high price inflation, or to be trapped in negative equity.Philip_Thompson said:
There are only three paths from here and every single one of them is shit.dixiedean said:Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
It isn't. Housing inflation is dire. You are sound on that. It is shit. The answer isn't to import that into every other aspect of life.Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
1: House price crash, millions plunged into negative equity immediately.
2: Years of inflation in wages exceeding inflation in costs (a reversal of past twenty years).
3: Do nothing and see the problem only continue to get worse, or be locked in as a problem forever.
I can't think of a fourth solution, so pick yer poison. Which of those three paths should we take? I'm torn between 1 and 2 but think 2 is better. Alternatively if you can think of a fourth solution I'd love to hear it, I'm all ears.
If you have 1% house price inflation, 6% general inflation and 7% wage inflation then you'd have houses going up still (good for Banks to avoid negative equity risks) even with some natural variation and it'd only take a decade of that to reverse the damage.
If you have 1% house price inflation, 10% general inflation and 11% wage inflation then you'd keep houses going up marginally, and reverse the damage in 6 years.0 -
Do you know what?Philip_Thompson said:
There are only three paths from here and every single one of them is shit.dixiedean said:Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
It isn't. Housing inflation is dire. You are sound on that. It is shit. The answer isn't to import that into every other aspect of life.Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
1: House price crash, millions plunged into negative equity immediately.
2: Years of inflation in wages exceeding inflation in costs (a reversal of past twenty years).
3: Do nothing and see the problem only continue to get worse, or be locked in as a problem forever.
I can't think of a fourth solution, so pick yer poison. Which of those three paths should we take? I'm torn between 1 and 2 but think 2 is better. Alternatively if you can think of a fourth solution I'd love to hear it, I'm all ears.
I actually think 1 would be the best all round. Won't happen, cos the Party holding the parcel wouldn't get back in for a generation.
But 1 would be best. Their store of utterly unearned income wiped out. Year Zero as it were.1 -
I'd have no qualms whatsoever with people losing a store of utterly unearned income. None at all, just as with a stock market all investments can go down as well as up.dixiedean said:
Do you know what?Philip_Thompson said:
There are only three paths from here and every single one of them is shit.dixiedean said:Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
It isn't. Housing inflation is dire. You are sound on that. It is shit. The answer isn't to import that into every other aspect of life.Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
1: House price crash, millions plunged into negative equity immediately.
2: Years of inflation in wages exceeding inflation in costs (a reversal of past twenty years).
3: Do nothing and see the problem only continue to get worse, or be locked in as a problem forever.
I can't think of a fourth solution, so pick yer poison. Which of those three paths should we take? I'm torn between 1 and 2 but think 2 is better. Alternatively if you can think of a fourth solution I'd love to hear it, I'm all ears.
I actually think 1 would be the best all round. Won't happen, cos the Party holding the parcel wouldn't get back in for a generation.
But 1 would be best. Their store of utterly unearned income wiped out. Year Zero as it were.
The issue with negative equity though would be the people who only got mortgaged up in the past year or two and are now lumped with that. They're the problem.1 -
And in the long run we are all dead.LostPassword said:
Mathematically, you can have general price inflation of 2%, wage inflation of 3% and house price inflation of 0%, and then you would reduce the cost of housing relative to wages over time, without forcing people to live through a damaging period of high price inflation, or to be trapped in negative equity.Philip_Thompson said:
There are only three paths from here and every single one of them is shit.dixiedean said:Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
It isn't. Housing inflation is dire. You are sound on that. It is shit. The answer isn't to import that into every other aspect of life.Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
1: House price crash, millions plunged into negative equity immediately.
2: Years of inflation in wages exceeding inflation in costs (a reversal of past twenty years).
3: Do nothing and see the problem only continue to get worse, or be locked in as a problem forever.
I can't think of a fourth solution, so pick yer poison. Which of those three paths should we take? I'm torn between 1 and 2 but think 2 is better. Alternatively if you can think of a fourth solution I'd love to hear it, I'm all ears.0 -
They are the late adopters of tulips. Tough.Philip_Thompson said:
I'd have no qualms whatsoever with people losing a store of utterly unearned income. None at all, just as with a stock market all investments can go down as well as up.dixiedean said:
Do you know what?Philip_Thompson said:
There are only three paths from here and every single one of them is shit.dixiedean said:Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
It isn't. Housing inflation is dire. You are sound on that. It is shit. The answer isn't to import that into every other aspect of life.Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
1: House price crash, millions plunged into negative equity immediately.
2: Years of inflation in wages exceeding inflation in costs (a reversal of past twenty years).
3: Do nothing and see the problem only continue to get worse, or be locked in as a problem forever.
I can't think of a fourth solution, so pick yer poison. Which of those three paths should we take? I'm torn between 1 and 2 but think 2 is better. Alternatively if you can think of a fourth solution I'd love to hear it, I'm all ears.
I actually think 1 would be the best all round. Won't happen, cos the Party holding the parcel wouldn't get back in for a generation.
But 1 would be best. Their store of utterly unearned income wiped out. Year Zero as it were.
The issue with negative equity though would be the people who only got mortgaged up in the past year or two and are now lumped with that. They're the problem.0 -
Deleted. Duplicate.Philip_Thompson said:
I'd have no qualms whatsoever with people losing a store of utterly unearned income. None at all, just as with a stock market all investments can go down as well as up.dixiedean said:
Do you know what?Philip_Thompson said:
There are only three paths from here and every single one of them is shit.dixiedean said:Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
It isn't. Housing inflation is dire. You are sound on that. It is shit. The answer isn't to import that into every other aspect of life.Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
1: House price crash, millions plunged into negative equity immediately.
2: Years of inflation in wages exceeding inflation in costs (a reversal of past twenty years).
3: Do nothing and see the problem only continue to get worse, or be locked in as a problem forever.
I can't think of a fourth solution, so pick yer poison. Which of those three paths should we take? I'm torn between 1 and 2 but think 2 is better. Alternatively if you can think of a fourth solution I'd love to hear it, I'm all ears.
I actually think 1 would be the best all round. Won't happen, cos the Party holding the parcel wouldn't get back in for a generation.
But 1 would be best. Their store of utterly unearned income wiped out. Year Zero as it were.
The issue with negative equity though would be the people who only got mortgaged up in the past year or two and are now lumped with that. They're the problem.0 -
That's fairer than the status quo, I agree. Caveat Emptor.dixiedean said:
They are the late adopters of tulips. Tough.Philip_Thompson said:
I'd have no qualms whatsoever with people losing a store of utterly unearned income. None at all, just as with a stock market all investments can go down as well as up.dixiedean said:
Do you know what?Philip_Thompson said:
There are only three paths from here and every single one of them is shit.dixiedean said:Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
It isn't. Housing inflation is dire. You are sound on that. It is shit. The answer isn't to import that into every other aspect of life.Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
1: House price crash, millions plunged into negative equity immediately.
2: Years of inflation in wages exceeding inflation in costs (a reversal of past twenty years).
3: Do nothing and see the problem only continue to get worse, or be locked in as a problem forever.
I can't think of a fourth solution, so pick yer poison. Which of those three paths should we take? I'm torn between 1 and 2 but think 2 is better. Alternatively if you can think of a fourth solution I'd love to hear it, I'm all ears.
I actually think 1 would be the best all round. Won't happen, cos the Party holding the parcel wouldn't get back in for a generation.
But 1 would be best. Their store of utterly unearned income wiped out. Year Zero as it were.
The issue with negative equity though would be the people who only got mortgaged up in the past year or two and are now lumped with that. They're the problem.
I just think inflation so long as its wage-led would avoid that being necessary. But either way one of those 2 has to happen for me.
Wage-led inflation would have the added bonus of shrinking our tremendous debt burden too. Years of balanced budgets and inflation would see debt-to-GDP collapse.2 -
New Zealand raises interest rates by 25 basis points to 0.5%0
-
Indeed. I think it’s why interest rates never really went up during the good times. The latest people to get on the ladder would have kicked off royally and the BoE didn’t have the stomach for that.dixiedean said:
They are the late adopters of tulips. Tough.Philip_Thompson said:
I'd have no qualms whatsoever with people losing a store of utterly unearned income. None at all, just as with a stock market all investments can go down as well as up.dixiedean said:
Do you know what?Philip_Thompson said:
There are only three paths from here and every single one of them is shit.dixiedean said:Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
It isn't. Housing inflation is dire. You are sound on that. It is shit. The answer isn't to import that into every other aspect of life.Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
1: House price crash, millions plunged into negative equity immediately.
2: Years of inflation in wages exceeding inflation in costs (a reversal of past twenty years).
3: Do nothing and see the problem only continue to get worse, or be locked in as a problem forever.
I can't think of a fourth solution, so pick yer poison. Which of those three paths should we take? I'm torn between 1 and 2 but think 2 is better. Alternatively if you can think of a fourth solution I'd love to hear it, I'm all ears.
I actually think 1 would be the best all round. Won't happen, cos the Party holding the parcel wouldn't get back in for a generation.
But 1 would be best. Their store of utterly unearned income wiped out. Year Zero as it were.
The issue with negative equity though would be the people who only got mortgaged up in the past year or two and are now lumped with that. They're the problem.
Instead, we’re likely to get the carnage of a crash. Still, it makes me feel a little better for not taking the plunge.0 -
Just caught Ian Dunt on Sky News complaining that nurses won’t be getting a pay rise. There’s definitely a whiff of “the wrong people are getting a pay rise” in all this.
