Good header, TSE. I think it’s reasonably likely that the economy will deny the Tories a majority at the next election. The combination of the massive increase in government debt, and the UK’s ageing demographics (with Brexit disruption thrown into the mix) are likely to make the next decade a struggle for whoever is in government.
..but its unlikely to be Labour. Voters will look at the alternative to the Tories and....
The thing to keep an eye on is the Tory vote share in the opinion polls. Should it dip below 39% on a regular basis it is an indication that the overall majority is vulnerable. Labour cannot win, but the Tories can lose. It's unlikely, but it's not an entirely unrealistic scenario.
A problem with this argument is Labour may do worse when the economy is bad, as some swing voters risk appetites change, they become more cautious and fearful, which puts them off voting Labour.
My guess, is that for those betting on no Tory majority, a moderately bad economy in 2024 is better than a really bad economy in 2024.
There were those who made similar arguments in 2009. Brown still got the lowest voteshare of any incumbent PM in history (including Major in 1997).
Voters being scared of Labour when the economy is bad fits in nicely with Brown doing badly in 2010. I am assuming you are thinking it is change they would be scared of rather than Labour? Probably applies to some, but I think more swing voters are scared by Labour than change.
Yes, the argument is that voters are scared of change.
Your position fails on two levels:
1) Until 2007-8 Labour were far more trusted on the economy than the Tories. So these things can and do change very quickly;
2) The Tories are not in fact much more trusted than Labour at this moment. It is striking that every poll says Starmer is doing a bad job, yet the gap on ‘Best PM’ remains very narrow.
Isn’t that just the Boris discount?
Doesn’t that fly in the face of the widespread supposition that Johnson has a wider appeal than his party?
From the sort of people who answer the detailed questions in opinion polls?
I suspect there is also a group who suspect Starmer might make a better PM but don’t believe Labour is ready
It is not unreasonable to believe Starmer to be competent (if dull), but surrounded by crazies.
Yes but, in true Starmer style, I needed a few caveats
Significant production is still a decade off at least, but the Australian project is an interesting start.
The government announced a target for several hundred MW of green hydrogen to be in production by the middle of the decade. Coupled with the blue hydrogen projects that are also in the pipeline there should be plenty of low carbon hydrogen floating around by 2030.
This all depends on public sector funding for it to happen, but the commitment seems to be there.
‘Plenty’ sounds seriously optimistic, and blue hydrogen an expensive waste of time. Annual UK consumption of natural gas is around 70m tonnes.
Oh yes, it will take until 2040 or thereabouts to ramp up hydrogen production to allow the entire gas distribution network to switch over. But between the late 2020s and then it can be done zone by zone.
Blue is much cheaper to produce than green at present. That is likely to change in the future, but for the first phase of bulk production blue will dominate. Green has a role now for smaller scale production, for example linked to transport applications.
But ad I say, it is all much more expensive than carrying on with fossil fuels, so the government needs the right combination of carrot and stick to get things moving.
For those still around, it will be fascinating to see what our energy mix is in 2050. And whether we do achieve net zero.
But blue hydrogen has no benefit over using natural gas in CO2 terms. And if you add in carbon capture and storage, it’s no longer cheap.
We still need to work out how to make the distribution network work with hydrogen:
1 - The far smaller hydrogen molecules H compared to say methane CH4, which leak far more easily. Requires far better seals, especially as H2-O2 explosions are somewhat violent. 2 - The far lower energy density of hydrogen compared to natural gas. I believe it is 70% or so less, which means we need to burn a lot more of it for the same output, which means we need a much higher pressure in our gas network for the same output, which will make the elak problem worse, or to use far less.
Are these solved yet?
Hydrogen molecules can leak through solid metal pipes can they not?
Looking at the header; the obvious major change on the horizon is to people's energy bills.
When I looked in to this, it seemed that our bill could go up by £100 per month next year; a major change. Such an amount could ruin a lot of households.
So the government has to find a solution to this. In this context, green levies on energy bills is toxic.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
That, as you well know, is not the point. Talent is in the eye of the beholder (I don't think Peel was particularly 'talented'). It's just a bit sick when people use 'talent' as a reason to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour.
It's odd that two left-leaning people on here - der old Roger and Foxy - are willing to pour disdain on people they don't like, but are willing to defend the indefensible when people they do like do much worse sexual misdemeanours.
Orwell wrote a rather good essay on the blind spot regarding artistic talent and the behaviour of the artist. "Must We Burn De Sade?"
The "protection" has been extended to a range of client groups.
So we have (to this day) people solemnly defending
- Ezra Pound, a foaming at the mouth Nazi. He was hard done by, apparently. - D'Annunzio. The godfather of Italian fascism. Because he was an artist, don't you know. - Dali. Who enthusiastically supported Franco. Because he was just pulling Franco's leg.
after that, supporting Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, John Peel etc is simply part of the pattern.
It depends, doesn’t it? I am happy to carry on listening to Michael Jackson and happy if Gary Glitter is forever banned, so talent comes in to it. But that's not the same as defending Jackson's conduct.
And to read the Cantos and watch Chinatown.
Fortunately, since people are complex things, we're allowed complex reactions to them. Few people can't see the genius of Jackson AND the harm of his non-musical pursuits. You can enjoy A Lume Spento without going full Mosley. And you can realise that, despite supporting Franco, Dali can rightly take his place as a massive wanker and artistic fraud.
In the case of Dali - I would argue that artistically, there were multiple Dali
The later versions were mostly bollocks. He did have a very considerable talent, though, and was great artist at his height.
He was also a total shit as a human being.
The proper plural of Dali is Dalii. I think.
I thought that Dali was the plural of Dalus.
Dali can be confusing, especially when there are two. Or four.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
Looking at the header; the obvious major change on the horizon is to people's energy bills.
When I looked in to this, it seemed that our bill could go up by £100 per month next year; a major change. Such an amount could ruin a lot of households.
So the government has to find a solution to this. In this context, green levies on energy bills is toxic.
Aye but catastrophic climate change could ruin a lot of households too.
You’re right though, the money to fund this needs to come about in a fair and sustainable manner.
Thanks. Yes, my views are not so far away from that.
I am interested in history, including military history, but I do think that our national culture is far too backward looking, and that is something that we need to break free from.
There's only one way to properly remember ar brave lads.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
Income needs not only to increase but to outpace inflation. No point celebrating a 4% pay rise if inflation is at 5%.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
If the accusations are true then should that change anything?
American federal law explicitly allows child (under 18) trafficking victims to sue both their traffickers and those they were trafficked to be abused by.
Federal law also states an age of consent for 18 for this overriding any state age of consents.
She was under 18 and trafficked across state and international lines so the law allows her to sue both her trafficker and anyone else as well. Not either/or. Why shouldn't she, if the accusations are true?
I don't know all the facts or frankly care much either way about the specifics. There is a simple principle to defend though - the law is the law. We can't have opt-outs because the accused is the Prime Minister a prince of the realm. There is clearly a case to answer whether or not it goes to trial. "Do you know who I am?" as a defence doesn't really work for me...
What opt out are you talking about? There has been none, and what on earth is the point of that strike through?
The opt-out? Exactly what Andrew has and is trying to maintain.
The cross-through? The government giving them and theirs the exact same out-out of due process. cf Patterson, Patel and Johnson not needing to worry about things like the ministerial or parliamentary rules applying to them.
Significant production is still a decade off at least, but the Australian project is an interesting start.
The government announced a target for several hundred MW of green hydrogen to be in production by the middle of the decade. Coupled with the blue hydrogen projects that are also in the pipeline there should be plenty of low carbon hydrogen floating around by 2030.
This all depends on public sector funding for it to happen, but the commitment seems to be there.
‘Plenty’ sounds seriously optimistic, and blue hydrogen an expensive waste of time. Annual UK consumption of natural gas is around 70m tonnes.
Oh yes, it will take until 2040 or thereabouts to ramp up hydrogen production to allow the entire gas distribution network to switch over. But between the late 2020s and then it can be done zone by zone.
Blue is much cheaper to produce than green at present. That is likely to change in the future, but for the first phase of bulk production blue will dominate. Green has a role now for smaller scale production, for example linked to transport applications.
But ad I say, it is all much more expensive than carrying on with fossil fuels, so the government needs the right combination of carrot and stick to get things moving.
For those still around, it will be fascinating to see what our energy mix is in 2050. And whether we do achieve net zero.