My advice to kids is to think very carefully about going to university. Plenty of money to be made in jobs not needing a degree a student debt.3 -
There are around 40 Tory seats which voted Remain and where their majority is less than 20%. So even if they lost all of them they'd probably still be in office. (Doesn't take boundary changes into account).0
-
You're not getting the whole "doom" thing right.williamglenn said:New Zealand raises interest rates by 25 basis points to 0.5%
Interest rates in New Zealand double as world faces inflation crisis.5 -
You would sadly also bankrupt every pension scheme in the country, which owns large quantities of long term, fixed rate debt.Philip_Thompson said:
Mathematically possible, not realistically possible as you'll always have variation and any variation from 0% could be dropping people into negative equity, which will affect how the Banks approve mortgages too. Plus it'd take an extremely long time to reverse the damage of the past couple of decades. You'd be looking at over two decades of that implausible scenario to reverse the damage.LostPassword said:
Mathematically, you can have general price inflation of 2%, wage inflation of 3% and house price inflation of 0%, and then you would reduce the cost of housing relative to wages over time, without forcing people to live through a damaging period of high price inflation, or to be trapped in negative equity.Philip_Thompson said:
There are only three paths from here and every single one of them is shit.dixiedean said:Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
It isn't. Housing inflation is dire. You are sound on that. It is shit. The answer isn't to import that into every other aspect of life.Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
1: House price crash, millions plunged into negative equity immediately.
2: Years of inflation in wages exceeding inflation in costs (a reversal of past twenty years).
3: Do nothing and see the problem only continue to get worse, or be locked in as a problem forever.
I can't think of a fourth solution, so pick yer poison. Which of those three paths should we take? I'm torn between 1 and 2 but think 2 is better. Alternatively if you can think of a fourth solution I'd love to hear it, I'm all ears.
If you have 1% house price inflation, 6% general inflation and 7% wage inflation then you'd have houses going up still (good for Banks to avoid negative equity risks) even with some natural variation and it'd only take a decade of that to reverse the damage.
If you have 1% house price inflation, 10% general inflation and 11% wage inflation then you'd keep houses going up marginally, and reverse the damage in 6 years.1 -
It is, of course, worth noting that most developed countries - the US, Canada, Germany, Australia - have seen similar.Philip_Thompson said:
It would be nice if people had been addressing the real hazards of inflation that have really existed for years. Instead inflation has been celebrated as 'prosperity' instead of costs going up for years. I've long been criticising this.dixiedean said:Can't really get my head round the fact that a full 5 years after the Brexit vote that the Right are extolling the moral virtues of shortages, while Lefties make dire warnings of the moral hazards of inflation.
From 1999 to 2020 wages have gone up by 2.8% compound growth in the UK
From 1999 to 2020 costs have gone up 6.2% compound growth in the UK.
Housing costs have now replaced food cost as the highest cost in a household's budget (except for people who don't have to pay housing costs).
What do you call that if not inflation? Inflation that is higher than wages too.
Low interest rates have driven prices of housing higher, because people buy on "percentage of salary spent on mortgage" grounds.1 -
The exceptions are Italy and Japan (which had housing markets which peaked in the 90s and have been in retreat ever since), and Spain (which had an almighty boom, an almighty crash, and is now rising again.)rcs1000 said:
It is, of course, worth noting that most developed countries - the US, Canada, Germany, Australia - have seen similar.Philip_Thompson said:
It would be nice if people had been addressing the real hazards of inflation that have really existed for years. Instead inflation has been celebrated as 'prosperity' instead of costs going up for years. I've long been criticising this.dixiedean said:Can't really get my head round the fact that a full 5 years after the Brexit vote that the Right are extolling the moral virtues of shortages, while Lefties make dire warnings of the moral hazards of inflation.
From 1999 to 2020 wages have gone up by 2.8% compound growth in the UK
From 1999 to 2020 costs have gone up 6.2% compound growth in the UK.
Housing costs have now replaced food cost as the highest cost in a household's budget (except for people who don't have to pay housing costs).
What do you call that if not inflation? Inflation that is higher than wages too.
Low interest rates have driven prices of housing higher, because people buy on "percentage of salary spent on mortgage" grounds.0 -
Yet again PB demonstrates why economics is the dismal science.2
-
London is getting two more seats, so while there will be changes, there's not much to lose sleep over.Andy_JS said:
It'll be interesting to see how many of those seats survive the boundary review. Losing some of them may end up being priced into the notional results.HYUFD said:
Chingford and Woodford Green, Kensington, Chipping Barnet, Hendon, Cities of London and Westminster, Uxbridge and Ruislip South, Harrow East all Tory Remain seats in London (except Uxbridge) in the top 100 Labour target seats. Starmer's wife is Jewish and Labour could well gain Barnet next year in the London local elections given Corbyn is gone and so Jewish voters will be less scared to vote LabourAndy_JS said:
There aren't many Labour targets from the Tories left in London, excluding those with large Jewish populations where it's likely Labour will continue to struggle.HYUFD said:Certainly I expect Starmer do do better in Remain voting Tory marginals in London and the suburbs than in Leave voting Tory marginals in the Red Wall.
That means he is unlikely to be able to gain enough Tory seats to even get a hung parliament let alone ensure Labour gets most seats. To become PM therefore he will likely need LD gains in Tory Remain seats in the South and SNP gains in Tory Remain seats in Scotland as well
https://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/2023-review/london/0 -
Well, ultimately, burning hydrocarbons and directly using the heat given off to... heat... our homes and water is as close to 100% efficient as you're going to get.theProle said:
At some point reality is going to impinge on the green fad, and that moment looks like it's drawing nigh.Fysics_Teacher said:
Aka wood burning stoves…Gallowgate said:
Biomassgealbhan said:
So… hold on a mo 🤔.Gallowgate said:
They’ll work but they won’t be very efficient as you’ll need a high flow temperature through the rads. The price of gas vs electric will obviously dictate whether there’s money to be savedgealbhan said:
Really?Gallowgate said:
No they won’t - you need good insulation for heat pumps. They’re only really suitable for homes built within the last 20 years.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Gas combi will be replaced with heat pumps within the next few years once the price has fallen from £10,000gealbhan said:
🤙 That’s a win.Big_G_NorthWales said:
We are receiving hydro electric power from Norway now at a connector coming ashore in Blyth in an exclusive UK - Norway dealgealbhan said:the increase in Gas production in Norway, do we get any of that or does it all go to the EU?
But not good news on the extra Norway gas then, Dozy Daisy gets it?
Can the UK build some like giant gas jerrycan things?
Your the one Big G who suggested two weeks ago, new gas combi is the only future proof option.
It’s been a long two weeks, any second thoughts?
Governments been planting story’s in the press about plans for a gas attack
But the government is definitely floating in the press resolve to push everything electric very quickly aren’t they?
What happens in older houses when gas becomes that much more expensive than electric and runs out completely?
There is no viable technology for heating UK homes for anything like the cost of gas fired central heating. There will be no such technology in 2035 either.
Most people's revealed preferences are very clear - they are happy to be green as long as it doesn't cost them anything, or inconvenience them more than very mildly.
Electric cars have some degree of popular acceptance because they are cheaper than ICE vehicles to run (although everyone seems to be overlooking the fact that this is almost entirely a tax arbitrage, rather than a real saving).
Moving the UK's domestic heating to electricity (with or without heat pumps) or hydrogen is going to be very very expensive, both in installation and running costs. It's probably £10k a house to transition, then double the running costs. People don't have that sort of cash spare, and the government can't possibly afford to fund it without massive tax rises.
Currently the green agenda is being kept alive by two things - it hasn't started hitting people hard in the wallet yet, and no serious political party is against it.
It's not going to be long after the costs start to bite before one of the political parties (probably the Tories, their voters are more aware of this stuff) realises there is a lot of votes in binning the whole green agenda. And that will be the end of it.
The correct response to climate variability is obviously going to be mitigate, mitigate and mitigate. It's too late for any other outcome now anyway, unless that nice Mr Xi suddenly decides to deindustralise China. We might as well get on with that now, rather than impoverish ourselves trying to stop the inevitable.
But it is worth noting that heat pumps work both ways. In summer they can act like air conditioners, and in winter like heaters.1 -
That's true but the boundary changes are still likely to be pretty extensive which could wipe out Tory seats in places like Chingford.DecrepiterJohnL said:
London is getting two more seats, so while there will be changes, there's not much to lose sleep over.Andy_JS said:
It'll be interesting to see how many of those seats survive the boundary review. Losing some of them may end up being priced into the notional results.HYUFD said:
Chingford and Woodford Green, Kensington, Chipping Barnet, Hendon, Cities of London and Westminster, Uxbridge and Ruislip South, Harrow East all Tory Remain seats in London (except Uxbridge) in the top 100 Labour target seats. Starmer's wife is Jewish and Labour could well gain Barnet next year in the London local elections given Corbyn is gone and so Jewish voters will be less scared to vote LabourAndy_JS said:
There aren't many Labour targets from the Tories left in London, excluding those with large Jewish populations where it's likely Labour will continue to struggle.HYUFD said:Certainly I expect Starmer do do better in Remain voting Tory marginals in London and the suburbs than in Leave voting Tory marginals in the Red Wall.
That means he is unlikely to be able to gain enough Tory seats to even get a hung parliament let alone ensure Labour gets most seats. To become PM therefore he will likely need LD gains in Tory Remain seats in the South and SNP gains in Tory Remain seats in Scotland as well
https://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/2023-review/london/0 -
+1SeaShantyIrish2 said:Yet again PB demonstrates why economics is the dismal science.