But blue hydrogen has no benefit over using natural gas in CO2 terms. And if you add in carbon capture and storage, it’s no longer cheap.
We still need to work out how to make the distribution network work with hydrogen:
1 - The far smaller hydrogen molecules H compared to say methane CH4, which leak far more easily. Requires far better seals, especially as H2-O2 explosions are somewhat violent. 2 - The far lower energy density of hydrogen compared to natural gas. I believe it is 70% or so less, which means we need to burn a lot more of it for the same output, which means we need a much higher pressure in our gas network for the same output, which will make the elak problem worse, or to use far less.
Are these solved yet?
Hydrogen molecules can leak through solid metal pipes can they not?
Not something I am well up on. I would worry also about 30-50 year old welds and joints.
Most of the to-the-home network was changed to natural gas from town gas in the first half of the 1970s, and put in then or reused the previous.
Thanks. Yes, my views are not so far away from that.
I am interested in history, including military history, but I do think that our national culture is far too backward looking, and that is something that we need to break free from.
There's only one way to properly remember ar brave lads.
'Minced pig rectum at 12 o' clock'
There's a lot more meat in a sausage today compared with what we had in the 40's. At least that's how I remember it! At least it seems like meat, rather than bread.
Interesting in-depth study of New Zealand by Ashcroft. It sounds pretty harmonious - there are no political parties at all that a majority wouldn't consider voting for. There's an open dislike of culture war stuff and most people pretty favourable to immigration. Democracy and environmentalism get overwhelming support from all parties, with opinion on monarchy, capitalism, socialism and other concepts fairly evenly divided.
Some frustration about Covid, but on balance people supporting the hardline Government approach, with a 2-1 majority for trying for "zero Covid" rather than opening up and accepting Covid as something to live with.
Politically Labour really dominant - most voters prefer them on nearly all of 18 different issues and Jacinda Ardern remains very popular. Interestingly, though, mental health and housing dominate as key issues over Covid.
Perhaps they have just got though it. There was some quite aggressive culture war stuff when I was there over Maori and Pacific Islander rights. Language, land rights, positive dicrimination and related matters. Also a breakaway left wing party called "New Labour".
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
Income needs not only to increase but to outpace inflation. No point celebrating a 4% pay rise if inflation is at 5%.
For the past two decades inflation in housing costs has been over six percent. That's the biggest cost in most households budgets, massively outstripping energy or even food.
Good to see Jonny Come Latelies suddenly become aware that costs going up is a thing.
Significant production is still a decade off at least, but the Australian project is an interesting start.
The government announced a target for several hundred MW of green hydrogen to be in production by the middle of the decade. Coupled with the blue hydrogen projects that are also in the pipeline there should be plenty of low carbon hydrogen floating around by 2030.
This all depends on public sector funding for it to happen, but the commitment seems to be there.
‘Plenty’ sounds seriously optimistic, and blue hydrogen an expensive waste of time. Annual UK consumption of natural gas is around 70m tonnes.
Oh yes, it will take until 2040 or thereabouts to ramp up hydrogen production to allow the entire gas distribution network to switch over. But between the late 2020s and then it can be done zone by zone.
Blue is much cheaper to produce than green at present. That is likely to change in the future, but for the first phase of bulk production blue will dominate. Green has a role now for smaller scale production, for example linked to transport applications.
But ad I say, it is all much more expensive than carrying on with fossil fuels, so the government needs the right combination of carrot and stick to get things moving.
For those still around, it will be fascinating to see what our energy mix is in 2050. And whether we do achieve net zero.
But blue hydrogen has no benefit over using natural gas in CO2 terms. And if you add in carbon capture and storage, it’s no longer cheap.
We still need to work out how to make the distribution network work with hydrogen:
1 - The far smaller hydrogen molecules H compared to say methane CH4, which leak far more easily. Requires far better seals, especially as H2-O2 explosions are somewhat violent. 2 - The far lower energy density of hydrogen compared to natural gas. I believe it is 70% or so less, which means we need to burn a lot more of it for the same output, which means we need a much higher pressure in our gas network for the same output, which will make the elak problem worse, or to use far less.
Are these solved yet?
Hydrogen molecules can leak through solid metal pipes can they not?
Not something I am well up on. I would worry also about 30-50 year old welds and joints.
This is the reason I don’t think hydrogen is the solution for domestic heating or cooking purposes. Energy by wire is much safer and easier to maintain.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
Income needs not only to increase but to outpace inflation. No point celebrating a 4% pay rise if inflation is at 5%.
For the past two decades inflation in housing costs has been over six percent. That's the biggest cost in most households budgets, massively outstripping energy or even food.
Good to see Jonny Come Latelies suddenly become aware that costs going up is a thing.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
I am not sure that Andrew has much talent.
You mis represent my point about John Peel (who married a teenage Texan in the 1960's). My point was that in the 1960s, 1970s sex with young groupies was considered part of the lifestyle*, in a way that is considered quite sleazy now. I am not aware of any allegations of rape or trafficking against Peel, unlike Savile for example.
I agree that particularly in those decades "sexual liberation" was quite exploitative for many men. Indeed we still see it in much #metoo behaviour.
I understand your point very well, and am pointing out you are just using it as an excuse because you liked the guy.
You mean, John Peel, who married an under-age Texan (*) in the 1960s, who later committed suicide. And the John Peel there were various other allegations about as well.
(*) Why is that relevant?
I suppose it is relevant that underage marriage with parental consent is legal in several US States, and that is where Peel was living at the time.
Her suicide was several decades and marriages latter.
23 years after they married, 15 years after their divorce.
Why did you describe that amount of time as "several decades"?
I think the 3rd decade may reasonably be described that way.
If you ask 100 people on the street "what is the range of timespan that should be described as 'several decades'?", do you think most people would start with 21?
Why pick "several decades" to mean at most 23 years, even if the definition of several decades can be just about stretched to mean "somewhere between 21 and a hundred years"?
You had many, more accurate, options available "nearly quarter of a century", "about twenty years", but you went for the one that sounded the longest. You did a bit of a spin job on the numbers on behalf of a paedophile's reputation.
Peace in our time? Macron and Johnson have 25 min peace talks on fringes of the G20 summit, according to Elysee Palace. Both agree "de-escalation" needed with concrete action to come "as soon as possible"
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
Income needs not only to increase but to outpace inflation. No point celebrating a 4% pay rise if inflation is at 5%.
Of course but last month recorded inflation went down. We will see higher inflation, briefly, but the deflationary pressures that we have seen over the last 13 years have not gone away.
Thanks. Yes, my views are not so far away from that.
I am interested in history, including military history, but I do think that our national culture is far too backward looking, and that is something that we need to break free from.
Agreed, but respect for those who feel differently is important. It'd be a pity if Remembrance Day ceremonies trickled away to a small group of people who felt society had turned their back. At some point, perhaps official national ceremonies should stop and the emphasis should shift to local events.
Presumably the need for support for soldiers wounded in the wars has diminished sharply over the decades, though one still often hears of ex-servicepeople struggling with mental health issues as they rejoin civilian life. Is the British Legion's need for money in decline, or are there still a lot of really good projects?
An American friend was astonished to hear that we don't have a generally-recognised National United Kingdom Day, like all the other countries she could think of (July 4, Bastille Day, German Unity Day, etc.). There are the Saints' Days for each UK country but I don't think most people really get into celebrations for them, and they aren't public holidays. I can see it as the sort of tokenist thing Johnson would enjoy introducing.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
Income needs not only to increase but to outpace inflation. No point celebrating a 4% pay rise if inflation is at 5%.
For the past two decades inflation in housing costs has been over six percent. That's the biggest cost in most households budgets, massively outstripping energy or even food.
Good to see Jonny Come Latelies suddenly become aware that costs going up is a thing.
Not sure what your point is
The notion we haven't had inflation in the past couple of decades is a myth or a lie, spread by people who don't need to worry about housing costs.
If wages go up and inflation does as a result then that will be an improvement for those working for a living, instead of those who aren't. A welcome reversal of the past couple of decades.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
For the people struggling on UC the changes you describe move the situation from being impossible to merely grim. They still face an increase in the cost of living, just less severe than it would have been.
I never thought i would ever hear the words "labour shortage" in my lifetime. There is always a shortage of skilled labour. But for unskilled?
Yep. For a whole stack of reasons: 1. The job is "demeaning" 2. The jobs are miles and miles from where the available labour is 3. The job results is a net loss vs not taking it (via UC taper plus cost of getting to the job) 4. The job is shiftwork and the potential worker has kids. etc etc etc
The hard right element of the Tories always pile in with "make people work for their benefits". I remember IDS in the Valleys suggesting to unemployed mums that there were jobs aplenty in Cardiff. Yeah. Minimum wage bar jobs, in the evening. With no childcare or public transport available even if they could be afforded on minimum wage.
The stuctural labour issue of the last decade or two is that we both have people wanting work and jobs needing filling. But the two are geographically and financially incompatible. The move to flexible working must be allowed to help spread job locations about, and we need things like wrap-around childcare that doesn't cost a 2nd mortgage.
I didn't expect a left wing diatribe. Ibwas metely comment on kabour shortage is not domething I expected to hear in my lifetime.
There’s a reason why many public services will remain mediocre or worse even as taxes rise to their highest level in 70 years. The fundamental explanation is the sluggardly pace of economic growth. When the economy expands at 2.5% a year, the country can afford to buy itself decent public services with relatively modest levels of taxation. At growth of 1.5%, you end up with inferior public services for higher levels of taxation. For the past decade, growth has been much closer to 1.5% than it has been to 2.5%. “Rishi is crossing his fingers and saying we can have this extra spending and then some tax cuts before the election,” says one former cabinet minister on the One Nation wing of the Conservative party. “The gamble is on growth.”
The gamble on growth is one the chancellor will lose if the official forecasters have got it right about the economy. The Office for Budget Responsibility reckons the rebound from the pandemic will fizzle out and growth will become highly disappointing towards the end of this parliament. It has also confirmed that the government handicapped itself with a very hard version of Brexit. Mr Sunak might brag that departure from the EU has liberated him to reform taxes on booze, but he can’t claim any Brexit bonus for the economy. The reverse is the case. Brexit will permanently erase 4% from GDP, reckons the OBR, twice the damage inflicted by Covid.
Rising costs are already making many households feel pessimistic about their future living standards, an issue that affects nearly everyone, but one about which the chancellor said little and did less. Britons face soaring energy bills, higher prices in the shops and inflation threatening to rise to its worst level in three decades.
Rising inflation and borrowing costs combined with poor growth and heavier taxes is a recipe for near-frozen disposable incomes. Independent forecasters expect most people to experience little improvement to their living standards and some a squeeze over the next five years. The chancellor is desperately hoping that these forecasts will turn out to be wrong. Because, if they are right, the public will not be experiencing a vibrant Age of Optimism when they next elect a government. It will feel a lot more like a grinding Age of Stagnation.
This is why despite the bluster I can see the reverse ferret from the government on alignment. Most of the cost from Brexit is the additional cost of trade which we've demanded be imposed despite the absolute alignment between the EU and both trading zones of the former UK.
The NI renegotiation provides them with cover in removing most of this red tape, spin it as "EU agree to our rules" and give people their Brexit bonus by hosing money at them and their community. That delivers the growth to pay for it. Or, we can have -4%, not get the required groth at best, or make it -6% (or worse) by blundering into a trade war.
Such a pragmatic Brexit solution will properly wind up the small number of sovvrinty or death merchants like Philip. But the vast majority won't know or care. A "win" and cash for them and theirs will be enough. Its there for the taking, and we know Boris is flexible with the truthmorality principle. Could happen.
If the EU would agree to equivalency rather than dynamic alignment that deal would get done in a heartbeat.
But you know that already. Because that’s the response multiple brexiteers have answered with each time you make this argument
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
If the accusations are true then should that change anything?
American federal law explicitly allows child (under 18) trafficking victims to sue both their traffickers and those they were trafficked to be abused by.
Federal law also states an age of consent for 18 for this overriding any state age of consents.
She was under 18 and trafficked across state and international lines so the law allows her to sue both her trafficker and anyone else as well. Not either/or. Why shouldn't she, if the accusations are true?
I don't know all the facts or frankly care much either way about the specifics. There is a simple principle to defend though - the law is the law. We can't have opt-outs because the accused is the Prime Minister a prince of the realm. There is clearly a case to answer whether or not it goes to trial. "Do you know who I am?" as a defence doesn't really work for me...
What opt out are you talking about? There has been none, and what on earth is the point of that strike through?
The opt-out? Exactly what Andrew has and is trying to maintain.
The cross-through? The government giving them and theirs the exact same out-out of due process. cf Patterson, Patel and Johnson not needing to worry about things like the ministerial or parliamentary rules applying to them.
No, you are confusing different things. What opt out is Andrew exercising that would not be available to you or me if we were the defendants to this suit?
Thanks. Yes, my views are not so far away from that.
I am interested in history, including military history, but I do think that our national culture is far too backward looking, and that is something that we need to break free from.
There's only one way to properly remember ar brave lads.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Poppymas seems to start earlier every year, I see the sack of jizz was sporting one yesterday. Not even November.
To be fair the appeal was officially launched this week.
I decided in 2018 that a century was long enough. I have stopped wearing them, though I do support a couple of charities for ex military personnel.
Please excuse my unpatriotically off topic wokery.
I remember as a youngster we used to wear the poppy with pride as a nod to those who had sacrificed their lives for our continued freedom. It wasn't so much the celebration of victorious national patriotism that it is now. A prayer was read in Friday's school assembly and a couple of old soldiers would pay their respects to fallen friends at the local war memorial on the Sunday. It was generally an understated event for quiet contemplation.
I recall as a Boy Scout standing at the Remembrance Day parade by the local War Memorial and listening to the Secretary of the local Branch of the Legion reading out the names of the fallen. There was always a catch in his voice at two names. Two of his sons.
Interesting in-depth study of New Zealand by Ashcroft. It sounds pretty harmonious - there are no political parties at all that a majority wouldn't consider voting for. There's an open dislike of culture war stuff and most people pretty favourable to immigration. Democracy and environmentalism get overwhelming support from all parties, with opinion on monarchy, capitalism, socialism and other concepts fairly evenly divided.
Some frustration about Covid, but on balance people supporting the hardline Government approach, with a 2-1 majority for trying for "zero Covid" rather than opening up and accepting Covid as something to live with.
Politically Labour really dominant - most voters prefer them on nearly all of 18 different issues and Jacinda Ardern remains very popular. Interestingly, though, mental health and housing dominate as key issues over Covid.
How does NZ Labour overlap with the European Left, if it is left?
NZ has an essentially non-subsidy farming sector aiui. In Europe, statist or non-statist bits of party platforms is interesting.
Compare the Swedish-left approach to housing, with their approach to markets, with their approach to the super-rich, with their approach to schools, with similar in other countries, for example.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
That, as you well know, is not the point. Talent is in the eye of the beholder (I don't think Peel was particularly 'talented'). It's just a bit sick when people use 'talent' as a reason to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour.
It's odd that two left-leaning people on here - der old Roger and Foxy - are willing to pour disdain on people they don't like, but are willing to defend the indefensible when people they do like do much worse sexual misdemeanours.
Orwell wrote a rather good essay on the blind spot regarding artistic talent and the behaviour of the artist. "Must We Burn De Sade?"
The "protection" has been extended to a range of client groups.
So we have (to this day) people solemnly defending
- Ezra Pound, a foaming at the mouth Nazi. He was hard done by, apparently. - D'Annunzio. The godfather of Italian fascism. Because he was an artist, don't you know. - Dali. Who enthusiastically supported Franco. Because he was just pulling Franco's leg.
after that, supporting Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, John Peel etc is simply part of the pattern.
It depends, doesn’t it? I am happy to carry on listening to Michael Jackson and happy if Gary Glitter is forever banned, so talent comes in to it. But that's not the same as defending Jackson's conduct.
And to read the Cantos and watch Chinatown.
Jackson is of course not played in the UK any more, nor in the US, I believe? Driving in Italy this summer, he was played on some Italian radio station and it struck me how you don't here them at home any more
I've heard Jackson played in various public venues, in the UK. Maybe just not on radio?
A Michael Jackson song was played early this morning as I was driving to do a run. Either Heart 80s or Absolute 80s. Hear them quite often. I think it was 'Pretty Young Thing".
Personally, I've little problem with songs by such people being played - as long as the bad side of their character is freely acknowledged (in some cases, it would be nice if royalties went to victims or charities).