0 -
Quite the opposite, actually:SeaShantyIrish2 said:Yet again PB demonstrates why economics is the dismal science.
https://theatlantic.com/amp/article/282454/
Unless you approve of slavery.0 -
New rules on vaccination for care home staff came in a week or so ago. No first jab, no job.Mexicanpete said:
Off Topic anecdote alert.kinabalu said:
It doesn't bear thinking about. End of Johnson if it happens. Not even he would be able to spin Christmas dinner out of a tin as a Brexit dividend.gealbhan said:
No. You are completely missing it. Take another look. Fuel stockpiling madness stoked by front pages like this. The front of this paper is saying other families are stockpiling for Christmas what are you going to do wait till it’s too late?HYUFD said:
Looks like we will just have to swap stilton for brie and drink English and Australian wines.Leon said:
Who has French Turkey and French Christmas puddings anyway? It is normally British all the way
If the Mail gets away with this and it takes hold, it will dwarf closed petrol pumps and bog roll banditry. Your family missing out on Christmas has the most strong emotive pull.
The huge Tesco on Western Avenue in Cardiff had a rather forlorn looking seasonal aisle this evening. I just assumed the lazy staff hadn't restocked the shelves. To be fair I really don't need a bumper tin of Quality Street, so good on Johnson.
Mrs Mexicanpete visiting her mother in her old people's home found the Manager making Mother-In-Law's breakfast. Staff shortages to the bone apparently. They must have all retrained as HGV tanker drivers.0 -
Plenty of jobs that don't need a degree to do, need a degree to get. But yes, I agree with your wider point.tlg86 said:Just caught Ian Dunt on Sky News complaining that nurses won’t be getting a pay rise. There’s definitely a whiff of “the wrong people are getting a pay rise” in all this.
My advice to kids is to think very carefully about going to university. Plenty of money to be made in jobs not needing a degree a student debt.0 -
I haven’t had a pay rise since 2016. Come of think of it, my salary today is lower than in 2011. Are you saying I’m not valuable and needed 🥲Philip_Thompson said:
No need for unions to set pay, let supply and demand do it. If your skills are valuable and needed then you should get a pay rise. If they're not, then sorry but there is a minimum wage.dixiedean said:
If you're in the public sector, or anyone not blessed by a miraculous huge pay hike, you'll have a cozy warm brazier to stand around as you picket for a 10% inflation matching payrise.Gallowgate said:
Or efficient and modern smokeless wood pellet boilers.Fysics_Teacher said:
Aka wood burning stoves…Gallowgate said:
Biomassgealbhan said:
So… hold on a mo 🤔.Gallowgate said:
They’ll work but they won’t be very efficient as you’ll need a high flow temperature through the rads. The price of gas vs electric will obviously dictate whether there’s money to be savedgealbhan said:
Really?Gallowgate said:
No they won’t - you need good insulation for heat pumps. They’re only really suitable for homes built within the last 20 years.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Gas combi will be replaced with heat pumps within the next few years once the price has fallen from £10,000gealbhan said:
🤙 That’s a win.Big_G_NorthWales said:
We are receiving hydro electric power from Norway now at a connector coming ashore in Blyth in an exclusive UK - Norway dealgealbhan said:the increase in Gas production in Norway, do we get any of that or does it all go to the EU?
But not good news on the extra Norway gas then, Dozy Daisy gets it?
Can the UK build some like giant gas jerrycan things?
Your the one Big G who suggested two weeks ago, new gas combi is the only future proof option.
It’s been a long two weeks, any second thoughts?
Governments been planting story’s in the press about plans for a gas attack
But the government is definitely floating in the press resolve to push everything electric very quickly aren’t they?
What happens in older houses when gas becomes that much more expensive than electric and runs out completely?
And quite right too. The benevolence of the Brexit dividend must be shared by all the workers.
Join a Union.0 -
Ooh! Sir! I know this one!Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
Because lots of journalists own BTL properties?2 -
Why is 2 shit?Philip_Thompson said:
There are only three paths from here and every single one of them is shit.dixiedean said:Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
It isn't. Housing inflation is dire. You are sound on that. It is shit. The answer isn't to import that into every other aspect of life.Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
1: House price crash, millions plunged into negative equity immediately.
2: Years of inflation in wages exceeding inflation in costs (a reversal of past twenty years).
3: Do nothing and see the problem only continue to get worse, or be locked in as a problem forever.
I can't think of a fourth solution, so pick yer poison. Which of those three paths should we take? I'm torn between 1 and 2 but think 2 is better. Alternatively if you can think of a fourth solution I'd love to hear it, I'm all ears.
Iirc corporate profits are at or close to their high as a percentage of gdp0 -
And the banks would be fucked resulting a squeezing on lending and economic catastrophe.dixiedean said:
Do you know what?Philip_Thompson said:
There are only three paths from here and every single one of them is shit.dixiedean said:Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
It isn't. Housing inflation is dire. You are sound on that. It is shit. The answer isn't to import that into every other aspect of life.Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
1: House price crash, millions plunged into negative equity immediately.
2: Years of inflation in wages exceeding inflation in costs (a reversal of past twenty years).
3: Do nothing and see the problem only continue to get worse, or be locked in as a problem forever.
I can't think of a fourth solution, so pick yer poison. Which of those three paths should we take? I'm torn between 1 and 2 but think 2 is better. Alternatively if you can think of a fourth solution I'd love to hear it, I'm all ears.
I actually think 1 would be the best all round. Won't happen, cos the Party holding the parcel wouldn't get back in for a generation.
But 1 would be best. Their store of utterly unearned income wiped out. Year Zero as it were.
Why do you think a house price crash is the core part of the Bank of England stress tests? It’s because it’s the single worst thing that could happen to the Uk economy0 -
A nation of property hoarders’: how Right to Buy transformed UK housing - Margaret Thatcher’s scheme ultimately produced a new generation of private renters
“If the flat were still council-owned, Dorine says that their rent would be about £450 a month. As it’s now owned privately, the rent is £950.”
https://www.ft.com/content/2e2c1eda-9c6f-4dfc-a79c-5186b1d423ad
The right should be very worried. They may have dispatched Corbyn, but the threat of Corbynism hasn’t gone away.0 -
Err… none.Philip_Thompson said:
"You are HAL 9000 and I claim my five pounds."StuartDickson said:
Except if you’re Ruth Davidson.Charles said:
It’s never a good election to loserottenborough said:
As it happens, Labour have too big a mountain to climb to win in 2023/4. They might deprive the Tories of majority. That is entirely possible especially if the economic shit coming is as dire as I think it will be. So a minority Labour administration gets the blame for failing to clear up the mess. I can see some of the more thoughtful Tories thinking that might be a better way to go.PJH said:
I've been thinking along these lines too. I reckon the next election will be a good one to lose, as I can see the Tories managing to kick most of the cans far enough down the road to get re-elected. Then the chickens will all come home to roost. (Sorry for mixed metaphors).mickydroy said:
I totally agree, that when the reckoning happens to the Tory party, it will be brutal, and they will go down to a drubbing, we have never seen before, but I have to add a but first, they need to win the next election first. Then the one after that they will be turned on, anyone but Tory party will walk itrottenborough said:
We may be a few years yet before the public see through the bluster and the jokes and realise they have been totally had. But they will and the fall will be brutal.IanB2 said:Robinson doing a robust job of combatting the PM's pitiful bluster on R4 this morning
If Labour win, they will get no credit from the actions they will have to take to clear up the mess (a bit like 1974).
According to the media, she won every election she ever lost.
How many times have you robotically parroted that same message? She's not even a part of the conversation?
I cannot recall ever making that point about Ruth Davidson before. You must be confusing me with another poster.
And referring to FUDHY as HAL 9000 is perfectly justified. He wrote:
- “No, they will still not get indyref2. Even if we face a nuclear holocaust if we Tories are in government and any of us are still alive we will still not give Sturgeon indyref2.
Indeed the loss of Taiwanese independence and return to unity with China would suggest a global trend in the opposite direction.”
That is simply beyond parody. It is quite simply an inhuman comment. I can only hope that FUDHY really is an AI robot and not flesh and blood, because if he is an organism, he needs treatment.1 -
If you have no stake in society you have nothing to lose in turning over the table.ping said:A nation of property hoarders’: how Right to Buy transformed UK housing - Margaret Thatcher’s scheme ultimately produced a new generation of private renters
“If the flat were still council-owned, Dorine says that their rent would be about £450 a month. As it’s now owned privately, the rent is £950.”
https://www.ft.com/content/2e2c1eda-9c6f-4dfc-a79c-5186b1d423ad
The right should be very worried. They may have dispatched Corbyn, but the threat of Corbynism hasn’t gone away.
Although I’m intrigued on how she knows exactly what her council owned rent would be0 -
And radio four did a whole piece on it yesterday, including interviews with various blue wall voters describing the buffoon and incompetent as a buffoon and incompetent. So it is clearly topical.eek said:
This site needs between 730 and 1080 threads a year. There is bound to be repetition in that number of posts.Taz said:Pretty sure I’ve seen more than one other article here in the same vein. Might be nice to have something original.