My issue is with people who pretend some bad behaviour is excusable because they liked other stuff the person did. Who excuse and/or ignore the behaviour.
Thanks. Yes, my views are not so far away from that.
I am interested in history, including military history, but I do think that our national culture is far too backward looking, and that is something that we need to break free from.
Agreed, but respect for those who feel differently is important. It'd be a pity if Remembrance Day ceremonies trickled away to a small group of people who felt society had turned their back. At some point, perhaps official national ceremonies should stop and the emphasis should shift to local events.
Presumably the need for support for soldiers wounded in the wars has diminished sharply over the decades, though one still often hears of ex-servicepeople struggling with mental health issues as they rejoin civilian life. Is the British Legion's need for money in decline, or are there still a lot of really good projects?
An American friend was astonished to hear that we don't have a generally-recognised National United Kingdom Day, like all the other countries she could think of (July 4, Bastille Day, German Unity Day, etc.). There are the Saints' Days for each UK country but I don't think most people really get into celebrations for them, and they aren't public holidays. I can see it as the sort of tokenist thing Johnson would enjoy introducing.
Yes. Combat Stress is one of the charities that I now support. There is a lot of PTSD in Afghan and Iraqi war veterans that I have seen.
I think there was a lot after the world wars too, but there was much more community of understanding for those like my Grandfather who fought in Flanders and Mesopotamia. He rarely spoke of it, but nearly every male in Manchester knew what it had been like. Compare that with the disconnect that a modern veteran feels when discharged to a world that neither knows nor cares of what he has seen or done.
There’s a reason why many public services will remain mediocre or worse even as taxes rise to their highest level in 70 years. The fundamental explanation is the sluggardly pace of economic growth. When the economy expands at 2.5% a year, the country can afford to buy itself decent public services with relatively modest levels of taxation. At growth of 1.5%, you end up with inferior public services for higher levels of taxation. For the past decade, growth has been much closer to 1.5% than it has been to 2.5%. “Rishi is crossing his fingers and saying we can have this extra spending and then some tax cuts before the election,” says one former cabinet minister on the One Nation wing of the Conservative party. “The gamble is on growth.”
The gamble on growth is one the chancellor will lose if the official forecasters have got it right about the economy. The Office for Budget Responsibility reckons the rebound from the pandemic will fizzle out and growth will become highly disappointing towards the end of this parliament. It has also confirmed that the government handicapped itself with a very hard version of Brexit. Mr Sunak might brag that departure from the EU has liberated him to reform taxes on booze, but he can’t claim any Brexit bonus for the economy. The reverse is the case. Brexit will permanently erase 4% from GDP, reckons the OBR, twice the damage inflicted by Covid.
Rising costs are already making many households feel pessimistic about their future living standards, an issue that affects nearly everyone, but one about which the chancellor said little and did less. Britons face soaring energy bills, higher prices in the shops and inflation threatening to rise to its worst level in three decades.
Rising inflation and borrowing costs combined with poor growth and heavier taxes is a recipe for near-frozen disposable incomes. Independent forecasters expect most people to experience little improvement to their living standards and some a squeeze over the next five years. The chancellor is desperately hoping that these forecasts will turn out to be wrong. Because, if they are right, the public will not be experiencing a vibrant Age of Optimism when they next elect a government. It will feel a lot more like a grinding Age of Stagnation.
This is why despite the bluster I can see the reverse ferret from the government on alignment. Most of the cost from Brexit is the additional cost of trade which we've demanded be imposed despite the absolute alignment between the EU and both trading zones of the former UK.
The NI renegotiation provides them with cover in removing most of this red tape, spin it as "EU agree to our rules" and give people their Brexit bonus by hosing money at them and their community. That delivers the growth to pay for it. Or, we can have -4%, not get the required groth at best, or make it -6% (or worse) by blundering into a trade war.
Such a pragmatic Brexit solution will properly wind up the small number of sovvrinty or death merchants like Philip. But the vast majority won't know or care. A "win" and cash for them and theirs will be enough. Its there for the taking, and we know Boris is flexible with the truthmorality principle. Could happen.
If the EU would agree to equivalency rather than dynamic alignment that deal would get done in a heartbeat.
But you know that already. Because that’s the response multiple brexiteers have answered with each time you make this argument
We can also see from the behaviour of the French this week, that any form of dynamic alignment would have certain parties pushing for a “screw the British” clause in every piece of legislation passed in Brussels.
Thanks. Yes, my views are not so far away from that.
I am interested in history, including military history, but I do think that our national culture is far too backward looking, and that is something that we need to break free from.
There's only one way to properly remember ar brave lads.
'Minced pig rectum at 12 o' clock'
At least with writing on the packaging Johnson could present it the right way up at the Cenotaph. And the presentation of sausages are a way more fitting tribute to English patriotism from Johnson, bearing in mind his pink sausages and Northern Ireland sausage ban victories against our European foes, than say, a difficult to place the right way round floral wreath.
Significant production is still a decade off at least, but the Australian project is an interesting start.
The government announced a target for several hundred MW of green hydrogen to be in production by the middle of the decade. Coupled with the blue hydrogen projects that are also in the pipeline there should be plenty of low carbon hydrogen floating around by 2030.
This all depends on public sector funding for it to happen, but the commitment seems to be there.
‘Plenty’ sounds seriously optimistic, and blue hydrogen an expensive waste of time. Annual UK consumption of natural gas is around 70m tonnes.
Oh yes, it will take until 2040 or thereabouts to ramp up hydrogen production to allow the entire gas distribution network to switch over. But between the late 2020s and then it can be done zone by zone.
Blue is much cheaper to produce than green at present. That is likely to change in the future, but for the first phase of bulk production blue will dominate. Green has a role now for smaller scale production, for example linked to transport applications.
But ad I say, it is all much more expensive than carrying on with fossil fuels, so the government needs the right combination of carrot and stick to get things moving.
For those still around, it will be fascinating to see what our energy mix is in 2050. And whether we do achieve net zero.
But blue hydrogen has no benefit over using natural gas in CO2 terms. And if you add in carbon capture and storage, it’s no longer cheap.
We still need to work out how to make the distribution network work with hydrogen:
1 - The far smaller hydrogen molecules H compared to say methane CH4, which leak far more easily. Requires far better seals, especially as H2-O2 explosions are somewhat violent. 2 - The far lower energy density of hydrogen compared to natural gas. I believe it is 70% or so less, which means we need to burn a lot more of it for the same output, which means we need a much higher pressure in our gas network for the same output, which will make the elak problem worse, or to use far less.
Are these solved yet?
Hydrogen molecules can leak through solid metal pipes can they not?
Not something I am well up on. I would worry also about 30-50 year old welds and joints.
Most of the to-the-home network was changed to natural gas from town gas in the first half of the 1970s, and put in then or reused the previous.
Well, hydrogen embrittlement is caused by hydrogen infiltrating solid materials. So for smaller thickness of such metals, yes, hydrogen can leak though.
There is also the issue that many materials are surprisingly... spongy when viewed at the microscopic level.
There is a enough literature out there on how to store and handle hydrogen - just be very, very nervous of the "we don't need to bother with X" attitude.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
A local company to me, Haskel, is investing heavily in Hydrogen too and domestic boiler makers are already trialling fully hydrogen enabled boilers.
There are issues to resolve but it is attracting lots of interest and money,
Question for our scientists.
I can see how hydrogen is feasible for road, rail and marine transport. Indeed, for a country like us it would be ideal given we’re surrounded by it.
But wouldn’t water vapour in the upper atmosphere actually be worse in terms of warming effect than CO2? Which would rule it out for jet aircraft.
If I’m wrong, please tell me.
Automotive hydrogen tanks are pressurised to 700 bar which makes making them crashworthy a very expensive challenge.
It's also the reason you never see any hydrogen fuelled cars in any FIM sanctioned motorsport.
It's a possible solution for heavy plant, aviation and other controlled environments.
I'm a bit of a fan of JCB (my dad had a few, I went to some product launches, and I went to school at the hill above the factory). But putting that to one side, I think they need congratulating for investing in this technology.
And for not going with 'Blue hydrogen', which may have allowed easier sourcing.
The safety requirements for storing pressurised hydrogen are long, instructive to those of an inquiring mind and written in blood. As is usual with safety rules.
Anyone who starts their pitch for something with "we will need to ignore these X safety rules", needs to be blindfolded and left in an abandoned building, full of unguarded elevator shafts and live, exposed wires.