0 -
We’ll leave you to make that case yourselfCharles said:
I haven’t had a pay rise since 2016. Come of think of it, my salary today is lower than in 2011. Are you saying I’m not valuable and needed 🥲Philip_Thompson said:
No need for unions to set pay, let supply and demand do it. If your skills are valuable and needed then you should get a pay rise. If they're not, then sorry but there is a minimum wage.dixiedean said:
If you're in the public sector, or anyone not blessed by a miraculous huge pay hike, you'll have a cozy warm brazier to stand around as you picket for a 10% inflation matching payrise.Gallowgate said:
Or efficient and modern smokeless wood pellet boilers.Fysics_Teacher said:
Aka wood burning stoves…Gallowgate said:
Biomassgealbhan said:
So… hold on a mo 🤔.Gallowgate said:
They’ll work but they won’t be very efficient as you’ll need a high flow temperature through the rads. The price of gas vs electric will obviously dictate whether there’s money to be savedgealbhan said:
Really?Gallowgate said:
No they won’t - you need good insulation for heat pumps. They’re only really suitable for homes built within the last 20 years.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Gas combi will be replaced with heat pumps within the next few years once the price has fallen from £10,000gealbhan said:
🤙 That’s a win.Big_G_NorthWales said:
We are receiving hydro electric power from Norway now at a connector coming ashore in Blyth in an exclusive UK - Norway dealgealbhan said:the increase in Gas production in Norway, do we get any of that or does it all go to the EU?
But not good news on the extra Norway gas then, Dozy Daisy gets it?
Can the UK build some like giant gas jerrycan things?
Your the one Big G who suggested two weeks ago, new gas combi is the only future proof option.
It’s been a long two weeks, any second thoughts?
Governments been planting story’s in the press about plans for a gas attack
But the government is definitely floating in the press resolve to push everything electric very quickly aren’t they?
What happens in older houses when gas becomes that much more expensive than electric and runs out completely?
And quite right too. The benevolence of the Brexit dividend must be shared by all the workers.
Join a Union.
0 -
Are they likely to be extensive? The total number of seats is the same, and the changes proposed at draft stage were more a series of tweaks than an extensive redrawing. Chingford gains a ward and a half in the north, and as one of them is Tory Bridge ward, balanced by losing parts of split wards in the south, is likely slightly less at risk.Andy_JS said:
That's true but the boundary changes are still likely to be pretty extensive which could wipe out Tory seats in places like Chingford.DecrepiterJohnL said:
London is getting two more seats, so while there will be changes, there's not much to lose sleep over.Andy_JS said:
It'll be interesting to see how many of those seats survive the boundary review. Losing some of them may end up being priced into the notional results.HYUFD said:
Chingford and Woodford Green, Kensington, Chipping Barnet, Hendon, Cities of London and Westminster, Uxbridge and Ruislip South, Harrow East all Tory Remain seats in London (except Uxbridge) in the top 100 Labour target seats. Starmer's wife is Jewish and Labour could well gain Barnet next year in the London local elections given Corbyn is gone and so Jewish voters will be less scared to vote LabourAndy_JS said:
There aren't many Labour targets from the Tories left in London, excluding those with large Jewish populations where it's likely Labour will continue to struggle.HYUFD said:Certainly I expect Starmer do do better in Remain voting Tory marginals in London and the suburbs than in Leave voting Tory marginals in the Red Wall.
That means he is unlikely to be able to gain enough Tory seats to even get a hung parliament let alone ensure Labour gets most seats. To become PM therefore he will likely need LD gains in Tory Remain seats in the South and SNP gains in Tory Remain seats in Scotland as well
https://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/2023-review/london/0 -
Dunt is a fool. You only have to look at his twitter feed to see that. The nurses are getting a rise.tlg86 said:Just caught Ian Dunt on Sky News complaining that nurses won’t be getting a pay rise. There’s definitely a whiff of “the wrong people are getting a pay rise” in all this.
My advice to kids is to think very carefully about going to university. Plenty of money to be made in jobs not needing a degree a student debt.1 -
There may still be council tenants in the block.Charles said:
If you have no stake in society you have nothing to lose in turning over the table.ping said:A nation of property hoarders’: how Right to Buy transformed UK housing - Margaret Thatcher’s scheme ultimately produced a new generation of private renters
“If the flat were still council-owned, Dorine says that their rent would be about £450 a month. As it’s now owned privately, the rent is £950.”
https://www.ft.com/content/2e2c1eda-9c6f-4dfc-a79c-5186b1d423ad
The right should be very worried. They may have dispatched Corbyn, but the threat of Corbynism hasn’t gone away.
Although I’m intrigued on how she knows exactly what her council owned rent would be0 -
George Osborne stole all the funds from my pension scheme, spent them, and then told me that I can be looked after by the taxpayers of the future. Yet strangely he didn’t share the same fate as Robert Maxwell.rcs1000 said:
You would sadly also bankrupt every pension scheme in the country, which owns large quantities of long term, fixed rate debt.Philip_Thompson said:
Mathematically possible, not realistically possible as you'll always have variation and any variation from 0% could be dropping people into negative equity, which will affect how the Banks approve mortgages too. Plus it'd take an extremely long time to reverse the damage of the past couple of decades. You'd be looking at over two decades of that implausible scenario to reverse the damage.LostPassword said:
Mathematically, you can have general price inflation of 2%, wage inflation of 3% and house price inflation of 0%, and then you would reduce the cost of housing relative to wages over time, without forcing people to live through a damaging period of high price inflation, or to be trapped in negative equity.Philip_Thompson said:
There are only three paths from here and every single one of them is shit.dixiedean said:Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
It isn't. Housing inflation is dire. You are sound on that. It is shit. The answer isn't to import that into every other aspect of life.Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
1: House price crash, millions plunged into negative equity immediately.
2: Years of inflation in wages exceeding inflation in costs (a reversal of past twenty years).
3: Do nothing and see the problem only continue to get worse, or be locked in as a problem forever.
I can't think of a fourth solution, so pick yer poison. Which of those three paths should we take? I'm torn between 1 and 2 but think 2 is better. Alternatively if you can think of a fourth solution I'd love to hear it, I'm all ears.
If you have 1% house price inflation, 6% general inflation and 7% wage inflation then you'd have houses going up still (good for Banks to avoid negative equity risks) even with some natural variation and it'd only take a decade of that to reverse the damage.
If you have 1% house price inflation, 10% general inflation and 11% wage inflation then you'd keep houses going up marginally, and reverse the damage in 6 years.0 -
To be honest I’m not that fussed. Money doesn’t really motivate me 😇IanB2 said:
We’ll leave you to make that case yourselfCharles said:
I haven’t had a pay rise since 2016. Come of think of it, my salary today is lower than in 2011. Are you saying I’m not valuable and needed 🥲Philip_Thompson said:
No need for unions to set pay, let supply and demand do it. If your skills are valuable and needed then you should get a pay rise. If they're not, then sorry but there is a minimum wage.dixiedean said:
If you're in the public sector, or anyone not blessed by a miraculous huge pay hike, you'll have a cozy warm brazier to stand around as you picket for a 10% inflation matching payrise.Gallowgate said:
Or efficient and modern smokeless wood pellet boilers.Fysics_Teacher said:
Aka wood burning stoves…Gallowgate said:
Biomassgealbhan said:
So… hold on a mo 🤔.Gallowgate said:
They’ll work but they won’t be very efficient as you’ll need a high flow temperature through the rads. The price of gas vs electric will obviously dictate whether there’s money to be savedgealbhan said:
Really?Gallowgate said:
No they won’t - you need good insulation for heat pumps. They’re only really suitable for homes built within the last 20 years.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Gas combi will be replaced with heat pumps within the next few years once the price has fallen from £10,000gealbhan said:
🤙 That’s a win.Big_G_NorthWales said:
We are receiving hydro electric power from Norway now at a connector coming ashore in Blyth in an exclusive UK - Norway dealgealbhan said:the increase in Gas production in Norway, do we get any of that or does it all go to the EU?
But not good news on the extra Norway gas then, Dozy Daisy gets it?
Can the UK build some like giant gas jerrycan things?
Your the one Big G who suggested two weeks ago, new gas combi is the only future proof option.
It’s been a long two weeks, any second thoughts?
Governments been planting story’s in the press about plans for a gas attack
But the government is definitely floating in the press resolve to push everything electric very quickly aren’t they?
What happens in older houses when gas becomes that much more expensive than electric and runs out completely?
And quite right too. The benevolence of the Brexit dividend must be shared by all the workers.
Join a Union.0 -
I can not for the life of me think what Sky are thinking in partnering Ian Dunt with Anna Soubry on the paper review.Taz said:
Dunt is a fool. You only have to look at his twitter feed to see that. The nurses are getting a rise.tlg86 said:Just caught Ian Dunt on Sky News complaining that nurses won’t be getting a pay rise. There’s definitely a whiff of “the wrong people are getting a pay rise” in all this.
My advice to kids is to think very carefully about going to university. Plenty of money to be made in jobs not needing a degree a student debt.
A more unbalanced pair it would be hard to think of.2 -
It was Gordon Brown’s tax raid that killed pensionsIanB2 said:
George Osborne stole all the funds from my pension scheme, spent them, and then told me that I can be looked after by the taxpayers of the future. Yet strangely he didn’t share the same fate as Robert Maxwell.rcs1000 said:
You would sadly also bankrupt every pension scheme in the country, which owns large quantities of long term, fixed rate debt.Philip_Thompson said:
Mathematically possible, not realistically possible as you'll always have variation and any variation from 0% could be dropping people into negative equity, which will affect how the Banks approve mortgages too. Plus it'd take an extremely long time to reverse the damage of the past couple of decades. You'd be looking at over two decades of that implausible scenario to reverse the damage.LostPassword said:
Mathematically, you can have general price inflation of 2%, wage inflation of 3% and house price inflation of 0%, and then you would reduce the cost of housing relative to wages over time, without forcing people to live through a damaging period of high price inflation, or to be trapped in negative equity.Philip_Thompson said:
There are only three paths from here and every single one of them is shit.dixiedean said:Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
It isn't. Housing inflation is dire. You are sound on that. It is shit. The answer isn't to import that into every other aspect of life.Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
1: House price crash, millions plunged into negative equity immediately.