Absolutely. But as far as I'm aware, JCB are not doing that?
Hydrogen embrittlement of steel is quite interesting.
I might be wrong, but I think Ben Rich's book 'Skunkworks' goes into some work he did in the 1960s on hydrogen for use in the Suntan aircraft, back when they were learning lessons the hard way...
I find it very disturbing the notion that a victim of a crime shouldn't get justice because they already got compensation from one of their abusers so the rest shouldn't get sued.
That's like saying if a murderer gets convicted that their accomplice shouldn't get out on trial once identified because that's "double jeopardy" since the case has already been dealt with and justice served.
That's not how it works. That's never been how it works. One criminal facing justice doesn't let others get away with it without facing justice.
If the accusations are false then he shouldn't have to pay compensation. But if the accusations are true then the fact she got compensation from Epstein is irrelevant.
Surely that depends on the terms of the settlement?
Significant production is still a decade off at least, but the Australian project is an interesting start.
The government announced a target for several hundred MW of green hydrogen to be in production by the middle of the decade. Coupled with the blue hydrogen projects that are also in the pipeline there should be plenty of low carbon hydrogen floating around by 2030.
This all depends on public sector funding for it to happen, but the commitment seems to be there.
‘Plenty’ sounds seriously optimistic, and blue hydrogen an expensive waste of time. Annual UK consumption of natural gas is around 70m tonnes.
Oh yes, it will take until 2040 or thereabouts to ramp up hydrogen production to allow the entire gas distribution network to switch over. But between the late 2020s and then it can be done zone by zone.
Blue is much cheaper to produce than green at present. That is likely to change in the future, but for the first phase of bulk production blue will dominate. Green has a role now for smaller scale production, for example linked to transport applications.
But ad I say, it is all much more expensive than carrying on with fossil fuels, so the government needs the right combination of carrot and stick to get things moving.
For those still around, it will be fascinating to see what our energy mix is in 2050. And whether we do achieve net zero.
But blue hydrogen has no benefit over using natural gas in CO2 terms. And if you add in carbon capture and storage, it’s no longer cheap.
We still need to work out how to make the distribution network work with hydrogen:
1 - The far smaller hydrogen molecules H compared to say methane CH4, which leak far more easily. Requires far better seals, especially as H2-O2 explosions are somewhat violent. 2 - The far lower energy density of hydrogen compared to natural gas. I believe it is 70% or so less, which means we need to burn a lot more of it for the same output, which means we need a much higher pressure in our gas network for the same output, which will make the elak problem worse, or to use far less.
Are these solved yet?
Hydrogen molecules can leak through solid metal pipes can they not?
Not something I am well up on. I would worry also about 30-50 year old welds and joints.
Most of the to-the-home network was changed to natural gas from town gas in the first half of the 1970s, and put in then or reused the previous.
Well, hydrogen embrittlement is caused by hydrogen infiltrating solid materials. So for smaller thickness of such metals, yes, hydrogen can leak though.
There is also the issue that many materials are surprisingly... spongy when viewed at the microscopic level.
There is a enough literature out there on how to store and handle hydrogen - just be very, very nervous of the "we don't need to bother with X" attitude.
I used to use H2 fed Flame Incandescence gas chromatography equipment and as you say it needed constant attention to detect and prevent leaks. I really do doubt it is going to be viable on such a large scale. Also important tips that people need to understand like under no circumstances use normal ptfe tape for H2 systems
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
That, as you well know, is not the point. Talent is in the eye of the beholder (I don't think Peel was particularly 'talented'). It's just a bit sick when people use 'talent' as a reason to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour.
It's odd that two left-leaning people on here - der old Roger and Foxy - are willing to pour disdain on people they don't like, but are willing to defend the indefensible when people they do like do much worse sexual misdemeanours.
Orwell wrote a rather good essay on the blind spot regarding artistic talent and the behaviour of the artist. "Must We Burn De Sade?"
The "protection" has been extended to a range of client groups.
So we have (to this day) people solemnly defending
- Ezra Pound, a foaming at the mouth Nazi. He was hard done by, apparently. - D'Annunzio. The godfather of Italian fascism. Because he was an artist, don't you know. - Dali. Who enthusiastically supported Franco. Because he was just pulling Franco's leg.
after that, supporting Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, John Peel etc is simply part of the pattern.
It depends, doesn’t it? I am happy to carry on listening to Michael Jackson and happy if Gary Glitter is forever banned, so talent comes in to it. But that's not the same as defending Jackson's conduct.
And to read the Cantos and watch Chinatown.
In Orwell's essay, he made that point IIRC. That the art and the artist are separable to an extent. He actually asked the question - what should we do if it turned out that Shakespeare was a nonce? Which shows that not much has changed....
One possible moral dividing line is that Michael Jackson is dead - so buying his works does not cause him to profit.
Gad, Polanski & Weinstein* are still collecting royalties.
*Weinstein bought all the rights to the film Dogma. That's why it is very hard to find now - no-one wants to be in business with him.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
Income needs not only to increase but to outpace inflation. No point celebrating a 4% pay rise if inflation is at 5%.
Exactly. The "vast majority" are seeing their petrol, gas and electricity bills skyrocketing and wondering why food is getting pricey. They aren't saying "but its ok because I've just had a nice payrise that more than covers it. Its an improving trend right now".
Tories need to be careful of such dismissive ignorance of people's everyday experiences. You can tell people they are better off and win their vote when they feel better off. And lose their vote when you tell them that despite their real experiences they are better off - because clearly that means someone else making dough off their backs.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
That, as you well know, is not the point. Talent is in the eye of the beholder (I don't think Peel was particularly 'talented'). It's just a bit sick when people use 'talent' as a reason to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour.
It's odd that two left-leaning people on here - der old Roger and Foxy - are willing to pour disdain on people they don't like, but are willing to defend the indefensible when people they do like do much worse sexual misdemeanours.
Orwell wrote a rather good essay on the blind spot regarding artistic talent and the behaviour of the artist. "Must We Burn De Sade?"
The "protection" has been extended to a range of client groups.
So we have (to this day) people solemnly defending
- Ezra Pound, a foaming at the mouth Nazi. He was hard done by, apparently. - D'Annunzio. The godfather of Italian fascism. Because he was an artist, don't you know. - Dali. Who enthusiastically supported Franco. Because he was just pulling Franco's leg.
after that, supporting Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, John Peel etc is simply part of the pattern.
It depends, doesn’t it? I am happy to carry on listening to Michael Jackson and happy if Gary Glitter is forever banned, so talent comes in to it. But that's not the same as defending Jackson's conduct.
And to read the Cantos and watch Chinatown.
Jackson is of course not played in the UK any more, nor in the US, I believe? Driving in Italy this summer, he was played on some Italian radio station and it struck me how you don't here them at home any more
I've heard Jackson played in various public venues, in the UK. Maybe just not on radio?
A Michael Jackson song was played early this morning as I was driving to do a run. Either Heart 80s or Absolute 80s. Hear them quite often. I think it was 'Pretty Young Thing".
Personally, I've little problem with songs by such people being played - as long as the bad side of their character is freely acknowledged (in some cases, it would be nice if royalties went to victims or charities).
My issue is with people who pretend some bad behaviour is excusable because they liked other stuff the person did. Who excuse and/or ignore the behaviour.
Well, then we agree. Peel did some sleazy things when young, but was massively influential in the development of punk and indy music. He should be remembered for both.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
I am not sure that Andrew has much talent.
You mis represent my point about John Peel (who married a teenage Texan in the 1960's). My point was that in the 1960s, 1970s sex with young groupies was considered part of the lifestyle*, in a way that is considered quite sleazy now. I am not aware of any allegations of rape or trafficking against Peel, unlike Savile for example.
I agree that particularly in those decades "sexual liberation" was quite exploitative for many men. Indeed we still see it in much #metoo behaviour.
I understand your point very well, and am pointing out you are just using it as an excuse because you liked the guy.
You mean, John Peel, who married an under-age Texan (*) in the 1960s, who later committed suicide. And the John Peel there were various other allegations about as well.
(*) Why is that relevant?
I suppose it is relevant that underage marriage with parental consent is legal in several US States, and that is where Peel was living at the time.
Her suicide was several decades and marriages latter.
23 years after they married, 15 years after their divorce.
Why did you describe that amount of time as "several decades"?
I think the 3rd decade may reasonably be described that way.