2: Years of inflation in wages exceeding inflation in costs (a reversal of past twenty years).
3: Do nothing and see the problem only continue to get worse, or be locked in as a problem forever.
I can't think of a fourth solution, so pick yer poison. Which of those three paths should we take? I'm torn between 1 and 2 but think 2 is better. Alternatively if you can think of a fourth solution I'd love to hear it, I'm all ears.
If you have 1% house price inflation, 6% general inflation and 7% wage inflation then you'd have houses going up still (good for Banks to avoid negative equity risks) even with some natural variation and it'd only take a decade of that to reverse the damage.
If you have 1% house price inflation, 10% general inflation and 11% wage inflation then you'd keep houses going up marginally, and reverse the damage in 6 years.4 -
Caveat Emptor.rcs1000 said:
You would sadly also bankrupt every pension scheme in the country, which owns large quantities of long term, fixed rate debt.Philip_Thompson said:
Mathematically possible, not realistically possible as you'll always have variation and any variation from 0% could be dropping people into negative equity, which will affect how the Banks approve mortgages too. Plus it'd take an extremely long time to reverse the damage of the past couple of decades. You'd be looking at over two decades of that implausible scenario to reverse the damage.LostPassword said:
Mathematically, you can have general price inflation of 2%, wage inflation of 3% and house price inflation of 0%, and then you would reduce the cost of housing relative to wages over time, without forcing people to live through a damaging period of high price inflation, or to be trapped in negative equity.Philip_Thompson said:
There are only three paths from here and every single one of them is shit.dixiedean said:Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
It isn't. Housing inflation is dire. You are sound on that. It is shit. The answer isn't to import that into every other aspect of life.Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
1: House price crash, millions plunged into negative equity immediately.
2: Years of inflation in wages exceeding inflation in costs (a reversal of past twenty years).
3: Do nothing and see the problem only continue to get worse, or be locked in as a problem forever.
I can't think of a fourth solution, so pick yer poison. Which of those three paths should we take? I'm torn between 1 and 2 but think 2 is better. Alternatively if you can think of a fourth solution I'd love to hear it, I'm all ears.
If you have 1% house price inflation, 6% general inflation and 7% wage inflation then you'd have houses going up still (good for Banks to avoid negative equity risks) even with some natural variation and it'd only take a decade of that to reverse the damage.
If you have 1% house price inflation, 10% general inflation and 11% wage inflation then you'd keep houses going up marginally, and reverse the damage in 6 years.
The pensioners can take a haircut if need be, they'd still be getting the triple lock if they lose their schemes.
Though if wages are rising and the rates are fixed, won't those investments be pretty safe? Its when wages fall that people default on fixed rate debt.0 -
housing still costs the state money: it’s just that what it spends no longer translates into new homes. Rather than enabling local authorities to build housing for security and revenue, the public purse is used to subsidise private landlords. In 2018, the Chartered Institute of Housing found that 95.7 per cent of the government housing budget went on housing benefit and mortgage support in the in 2015-16 fiscal year, compared with 18 per cent in 1975-76. Spending on social housing fell to £5.1bn in 2017 from £13.7bn in 1979-80 (in 2018 prices).ping said:A nation of property hoarders’: how Right to Buy transformed UK housing - Margaret Thatcher’s scheme ultimately produced a new generation of private renters
“If the flat were still council-owned, Dorine says that their rent would be about £450 a month. As it’s now owned privately, the rent is £950.”
https://www.ft.com/content/2e2c1eda-9c6f-4dfc-a79c-5186b1d423ad
The right should be very worried. They may have dispatched Corbyn, but the threat of Corbynism hasn’t gone away.1 -
Debt fixed at, say, 3% with inflation at 10% is going to see a massive erosion in purchasing power. This will be crystallised pretty quickly with a fall in the capital value of the bonds so that they yield an acceptable return.Philip_Thompson said:
Caveat Emptor.rcs1000 said:
You would sadly also bankrupt every pension scheme in the country, which owns large quantities of long term, fixed rate debt.Philip_Thompson said:
Mathematically possible, not realistically possible as you'll always have variation and any variation from 0% could be dropping people into negative equity, which will affect how the Banks approve mortgages too. Plus it'd take an extremely long time to reverse the damage of the past couple of decades. You'd be looking at over two decades of that implausible scenario to reverse the damage.LostPassword said:
Mathematically, you can have general price inflation of 2%, wage inflation of 3% and house price inflation of 0%, and then you would reduce the cost of housing relative to wages over time, without forcing people to live through a damaging period of high price inflation, or to be trapped in negative equity.Philip_Thompson said:
There are only three paths from here and every single one of them is shit.dixiedean said:Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
It isn't. Housing inflation is dire. You are sound on that. It is shit. The answer isn't to import that into every other aspect of life.Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
1: House price crash, millions plunged into negative equity immediately.
2: Years of inflation in wages exceeding inflation in costs (a reversal of past twenty years).
3: Do nothing and see the problem only continue to get worse, or be locked in as a problem forever.
I can't think of a fourth solution, so pick yer poison. Which of those three paths should we take? I'm torn between 1 and 2 but think 2 is better. Alternatively if you can think of a fourth solution I'd love to hear it, I'm all ears.
If you have 1% house price inflation, 6% general inflation and 7% wage inflation then you'd have houses going up still (good for Banks to avoid negative equity risks) even with some natural variation and it'd only take a decade of that to reverse the damage.
If you have 1% house price inflation, 10% general inflation and 11% wage inflation then you'd keep houses going up marginally, and reverse the damage in 6 years.
The pensioners can take a haircut if need be, they'd still be getting the triple lock if they lose their schemes.
Though if wages are rising and the rates are fixed, won't those investments be pretty safe? Its when wages fall that people default on fixed rate debt.
Pension funds may not face defaults, but they are going to be very badly damaged in that scenario0 -
-
The Jeremy (for it is He) resplendently committed to £10 in the 2019 manifesto. SKS continuing to that pledge makes him useless? Or the pledge itself was useless?bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.3 -
Have you any other mad cap far right simplistic solutions? It isn't "pensioners" (whom you clearly despise which is odd seeing as they largely voted for the B word), it is everyone with a pension scheme, which possibly also includes you, and or (if you don't work) perhaps your spouse. If there was a pension scheme collapse then this problem would then leak into all aspects of the financial world, particularly investment generally which supports millions of jobs not just in the finance world but also early stage companies that require seed or VC funding.Philip_Thompson said:
Caveat Emptor.rcs1000 said:
You would sadly also bankrupt every pension scheme in the country, which owns large quantities of long term, fixed rate debt.Philip_Thompson said:
Mathematically possible, not realistically possible as you'll always have variation and any variation from 0% could be dropping people into negative equity, which will affect how the Banks approve mortgages too. Plus it'd take an extremely long time to reverse the damage of the past couple of decades. You'd be looking at over two decades of that implausible scenario to reverse the damage.LostPassword said:
Mathematically, you can have general price inflation of 2%, wage inflation of 3% and house price inflation of 0%, and then you would reduce the cost of housing relative to wages over time, without forcing people to live through a damaging period of high price inflation, or to be trapped in negative equity.Philip_Thompson said:
There are only three paths from here and every single one of them is shit.dixiedean said:Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
It isn't. Housing inflation is dire. You are sound on that. It is shit. The answer isn't to import that into every other aspect of life.Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
1: House price crash, millions plunged into negative equity immediately.
2: Years of inflation in wages exceeding inflation in costs (a reversal of past twenty years).
3: Do nothing and see the problem only continue to get worse, or be locked in as a problem forever.
I can't think of a fourth solution, so pick yer poison. Which of those three paths should we take? I'm torn between 1 and 2 but think 2 is better. Alternatively if you can think of a fourth solution I'd love to hear it, I'm all ears.
If you have 1% house price inflation, 6% general inflation and 7% wage inflation then you'd have houses going up still (good for Banks to avoid negative equity risks) even with some natural variation and it'd only take a decade of that to reverse the damage.
If you have 1% house price inflation, 10% general inflation and 11% wage inflation then you'd keep houses going up marginally, and reverse the damage in 6 years.
The pensioners can take a haircut if need be, they'd still be getting the triple lock if they lose their schemes.
Though if wages are rising and the rates are fixed, won't those investments be pretty safe? Its when wages fall that people default on fixed rate debt.1 -
I guess it depends what you were earning in 2016. I am definitely earning less than then, but I was earning silly money in those days, so most would think I don't have much to moan aboutCharles said:
I haven’t had a pay rise since 2016. Come of think of it, my salary today is lower than in 2011. Are you saying I’m not valuable and needed 🥲Philip_Thompson said:
No need for unions to set pay, let supply and demand do it. If your skills are valuable and needed then you should get a pay rise. If they're not, then sorry but there is a minimum wage.dixiedean said:
If you're in the public sector, or anyone not blessed by a miraculous huge pay hike, you'll have a cozy warm brazier to stand around as you picket for a 10% inflation matching payrise.Gallowgate said:
Or efficient and modern smokeless wood pellet boilers.Fysics_Teacher said:
Aka wood burning stoves…Gallowgate said:
Biomassgealbhan said:
So… hold on a mo 🤔.Gallowgate said:
They’ll work but they won’t be very efficient as you’ll need a high flow temperature through the rads. The price of gas vs electric will obviously dictate whether there’s money to be savedgealbhan said:
Really?Gallowgate said:
No they won’t - you need good insulation for heat pumps. They’re only really suitable for homes built within the last 20 years.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Gas combi will be replaced with heat pumps within the next few years once the price has fallen from £10,000gealbhan said:
🤙 That’s a win.Big_G_NorthWales said:
We are receiving hydro electric power from Norway now at a connector coming ashore in Blyth in an exclusive UK - Norway dealgealbhan said:the increase in Gas production in Norway, do we get any of that or does it all go to the EU?