If you ask 100 people on the street "what is the range of timespan that should be described as 'several decades'?", do you think most people would start with 21?
Why pick "several decades" to mean at most 23 years, even if the definition of several decades can be just about stretched to mean "somewhere between 21 and a hundred years"?
You had many, more accurate, options available "nearly quarter of a century", "about twenty years", but you went for the one that sounded the longest. You did a bit of a spin job on the numbers on behalf of a paedophile's reputation.
I find that quite curious behaviour.
I am reminded of our friend HYUFD and 'once in a generation'.
For years and years we were lied to about how EU immigration doesn't supress wages, but as soon as that supply of cheap labour is unavailable to those sectors wages rise through the roof.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
The income to asset value ratio isn't quite so enormous in lower income parts of the country, but watch that change as the WFH revolution plays itself out.
Old people who own their houses outright tend to think of ever-spiralling prices as an unalloyed good, but they're not much use to anyone else. Those who don't own homes are largely stuck renting and can't afford to buy; people in small homes can't afford to trade up; those saddled with enormous mortgages are just a couple of interest rate hikes or a modest drop in household income away from disaster.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
That, as you well know, is not the point. Talent is in the eye of the beholder (I don't think Peel was particularly 'talented'). It's just a bit sick when people use 'talent' as a reason to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour.
It's odd that two left-leaning people on here - der old Roger and Foxy - are willing to pour disdain on people they don't like, but are willing to defend the indefensible when people they do like do much worse sexual misdemeanours.
Orwell wrote a rather good essay on the blind spot regarding artistic talent and the behaviour of the artist. "Must We Burn De Sade?"
The "protection" has been extended to a range of client groups.
So we have (to this day) people solemnly defending
- Ezra Pound, a foaming at the mouth Nazi. He was hard done by, apparently. - D'Annunzio. The godfather of Italian fascism. Because he was an artist, don't you know. - Dali. Who enthusiastically supported Franco. Because he was just pulling Franco's leg.
after that, supporting Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, John Peel etc is simply part of the pattern.
It depends, doesn’t it? I am happy to carry on listening to Michael Jackson and happy if Gary Glitter is forever banned, so talent comes in to it. But that's not the same as defending Jackson's conduct.
And to read the Cantos and watch Chinatown.
Jackson is of course not played in the UK any more, nor in the US, I believe? Driving in Italy this summer, he was played on some Italian radio station and it struck me how you don't here them at home any more
I've heard Jackson played in various public venues, in the UK. Maybe just not on radio?
A Michael Jackson song was played early this morning as I was driving to do a run. Either Heart 80s or Absolute 80s. Hear them quite often. I think it was 'Pretty Young Thing".
Personally, I've little problem with songs by such people being played - as long as the bad side of their character is freely acknowledged (in some cases, it would be nice if royalties went to victims or charities).
My issue is with people who pretend some bad behaviour is excusable because they liked other stuff the person did. Who excuse and/or ignore the behaviour.
Well, then we agree. Peel did some sleazy things when young, but was massively influential in the development of punk and indy music. He should be remembered for both.
We really don't agree: your attitude during this conversation (and previously) has been to downplay what he did.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
That, as you well know, is not the point. Talent is in the eye of the beholder (I don't think Peel was particularly 'talented'). It's just a bit sick when people use 'talent' as a reason to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour.
It's odd that two left-leaning people on here - der old Roger and Foxy - are willing to pour disdain on people they don't like, but are willing to defend the indefensible when people they do like do much worse sexual misdemeanours.
Orwell wrote a rather good essay on the blind spot regarding artistic talent and the behaviour of the artist. "Must We Burn De Sade?"
The "protection" has been extended to a range of client groups.
So we have (to this day) people solemnly defending
- Ezra Pound, a foaming at the mouth Nazi. He was hard done by, apparently. - D'Annunzio. The godfather of Italian fascism. Because he was an artist, don't you know. - Dali. Who enthusiastically supported Franco. Because he was just pulling Franco's leg.
after that, supporting Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, John Peel etc is simply part of the pattern.
It depends, doesn’t it? I am happy to carry on listening to Michael Jackson and happy if Gary Glitter is forever banned, so talent comes in to it. But that's not the same as defending Jackson's conduct.
And to read the Cantos and watch Chinatown.
In Orwell's essay, he made that point IIRC. That the art and the artist are separable to an extent. He actually asked the question - what should we do if it turned out that Shakespeare was a nonce? Which shows that not much has changed....
One possible moral dividing line is that Michael Jackson is dead - so buying his works does not cause him to profit.
Gad, Polanski & Weinstein* are still collecting royalties.
*Weinstein bought all the rights to the film Dogma. That's why it is very hard to find now - no-one wants to be in business with him.
I’m so glad I kept my DVD of Dogma…
It would have cost you 71p and postage to replace on amazon. Not an investment I am tempted by after seeing the blurb
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
1. The ‘slutty girls’ quote is from another woman who says she was recruited by Andrew’s accuser. He’s trying to paint the accuser as being of immoral character. 2. Epstein has already settled with the woman, therefore chasing Andrew for money amounts to double jeopardy, is Andrew’s argument.
The allegations and counter-allegations which are coming out and most distasteful and unedifying. Whatever the truth of the matter what on earth was Andrew thinking getting himself involved with such a man? Was there no-one to tell him that as a member of the Royal Family he had an obligation to behave with some dignity and common-sense? Or, bluntly, that regardless of who his mother was he should behave with dignity and common-sense?
On the legal side it's not so much her moral character that is being attacked as it being pointed out that she may have been a active consensual participant in the trafficking rather than a victim. I would be quite interested to understand why the US criminal authorities are not using her testimony in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. That suggests some real concerns about her which go beyond the fact that victims of abuse may not remember dates accurately etc.
Either way Andrew's character is not likely to recover. He was very ill advised to do that interview. Indeed most of the interviews which Royals do turn out to be a bad idea. They're best saying as little as possibly frankly or only on very narrowly defined subjects. Anne probably gets this most right of all of them.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
Of course, if she hadn't been trafficked over here (and I'm not too sure about the legalities there) she was over 16 when/if anything happened, so, while reprehensible and/or repulsive, whatever did or might happen here in UK wasn't illegal.
There’s a long discussion to be had about the difference between moral and legal in cases like this one.
Andrew and the accuser met at a party in New York, when she was 17 and he was in his 30s.
Now, 17 is of legal age in New York, so he didn’t commit any obvious sexual offence against the woman, and she is not arguing that any activity between them wasn’t consensual.
However, there is a federal law that prohibits moving someone under 18 across state lines for the purpose of prostitution, which apparently does cover this woman, she didn’t live in NY and was hired for the party. The criminal case question was did Andrew, who can reasonably say he didn’t know where exactly all the girls at the party came from, know that she was 17 and had been moved across a state line?
The talk of a ‘rape’ case refers to the US offence of ‘statutory rape’, which in the UK would be described as ‘unlawful sex’ rather than rape. The New York prosecutor gave up on trying to get Andrew for that one after he refused to be interviewed by the prosecutor.
The woman came to an settlement with Epstein some years ago, and is under a non-disclosure agreement. The assumption is that she was paid a sum of money in exchange for her silence, which is not uncommon (although again we can argue the morality of these settlements)
It’s been suggested that she subsequently met Andrew in London, but I don’t know how old she was or how she got there. A similar law exists in the UK about controlling someone under 18 for the purposes of prostitution, but as far as I can see no UK prosecutor has picked up the case.
Of course, morally Andrew’s reputation has suffered immensely, for associating with someone (Epstein) convicted of sexual offences against minors, and well known for at best being careless as to how old were the girls at his parties.
I do feel sorry for the Queen, who has morally lost two members of her family in the last couple of years, both in very public circumstances, as well as losing her husband.
Not something I know much about and assuming everything you have said is correct that is a well written summary.
They are rotten to the core, bunch of parasitic wrong un's
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
Indeed. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only way to fix the economy is to have a housing crash. And if people end up in negative equity then that's a case of caveat emptor.
The "vast majority" are seeing their petrol, gas and electricity bills skyrocketing and wondering why food is getting pricey. They aren't saying "but its ok because I've just had a nice payrise that more than covers it. Its an improving trend right now".
Tories need to be careful of such dismissive ignorance of people's everyday experiences. You can tell people they are better off and win their vote when they feel better off. And lose their vote when you tell them that despite their real experiences they are better off - because clearly that means someone else making dough off their backs.
Thanks. Yes, my views are not so far away from that.
I am interested in history, including military history, but I do think that our national culture is far too backward looking, and that is something that we need to break free from.
Agreed, but respect for those who feel differently is important. It'd be a pity if Remembrance Day ceremonies trickled away to a small group of people who felt society had turned their back. At some point, perhaps official national ceremonies should stop and the emphasis should shift to local events.
Presumably the need for support for soldiers wounded in the wars has diminished sharply over the decades, though one still often hears of ex-servicepeople struggling with mental health issues as they rejoin civilian life. Is the British Legion's need for money in decline, or are there still a lot of really good projects?
An American friend was astonished to hear that we don't have a generally-recognised National United Kingdom Day, like all the other countries she could think of (July 4, Bastille Day, German Unity Day, etc.). There are the Saints' Days for each UK country but I don't think most people really get into celebrations for them, and they aren't public holidays. I can see it as the sort of tokenist thing Johnson would enjoy introducing.
Yes. Combat Stress is one of the charities that I now support. There is a lot of PTSD in Afghan and Iraqi war veterans that I have seen.
I think there was a lot after the world wars too, but there was much more community of understanding for those like my Grandfather who fought in Flanders and Mesopotamia. He rarely spoke of it, but nearly every male in Manchester knew what it had been like. Compare that with the disconnect that a modern veteran feels when discharged to a world that neither knows nor cares of what he has seen or done.
I have, on my computer, supplied by a relation, a copy of my wife's grandfather's WWI diary. Some aspects could be compared with recent events perhaps, but for me the biggest difference is that in both the second half of WWI and throughout WWII (and indeed up to the end of National Service) most men had either themselves or knew of someone who had, such experiences, and had experienced the peculiar comradeship of military service. That's something that didn't apply before 1916 or so, or has done so since the mid 1960's.
Re: yesterday I speculated which country was farthest from France (once you take into account overseas departments and collectives, etc). My guess was Tajikistan and although not the worst answer in the world, wasn't really close to being right.
The answer appears to be North Korea which appears to be just a shade under 7500km away from France. An honourable mention to South Korea which comes into the French orbit at a little over 7100km.
If anyone thinks I've made a mistake (in my calculations... you'd be here all day otherwise) please feel free to let me know.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
A thoughtful post
I can't see inflation being over in just a year, but what worries me most is interest rates following suit and the pressure that puts on mortgage repayments. All the ingredients are in place for things to get out of control.
For years and years we were lied to about how EU immigration doesn't supress wages, but as soon as that supply of cheap labour is unavailable to those sectors wages rise through the roof.
The biggest surprise was just how big was the ‘churn’ of such cheap labour. Employers were able to pay minimum wage in central London becuase people would be happy to stick the living conditions in the short term in order to significantly better themselves and their families ‘back home’. Similar for farm workers and lorry drivers.
For years and years we were lied to about how EU immigration doesn't supress wages, but as soon as that supply of cheap labour is unavailable to those sectors wages rise through the roof.
The current labour shortages are more to do with the disruptions of Covid. That is why they are occurring in the EEA too, which retains FoM.
I think that one of the major effects has been a reduction of productivity, so more workers are needed to get the same output. It isn't that workers have disappeared, but rather that each produces less. Certainly so in the health sector.
I find it very disturbing the notion that a victim of a crime shouldn't get justice because they already got compensation from one of their abusers so the rest shouldn't get sued.
That's like saying if a murderer gets convicted that their accomplice shouldn't get out on trial once identified because that's "double jeopardy" since the case has already been dealt with and justice served.
That's not how it works. That's never been how it works. One criminal facing justice doesn't let others get away with it without facing justice.
If the accusations are false then he shouldn't have to pay compensation. But if the accusations are true then the fact she got compensation from Epstein is irrelevant.
Surely that depends on the terms of the settlement?
No. Why should it?
The settlement was between her and Epstein. The law explicitly and deliberately permits victims to sue other attackers and so it should.
Innocent until proven guilty, if he's innocent he shouldn't face a judgment but if he's able to be proven guilty then ssaying he shouldn't face justice simply because others have before him isn't justice.
For years and years we were lied to about how EU immigration doesn't supress wages, but as soon as that supply of cheap labour is unavailable to those sectors wages rise through the roof.
Just about the only thing that unites #FBPE Twitter loons and Brexit-backing free-market libertarians is their insistence that the relationship between cutting off the effectively infinite supply of cheap labour from the continent and rock bottom wages is somehow non-existent. The former group is desperate to wish away all possible obstacles to running straight back to the EU; the latter wants skinflint scalper bosses to be free to exploit people as much as they like, seemingly based on the discredited argument that trickle-down economics will make everyone better off in the end (as distinct from all the profits being pocketed by senior management and shareholders.) They're both delusional.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
Of course, if she hadn't been trafficked over here (and I'm not too sure about the legalities there) she was over 16 when/if anything happened, so, while reprehensible and/or repulsive, whatever did or might happen here in UK wasn't illegal.
There’s a long discussion to be had about the difference between moral and legal in cases like this one.
Andrew and the accuser met at a party in New York, when she was 17 and he was in his 30s.
Now, 17 is of legal age in New York, so he didn’t commit any obvious sexual offence against the woman, and she is not arguing that any activity between them wasn’t consensual.
However, there is a federal law that prohibits moving someone under 18 across state lines for the purpose of prostitution, which apparently does cover this woman, she didn’t live in NY and was hired for the party. The criminal case question was did Andrew, who can reasonably say he didn’t know where exactly all the girls at the party came from, know that she was 17 and had been moved across a state line?
The talk of a ‘rape’ case refers to the US offence of ‘statutory rape’, which in the UK would be described as ‘unlawful sex’ rather than rape. The New York prosecutor gave up on trying to get Andrew for that one after he refused to be interviewed by the prosecutor.
The woman came to an settlement with Epstein some years ago, and is under a non-disclosure agreement. The assumption is that she was paid a sum of money in exchange for her silence, which is not uncommon (although again we can argue the morality of these settlements)
It’s been suggested that she subsequently met Andrew in London, but I don’t know how old she was or how she got there. A similar law exists in the UK about controlling someone under 18 for the purposes of prostitution, but as far as I can see no UK prosecutor has picked up the case.
Of course, morally Andrew’s reputation has suffered immensely, for associating with someone (Epstein) convicted of sexual offences against minors, and well known for at best being careless as to how old were the girls at his parties.
I do feel sorry for the Queen, who has morally lost two members of her family in the last couple of years, both in very public circumstances, as well as losing her husband.
Not something I know much about and assuming everything you have said is correct that is a well written summary.
I think the problem now is not the facts of the case, but the Prince´s decision to "go after" his accuser. He has already had trouble with his legal team because of his hard approach, and the optics of this latest ruse are terrible. He should have taken the "noblesse oblige", more in sorrow than in anger approach. By upping the ante, he is not going to make this go away. It just makes him look like he is angry at being caught (by Epstein or by his accuser is all the same). The disastrous interview is now being followed by an even worse legal strategy. He may think he has nothing to lose, but he does, and someone in the Royal Household needs to get a grip and negotiate the terms. If the Prince loses, then he will face huge public preassure to be stripped of his knighthoods and titles, as others in similar circumstances would be. His sense of entitlement has already made him pretty unpopular in Royal circles, but as we enter the new reign, the Royal household really needs to make this go away and to make it clear to the Prince that he needs to swallow a lot of humble pie.... or else he will be shut out.
He doesn’t have any choice in the matter, he’s the respondent in the case, and American judges have a habit of awarding eight-figure sums in such cases.
We can all agree that his behaviour was immoral, that he shouldn’t have been ‘partying’ with teenage girls, but he still has a right to argue that he shouldn’t give up a substantial portion of his wealth to a woman who’s been paid off in a civil case already.
If proven guilty it would be nice they bankrupt the bumptious pipsqeak, however just means the mob would rob more from the plebs to cover it.
For years and years we were lied to about how EU immigration doesn't supress wages, but as soon as that supply of cheap labour is unavailable to those sectors wages rise through the roof.
The biggest surprise was just how big was the ‘churn’ of such cheap labour. Employers were able to pay minimum wage in central London becuase people would be happy to stick the living conditions in the short term in order to significantly better themselves and their families ‘back home’. Similar for farm workers and lorry drivers.