But not good news on the extra Norway gas then, Dozy Daisy gets it?
Can the UK build some like giant gas jerrycan things?
Your the one Big G who suggested two weeks ago, new gas combi is the only future proof option.
It’s been a long two weeks, any second thoughts?
Governments been planting story’s in the press about plans for a gas attack
But the government is definitely floating in the press resolve to push everything electric very quickly aren’t they?
What happens in older houses when gas becomes that much more expensive than electric and runs out completely?
And quite right too. The benevolence of the Brexit dividend must be shared by all the workers.
Join a Union.
0 -
I note that Ravey Mikey Govey is going to Level Up the north by building more houses.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/06/michael-gove-to-push-homebuilding-in-the-north-of-england
Point of order - does he want to lose the red wall? I can think if many fraught planning rows on Teesside. A decade of building houses fucking everywhere has left people a bit pissed off, so making it easier to build even more houses will go down like a barrel of slaughtered pigs that didn't make the abattoir.
As I posted the other day, all these housing developments go through with communities unable to resist (unless they give planning permission to developers via a local plan - the only way to stop house building is have a local plan that allows house building).
Not a single one of these developments bothers with things like new roads, schools and shops, or even sufficient parking spaces for residents. If the Tories think that more houses with less resistance is levelling up, that graphic we saw about red wall Tories heading for the chop will look even grimmer.0 -
What a lovely mess 20 years of insane economic policy has created for the country. Not that I thCharles said:
Debt fixed at, say, 3% with inflation at 10% is going to see a massive erosion in purchasing power. This will be crystallised pretty quickly with a fall in the capital value of the bonds so that they yield an acceptable return.Philip_Thompson said:
Caveat Emptor.rcs1000 said:
You would sadly also bankrupt every pension scheme in the country, which owns large quantities of long term, fixed rate debt.Philip_Thompson said:
Mathematically possible, not realistically possible as you'll always have variation and any variation from 0% could be dropping people into negative equity, which will affect how the Banks approve mortgages too. Plus it'd take an extremely long time to reverse the damage of the past couple of decades. You'd be looking at over two decades of that implausible scenario to reverse the damage.LostPassword said:
Mathematically, you can have general price inflation of 2%, wage inflation of 3% and house price inflation of 0%, and then you would reduce the cost of housing relative to wages over time, without forcing people to live through a damaging period of high price inflation, or to be trapped in negative equity.Philip_Thompson said:
There are only three paths from here and every single one of them is shit.dixiedean said:Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
It isn't. Housing inflation is dire. You are sound on that. It is shit. The answer isn't to import that into every other aspect of life.Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
1: House price crash, millions plunged into negative equity immediately.
2: Years of inflation in wages exceeding inflation in costs (a reversal of past twenty years).
3: Do nothing and see the problem only continue to get worse, or be locked in as a problem forever.
I can't think of a fourth solution, so pick yer poison. Which of those three paths should we take? I'm torn between 1 and 2 but think 2 is better. Alternatively if you can think of a fourth solution I'd love to hear it, I'm all ears.
If you have 1% house price inflation, 6% general inflation and 7% wage inflation then you'd have houses going up still (good for Banks to avoid negative equity risks) even with some natural variation and it'd only take a decade of that to reverse the damage.
If you have 1% house price inflation, 10% general inflation and 11% wage inflation then you'd keep houses going up marginally, and reverse the damage in 6 years.
The pensioners can take a haircut if need be, they'd still be getting the triple lock if they lose their schemes.
Though if wages are rising and the rates are fixed, won't those investments be pretty safe? Its when wages fall that people default on fixed rate debt.
Pension funds may not face defaults, but they are going to be very badly damaged in that scenario
From a neighbour who never bought?Charles said:
If you have no stake in society you have nothing to lose in turning over the table.ping said:A nation of property hoarders’: how Right to Buy transformed UK housing - Margaret Thatcher’s scheme ultimately produced a new generation of private renters
“If the flat were still council-owned, Dorine says that their rent would be about £450 a month. As it’s now owned privately, the rent is £950.”
https://www.ft.com/content/2e2c1eda-9c6f-4dfc-a79c-5186b1d423ad
The right should be very worried. They may have dispatched Corbyn, but the threat of Corbynism hasn’t gone away.
Although I’m intrigued on how she knows exactly what her council owned rent would be0 -
Perhaps you could write a book called "Scotland, Their Scotland" as you don't live there?StuartDickson said:1 -
It will erode the purchasing power of those in the rentier asset holding classes but seeing growth in the value of those actually working for a living.Charles said:
Debt fixed at, say, 3% with inflation at 10% is going to see a massive erosion in purchasing power. This will be crystallised pretty quickly with a fall in the capital value of the bonds so that they yield an acceptable return.Philip_Thompson said:
Caveat Emptor.rcs1000 said:
You would sadly also bankrupt every pension scheme in the country, which owns large quantities of long term, fixed rate debt.Philip_Thompson said:
Mathematically possible, not realistically possible as you'll always have variation and any variation from 0% could be dropping people into negative equity, which will affect how the Banks approve mortgages too. Plus it'd take an extremely long time to reverse the damage of the past couple of decades. You'd be looking at over two decades of that implausible scenario to reverse the damage.LostPassword said:
Mathematically, you can have general price inflation of 2%, wage inflation of 3% and house price inflation of 0%, and then you would reduce the cost of housing relative to wages over time, without forcing people to live through a damaging period of high price inflation, or to be trapped in negative equity.Philip_Thompson said:
There are only three paths from here and every single one of them is shit.dixiedean said:Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
It isn't. Housing inflation is dire. You are sound on that. It is shit. The answer isn't to import that into every other aspect of life.Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
1: House price crash, millions plunged into negative equity immediately.
2: Years of inflation in wages exceeding inflation in costs (a reversal of past twenty years).
3: Do nothing and see the problem only continue to get worse, or be locked in as a problem forever.
I can't think of a fourth solution, so pick yer poison. Which of those three paths should we take? I'm torn between 1 and 2 but think 2 is better. Alternatively if you can think of a fourth solution I'd love to hear it, I'm all ears.
If you have 1% house price inflation, 6% general inflation and 7% wage inflation then you'd have houses going up still (good for Banks to avoid negative equity risks) even with some natural variation and it'd only take a decade of that to reverse the damage.
If you have 1% house price inflation, 10% general inflation and 11% wage inflation then you'd keep houses going up marginally, and reverse the damage in 6 years.
The pensioners can take a haircut if need be, they'd still be getting the triple lock if they lose their schemes.
Though if wages are rising and the rates are fixed, won't those investments be pretty safe? Its when wages fall that people default on fixed rate debt.
Pension funds may not face defaults, but they are going to be very badly damaged in that scenario
That's just a reversal of the past two decades where assets and costs have surged but wages have stagnated.
Why is that a bad thing? Why should only those renting off the work of others be the ones to benefit from the work others do?0 -
Too few parking spaces is deliberate. It is to discourage driving and encourage use of public transport. The small flaw in the plan is the absence of public transport...RochdalePioneers said:I note that Ravey Mikey Govey is going to Level Up the north by building more houses.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/06/michael-gove-to-push-homebuilding-in-the-north-of-england
Point of order - does he want to lose the red wall? I can think if many fraught planning rows on Teesside. A decade of building houses fucking everywhere has left people a bit pissed off, so making it easier to build even more houses will go down like a barrel of slaughtered pigs that didn't make the abattoir.
As I posted the other day, all these housing developments go through with communities unable to resist (unless they give planning permission to developers via a local plan - the only way to stop house building is have a local plan that allows house building).
Not a single one of these developments bothers with things like new roads, schools and shops, or even sufficient parking spaces for residents. If the Tories think that more houses with less resistance is levelling up, that graphic we saw about red wall Tories heading for the chop will look even grimmer.3 -
Philip's example is pretty extreme (and by which, I mean unlikely), but a scenario like that would lead to defaults.Charles said:
Debt fixed at, say, 3% with inflation at 10% is going to see a massive erosion in purchasing power. This will be crystallised pretty quickly with a fall in the capital value of the bonds so that they yield an acceptable return.Philip_Thompson said:
Caveat Emptor.rcs1000 said:
You would sadly also bankrupt every pension scheme in the country, which owns large quantities of long term, fixed rate debt.Philip_Thompson said:
Mathematically possible, not realistically possible as you'll always have variation and any variation from 0% could be dropping people into negative equity, which will affect how the Banks approve mortgages too. Plus it'd take an extremely long time to reverse the damage of the past couple of decades. You'd be looking at over two decades of that implausible scenario to reverse the damage.LostPassword said:
Mathematically, you can have general price inflation of 2%, wage inflation of 3% and house price inflation of 0%, and then you would reduce the cost of housing relative to wages over time, without forcing people to live through a damaging period of high price inflation, or to be trapped in negative equity.Philip_Thompson said:
There are only three paths from here and every single one of them is shit.dixiedean said:Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
It isn't. Housing inflation is dire. You are sound on that. It is shit. The answer isn't to import that into every other aspect of life.Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
1: House price crash, millions plunged into negative equity immediately.
2: Years of inflation in wages exceeding inflation in costs (a reversal of past twenty years).
3: Do nothing and see the problem only continue to get worse, or be locked in as a problem forever.
I can't think of a fourth solution, so pick yer poison. Which of those three paths should we take? I'm torn between 1 and 2 but think 2 is better. Alternatively if you can think of a fourth solution I'd love to hear it, I'm all ears.
If you have 1% house price inflation, 6% general inflation and 7% wage inflation then you'd have houses going up still (good for Banks to avoid negative equity risks) even with some natural variation and it'd only take a decade of that to reverse the damage.
If you have 1% house price inflation, 10% general inflation and 11% wage inflation then you'd keep houses going up marginally, and reverse the damage in 6 years.
The pensioners can take a haircut if need be, they'd still be getting the triple lock if they lose their schemes.
Though if wages are rising and the rates are fixed, won't those investments be pretty safe? Its when wages fall that people default on fixed rate debt.
Pension funds may not face defaults, but they are going to be very badly damaged in that scenario
Effectively, pension funds own lots of long term assets yielding 2-3%. If inflation were to rise to 10%, they would be responsible for increasing payouts dramatically, while having little to no additional yield to do that.
Now, it might be possible to haircut benefits - but how would that be shared out? And there are contractual obligations here. If a British company were to attempt to rewrite pension payments, it would be successfully challenged in court.0 -
Hmmm… panic buying exacerbated a legitimate shortage in fuel because just in time stock management couldn’t cope when the average punter decided to refill a half empty tank than a 90% empty tank.gealbhan said:
No. You are completely missing it. Take another look. Fuel stockpiling madness stoked by front pages like this. The front of this paper is saying other families are stockpiling for Christmas what are you going to do wait till it’s too late?HYUFD said:
Looks like we will just have to swap stilton for brie and drink English and Australian wines.Leon said:
Who has French Turkey and French Christmas puddings anyway? It is normally British all the way
If the Mail gets away with this and it takes hold, it will dwarf closed petrol pumps and bog roll banditry. Your family missing out on Christmas has the most strong emotive pull.
The Mail saying “Christmas scoff shortage” isn’t going to make people buy three turkeys and 4 playstations. Either there will be a legitimate shortage of goods in the run up to Xmas or there will not.1 -
So, how does the Tory party still worship the Blessed St Margaret, who fought inflation as the demon of the British economy, triggered a house price boom to spread prosperity, faced down demands from workers for higher pay and was the architect of the Single Market?
Is it possible to dance on the grave while she spins below?
I was never a fan, having lived through the Eighties, but nice to see PB Tories have learned to despise her policies. Slow learners these Tories be.4 -
It is deliberate, but it isn't deliberate by a council trying to boost public transport. Its deliberate by the developers to crush more properties onto the land.Foxy said:
Too few parking spaces is deliberate. It is to discourage driving and encourage use of public transport. The small flaw in the plan is the absence of public transport...RochdalePioneers said:I note that Ravey Mikey Govey is going to Level Up the north by building more houses.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/06/michael-gove-to-push-homebuilding-in-the-north-of-england
Point of order - does he want to lose the red wall? I can think if many fraught planning rows on Teesside. A decade of building houses fucking everywhere has left people a bit pissed off, so making it easier to build even more houses will go down like a barrel of slaughtered pigs that didn't make the abattoir.
As I posted the other day, all these housing developments go through with communities unable to resist (unless they give planning permission to developers via a local plan - the only way to stop house building is have a local plan that allows house building).
Not a single one of these developments bothers with things like new roads, schools and shops, or even sufficient parking spaces for residents. If the Tories think that more houses with less resistance is levelling up, that graphic we saw about red wall Tories heading for the chop will look even grimmer.
Is Govey going to force developers to actually build on land banks where permission has been given and the developer refuses to proceed?0 -
Absolutely fantastic if more houses are built! There's more people in society today, so more homes are needed. I think its great if they come here in the North and not just the South, have everyone in the North able to own their own home. Great!RochdalePioneers said:I note that Ravey Mikey Govey is going to Level Up the north by building more houses.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/06/michael-gove-to-push-homebuilding-in-the-north-of-england
Point of order - does he want to lose the red wall? I can think if many fraught planning rows on Teesside. A decade of building houses fucking everywhere has left people a bit pissed off, so making it easier to build even more houses will go down like a barrel of slaughtered pigs that didn't make the abattoir.
As I posted the other day, all these housing developments go through with communities unable to resist (unless they give planning permission to developers via a local plan - the only way to stop house building is have a local plan that allows house building).
Not a single one of these developments bothers with things like new roads, schools and shops, or even sufficient parking spaces for residents. If the Tories think that more houses with less resistance is levelling up, that graphic we saw about red wall Tories heading for the chop will look even grimmer.
I'm curious what our emigré from the North to the further North has to object about that considering he's in favour of mass unlimited immigration and is still bemoaning the lack of more immigration to fill "jobs Brits don't want to do.
Our population has risen by 10 million in a generation and you want it to rise higher yet still - just where in England do you expect everyone to live if we don't build more housing?
Let me guess, "not in my [ex] backyard"? Any serious suggestion or are you going to just go full NIMBY and still advocate mass immigration? 🤦♂️0 -
Developers want a stock of land with planning permission in order to plan their projects over the following years. Unless it is built on it is just a cost to themRochdalePioneers said:
It is deliberate, but it isn't deliberate by a council trying to boost public transport. Its deliberate by the developers to crush more properties onto the land.Foxy said:
Too few parking spaces is deliberate. It is to discourage driving and encourage use of public transport. The small flaw in the plan is the absence of public transport...RochdalePioneers said:I note that Ravey Mikey Govey is going to Level Up the north by building more houses.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/06/michael-gove-to-push-homebuilding-in-the-north-of-england
Point of order - does he want to lose the red wall? I can think if many fraught planning rows on Teesside. A decade of building houses fucking everywhere has left people a bit pissed off, so making it easier to build even more houses will go down like a barrel of slaughtered pigs that didn't make the abattoir.
As I posted the other day, all these housing developments go through with communities unable to resist (unless they give planning permission to developers via a local plan - the only way to stop house building is have a local plan that allows house building).
Not a single one of these developments bothers with things like new roads, schools and shops, or even sufficient parking spaces for residents. If the Tories think that more houses with less resistance is levelling up, that graphic we saw about red wall Tories heading for the chop will look even grimmer.
Is Govey going to force developers to actually build on land banks where permission has been given and the developer refuses to proceed?1 -
If the pension funds are long on inflation-resistant assets, and long on inflation-adjusting liabilities then shouldn't caveat emptor apply? That's a flawed business model.rcs1000 said:
Philip's example is pretty extreme (and by which, I mean unlikely), but a scenario like that would lead to defaults.Charles said:
Debt fixed at, say, 3% with inflation at 10% is going to see a massive erosion in purchasing power. This will be crystallised pretty quickly with a fall in the capital value of the bonds so that they yield an acceptable return.Philip_Thompson said:
Caveat Emptor.rcs1000 said:
You would sadly also bankrupt every pension scheme in the country, which owns large quantities of long term, fixed rate debt.Philip_Thompson said:
Mathematically possible, not realistically possible as you'll always have variation and any variation from 0% could be dropping people into negative equity, which will affect how the Banks approve mortgages too. Plus it'd take an extremely long time to reverse the damage of the past couple of decades. You'd be looking at over two decades of that implausible scenario to reverse the damage.LostPassword said:
Mathematically, you can have general price inflation of 2%, wage inflation of 3% and house price inflation of 0%, and then you would reduce the cost of housing relative to wages over time, without forcing people to live through a damaging period of high price inflation, or to be trapped in negative equity.Philip_Thompson said:
There are only three paths from here and every single one of them is shit.dixiedean said:Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
It isn't. Housing inflation is dire. You are sound on that. It is shit. The answer isn't to import that into every other aspect of life.Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
1: House price crash, millions plunged into negative equity immediately.
2: Years of inflation in wages exceeding inflation in costs (a reversal of past twenty years).
3: Do nothing and see the problem only continue to get worse, or be locked in as a problem forever.
I can't think of a fourth solution, so pick yer poison. Which of those three paths should we take? I'm torn between 1 and 2 but think 2 is better. Alternatively if you can think of a fourth solution I'd love to hear it, I'm all ears.
If you have 1% house price inflation, 6% general inflation and 7% wage inflation then you'd have houses going up still (good for Banks to avoid negative equity risks) even with some natural variation and it'd only take a decade of that to reverse the damage.
If you have 1% house price inflation, 10% general inflation and 11% wage inflation then you'd keep houses going up marginally, and reverse the damage in 6 years.
The pensioners can take a haircut if need be, they'd still be getting the triple lock if they lose their schemes.
Though if wages are rising and the rates are fixed, won't those investments be pretty safe? Its when wages fall that people default on fixed rate debt.
Pension funds may not face defaults, but they are going to be very badly damaged in that scenario
Effectively, pension funds own lots of long term assets yielding 2-3%. If inflation were to rise to 10%, they would be responsible for increasing payouts dramatically, while having little to no additional yield to do that.
Now, it might be possible to haircut benefits - but how would that be shared out? And there are contractual obligations here. If a British company were to attempt to rewrite pension payments, it would be successfully challenged in court.0 -
No, all that Gove is sensibly proposing is to shift some of the extra housing proposed for the South to the North to avoid overdevelopment in the Home Counties.RochdalePioneers said:I note that Ravey Mikey Govey is going to Level Up the north by building more houses.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/06/michael-gove-to-push-homebuilding-in-the-north-of-england
Point of order - does he want to lose the red wall? I can think if many fraught planning rows on Teesside. A decade of building houses fucking everywhere has left people a bit pissed off, so making it easier to build even more houses will go down like a barrel of slaughtered pigs that didn't make the abattoir.
As I posted the other day, all these housing developments go through with communities unable to resist (unless they give planning permission to developers via a local plan - the only way to stop house building is have a local plan that allows house building).
Not a single one of these developments bothers with things like new roads, schools and shops, or even sufficient parking spaces for residents. If the Tories think that more houses with less resistance is levelling up, that graphic we saw about red wall Tories heading for the chop will look even grimmer.
As the article also says housing development will be focused on brownfield sites not greenbelt0 -
Interesting that Burnham was singing Gove's praise earlier in the weekRochdalePioneers said:
It is deliberate, but it isn't deliberate by a council trying to boost public transport. Its deliberate by the developers to crush more properties onto the land.Foxy said:
Too few parking spaces is deliberate. It is to discourage driving and encourage use of public transport. The small flaw in the plan is the absence of public transport...RochdalePioneers said:I note that Ravey Mikey Govey is going to Level Up the north by building more houses.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/06/michael-gove-to-push-homebuilding-in-the-north-of-england
Point of order - does he want to lose the red wall? I can think if many fraught planning rows on Teesside. A decade of building houses fucking everywhere has left people a bit pissed off, so making it easier to build even more houses will go down like a barrel of slaughtered pigs that didn't make the abattoir.
As I posted the other day, all these housing developments go through with communities unable to resist (unless they give planning permission to developers via a local plan - the only way to stop house building is have a local plan that allows house building).
Not a single one of these developments bothers with things like new roads, schools and shops, or even sufficient parking spaces for residents. If the Tories think that more houses with less resistance is levelling up, that graphic we saw about red wall Tories heading for the chop will look even grimmer.
Is Govey going to force developers to actually build on land banks where permission has been given and the developer refuses to proceed?1 -
Not really - for a lot of BTL landlords there would initially be other assets to use if a bank needs to recover any unpaid loans.Charles said:
And the banks would be fucked resulting a squeezing on lending and economic catastrophe.dixiedean said:
Do you know what?Philip_Thompson said:
There are only three paths from here and every single one of them is shit.dixiedean said:Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
It isn't. Housing inflation is dire. You are sound on that. It is shit. The answer isn't to import that into every other aspect of life.Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah its fucking shit.dixiedean said:
That's no comfort if you go to buy bread. And discover that the bread you budgetted for last week isn't affordable now.Philip_Thompson said:
We've gone back full circle back to the Seventies though. Inflation wasn't defeated, that was a myth, instead it was pushed onto certain costs and they've gone through the roof.dixiedean said:
How to tell someone didn't live through the Seventies.Philip_Thompson said:
Double digit inflation could be just what we need.dixiedean said:
Won't look so bloody clever when he's driven inflation into double figures, mind.Philip_Thompson said:
PB ahead of the curve, we said that £10ph is less than what it would be by 2024 anyway.bigjohnowls said:Boris to commit to minimum wage of £10.50 an hr by 2024.
Leaving the useless nonentity £10ph look exactly what it is ie pathetic.
SKS is foikin useless at this Politics lark.
We've had over 6% inflation for decades now for prices in things like houses, but wages hasn't kept up. If double-digit inflation happened now with wages keeping up but assets not then that would reverse the errors of the last couple of decades and take us back to a time where people could work hard and progress up the ladders. It'd be a transfer from those on fixed incomes, to those actually working for a living.
I see nothing wrong with that now.
From memory in the Seventies the highest cost in a household's budget was food, rent or mortgage etc would cost about half of what food cost.
In the Twenties the highest cost in a household's budget is housing. Rents or mortgages for new purchases cost more than what food costs.
So we've swapped around what's facing high inflation, but the highest element of the household budget was the one facing high inflation both then and now. The difference is that wages were growing in the past at least, they've not been growing anything like costs in recent years.
So for the I'm Alright Jacks who think costs are assets instead of costs maybe there's no inflation. Because they've found a way to bypass paying inflation, but others aren't.
This is life not a theoretical fantasy. Inflation hurts. Real people. Continually.
And you know what else is fucking shit? Having people told that their rent or getting a home isn't affordable now.
That's not a theoretical fantasy either, that's real life for countless people in this country.
Food is a smaller share of a household's budget than rent, so why is it OK to have double-digit rent inflation but not food or wage inflation?
1: House price crash, millions plunged into negative equity immediately.
2: Years of inflation in wages exceeding inflation in costs (a reversal of past twenty years).
3: Do nothing and see the problem only continue to get worse, or be locked in as a problem forever.
I can't think of a fourth solution, so pick yer poison. Which of those three paths should we take? I'm torn between 1 and 2 but think 2 is better. Alternatively if you can think of a fourth solution I'd love to hear it, I'm all ears.
I actually think 1 would be the best all round. Won't happen, cos the Party holding the parcel wouldn't get back in for a generation.
But 1 would be best. Their store of utterly unearned income wiped out. Year Zero as it were.
Why do you think a house price crash is the core part of the Bank of England stress tests? It’s because it’s the single worst thing that could happen to the Uk economy
And most house owners will curse but continue to pay the mortgage off.
Why do you think I emphasised the Northern Ireland negative equity loan scheme0 -
Que d’Escossois, de rats, de poux…Nigel_Foremain said:
Perhaps you could write a book called "Scotland, Their Scotland" as you don't live there?StuartDickson said:
Ceux qui voyagent jusqu’au bout
Du monde, en rencontrent partout.
0 -
You couldn't dream up a worse combination than "Right to beggar the council" + "Landlord benefit" if you tried.IanB2 said:
housing still costs the state money: it’s just that what it spends no longer translates into new homes. Rather than enabling local authorities to build housing for security and revenue, the public purse is used to subsidise private landlords. In 2018, the Chartered Institute of Housing found that 95.7 per cent of the government housing budget went on housing benefit and mortgage support in the in 2015-16 fiscal year, compared with 18 per cent in 1975-76. Spending on social housing fell to £5.1bn in 2017 from £13.7bn in 1979-80 (in 2018 prices).ping said:A nation of property hoarders’: how Right to Buy transformed UK housing - Margaret Thatcher’s scheme ultimately produced a new generation of private renters
“If the flat were still council-owned, Dorine says that their rent would be about £450 a month. As it’s now owned privately, the rent is £950.”
https://www.ft.com/content/2e2c1eda-9c6f-4dfc-a79c-5186b1d423ad
The right should be very worried. They may have dispatched Corbyn, but the threat of Corbynism hasn’t gone away.
There can't be anywhere else in earth that has gone in for such nonsense.4 -
Burnham and Gove seem to represent the best of each other's parties at the moment and have done for a few years.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Interesting that Burnham was singing Gove's praise earlier in the weekRochdalePioneers said:
It is deliberate, but it isn't deliberate by a council trying to boost public transport. Its deliberate by the developers to crush more properties onto the land.Foxy said:
Too few parking spaces is deliberate. It is to discourage driving and encourage use of public transport. The small flaw in the plan is the absence of public transport...RochdalePioneers said:I note that Ravey Mikey Govey is going to Level Up the north by building more houses.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/06/michael-gove-to-push-homebuilding-in-the-north-of-england
Point of order - does he want to lose the red wall? I can think if many fraught planning rows on Teesside. A decade of building houses fucking everywhere has left people a bit pissed off, so making it easier to build even more houses will go down like a barrel of slaughtered pigs that didn't make the abattoir.
As I posted the other day, all these housing developments go through with communities unable to resist (unless they give planning permission to developers via a local plan - the only way to stop house building is have a local plan that allows house building).
Not a single one of these developments bothers with things like new roads, schools and shops, or even sufficient parking spaces for residents. If the Tories think that more houses with less resistance is levelling up, that graphic we saw about red wall Tories heading for the chop will look even grimmer.
Is Govey going to force developers to actually build on land banks where permission has been given and the developer refuses to proceed?
While Rochdale seems to have joined HYUFD in "no building" mode while still embracing "many more people". No doubt he'll soon be parroting inheritances as the way people can afford to get on the property ladder since there'll be no other options based on work alone if things don't change.1 -
Inflation will be a price worth paying if it is accompanied by an improvement in strategic resilience. This is no guarantee and requires competent and likely highly interventionist government.
Covid has revealed just how vulnerable the western economic system (and British quite particularly) has become thanks to globalisation and just in time stock management. We’ve had the PPE shortage, the vaccine shortage, the fuel shortage, the gas shortage, the semi conductor shortage. We’re likely to experience power shortages over the coming years and the semi conductor shortage will be biblical if Xi takes aggressive action in Taiwan. And then after all that you might start to have food shortages if global warming really bites.
It’s a civilisation’s economic system fraying at the seams because the globalised model of business has not been matched by a globalised civil society or system of governance.
It’s unrealistic to think the Uk could maintain its living standards under a state of autarky and nor is it desirable to even try. But we really do need to realise how dangerous the world is, how precarious the global system of commerce is and how undependable many alliances really are.
Combating that starts with onshoring strategically important industries. And will likely necessitate nationalising some of them. If cheating on standards globally means things like steel and oil refining are unprofitable in the Uk for the majors, then nationalise them and subsidise a major company to run them, rather than let emerging markets gangsters run the assets into the ground. Think more carefully about energy, medical and food supply chains.
And try and build resilience into the economy from future disasters. Not just a pandemic but what about something like a solar flare?
Aukus is but a start.1
This discussion has been closed.