It might be interesting to know what proportion of Eastern European migrants were only short term workers and how many have been permanent.
For years and years we were lied to about how EU immigration doesn't supress wages, but as soon as that supply of cheap labour is unavailable to those sectors wages rise through the roof.
Which sectors have seen wages go through the roof?
See Isam's post earlier and the paper it links to. An increase of 10pp of foreign labour is associated with in a reduction of wages of about half a percent overall and cherry picking the most heavily affected sectors, 2.5%. Also, there's no difference between EU and non-EU immigration on this effect. Lastly, the labour that was available before hasn't suddenly all gone away, so I'm not really sure what you are talking about here.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
Indeed. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only way to fix the economy is to have a housing crash. And if people end up in negative equity then that's a case of caveat emptor.
Investments can go down as well as up.
Not going to happen. The Tory vote is a coalition of homeowners. The govt will pull out all the stops to shore up house prices, when necessary. Even when not necessary.
Neither the government, nor their supporters subscribe to the notion that the housing market is a free market.
There’s a reason why many public services will remain mediocre or worse even as taxes rise to their highest level in 70 years. The fundamental explanation is the sluggardly pace of economic growth. When the economy expands at 2.5% a year, the country can afford to buy itself decent public services with relatively modest levels of taxation. At growth of 1.5%, you end up with inferior public services for higher levels of taxation. For the past decade, growth has been much closer to 1.5% than it has been to 2.5%. “Rishi is crossing his fingers and saying we can have this extra spending and then some tax cuts before the election,” says one former cabinet minister on the One Nation wing of the Conservative party. “The gamble is on growth.”
The gamble on growth is one the chancellor will lose if the official forecasters have got it right about the economy. The Office for Budget Responsibility reckons the rebound from the pandemic will fizzle out and growth will become highly disappointing towards the end of this parliament. It has also confirmed that the government handicapped itself with a very hard version of Brexit. Mr Sunak might brag that departure from the EU has liberated him to reform taxes on booze, but he can’t claim any Brexit bonus for the economy. The reverse is the case. Brexit will permanently erase 4% from GDP, reckons the OBR, twice the damage inflicted by Covid.
Rising costs are already making many households feel pessimistic about their future living standards, an issue that affects nearly everyone, but one about which the chancellor said little and did less. Britons face soaring energy bills, higher prices in the shops and inflation threatening to rise to its worst level in three decades.
Rising inflation and borrowing costs combined with poor growth and heavier taxes is a recipe for near-frozen disposable incomes. Independent forecasters expect most people to experience little improvement to their living standards and some a squeeze over the next five years. The chancellor is desperately hoping that these forecasts will turn out to be wrong. Because, if they are right, the public will not be experiencing a vibrant Age of Optimism when they next elect a government. It will feel a lot more like a grinding Age of Stagnation.
This is why despite the bluster I can see the reverse ferret from the government on alignment. Most of the cost from Brexit is the additional cost of trade which we've demanded be imposed despite the absolute alignment between the EU and both trading zones of the former UK.
The NI renegotiation provides them with cover in removing most of this red tape, spin it as "EU agree to our rules" and give people their Brexit bonus by hosing money at them and their community. That delivers the growth to pay for it. Or, we can have -4%, not get the required groth at best, or make it -6% (or worse) by blundering into a trade war.
Such a pragmatic Brexit solution will properly wind up the small number of sovvrinty or death merchants like Philip. But the vast majority won't know or care. A "win" and cash for them and theirs will be enough. Its there for the taking, and we know Boris is flexible with the truthmorality principle. Could happen.
If the EU would agree to equivalency rather than dynamic alignment that deal would get done in a heartbeat.
But you know that already. Because that’s the response multiple brexiteers have answered with each time you make this argument
We can also see from the behaviour of the French this week, that any form of dynamic alignment would have certain parties pushing for a “screw the British” clause in every piece of legislation passed in Brussels.
I think Macron has screwed his own pooch, rather than ours.
There’s a reason why many public services will remain mediocre or worse even as taxes rise to their highest level in 70 years. The fundamental explanation is the sluggardly pace of economic growth. When the economy expands at 2.5% a year, the country can afford to buy itself decent public services with relatively modest levels of taxation. At growth of 1.5%, you end up with inferior public services for higher levels of taxation. For the past decade, growth has been much closer to 1.5% than it has been to 2.5%. “Rishi is crossing his fingers and saying we can have this extra spending and then some tax cuts before the election,” says one former cabinet minister on the One Nation wing of the Conservative party. “The gamble is on growth.”
The gamble on growth is one the chancellor will lose if the official forecasters have got it right about the economy. The Office for Budget Responsibility reckons the rebound from the pandemic will fizzle out and growth will become highly disappointing towards the end of this parliament. It has also confirmed that the government handicapped itself with a very hard version of Brexit. Mr Sunak might brag that departure from the EU has liberated him to reform taxes on booze, but he can’t claim any Brexit bonus for the economy. The reverse is the case. Brexit will permanently erase 4% from GDP, reckons the OBR, twice the damage inflicted by Covid.
Rising costs are already making many households feel pessimistic about their future living standards, an issue that affects nearly everyone, but one about which the chancellor said little and did less. Britons face soaring energy bills, higher prices in the shops and inflation threatening to rise to its worst level in three decades.
Rising inflation and borrowing costs combined with poor growth and heavier taxes is a recipe for near-frozen disposable incomes. Independent forecasters expect most people to experience little improvement to their living standards and some a squeeze over the next five years. The chancellor is desperately hoping that these forecasts will turn out to be wrong. Because, if they are right, the public will not be experiencing a vibrant Age of Optimism when they next elect a government. It will feel a lot more like a grinding Age of Stagnation.
This is why despite the bluster I can see the reverse ferret from the government on alignment. Most of the cost from Brexit is the additional cost of trade which we've demanded be imposed despite the absolute alignment between the EU and both trading zones of the former UK.
The NI renegotiation provides them with cover in removing most of this red tape, spin it as "EU agree to our rules" and give people their Brexit bonus by hosing money at them and their community. That delivers the growth to pay for it. Or, we can have -4%, not get the required groth at best, or make it -6% (or worse) by blundering into a trade war.
Such a pragmatic Brexit solution will properly wind up the small number of sovvrinty or death merchants like Philip. But the vast majority won't know or care. A "win" and cash for them and theirs will be enough. Its there for the taking, and we know Boris is flexible with the truthmorality principle. Could happen.
If the EU would agree to equivalency rather than dynamic alignment that deal would get done in a heartbeat.
But you know that already. Because that’s the response multiple brexiteers have answered with each time you make this argument
We can also see from the behaviour of the French this week, that any form of dynamic alignment would have certain parties pushing for a “screw the British” clause in every piece of legislation passed in Brussels.
I think Macron has screwed his own pooch, rather than ours.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
That, as you well know, is not the point. Talent is in the eye of the beholder (I don't think Peel was particularly 'talented'). It's just a bit sick when people use 'talent' as a reason to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour.
It's odd that two left-leaning people on here - der old Roger and Foxy - are willing to pour disdain on people they don't like, but are willing to defend the indefensible when people they do like do much worse sexual misdemeanours.
Orwell wrote a rather good essay on the blind spot regarding artistic talent and the behaviour of the artist. "Must We Burn De Sade?"
The "protection" has been extended to a range of client groups.
So we have (to this day) people solemnly defending
- Ezra Pound, a foaming at the mouth Nazi. He was hard done by, apparently. - D'Annunzio. The godfather of Italian fascism. Because he was an artist, don't you know. - Dali. Who enthusiastically supported Franco. Because he was just pulling Franco's leg.
after that, supporting Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, John Peel etc is simply part of the pattern.
It depends, doesn’t it? I am happy to carry on listening to Michael Jackson and happy if Gary Glitter is forever banned, so talent comes in to it. But that's not the same as defending Jackson's conduct.
And to read the Cantos and watch Chinatown.
In Orwell's essay, he made that point IIRC. That the art and the artist are separable to an extent. He actually asked the question - what should we do if it turned out that Shakespeare was a nonce? Which shows that not much has changed....
One possible moral dividing line is that Michael Jackson is dead - so buying his works does not cause him to profit.
Gad, Polanski & Weinstein* are still collecting royalties.
*Weinstein bought all the rights to the film Dogma. That's why it is very hard to find now - no-one wants to be in business with him.
I’m so glad I kept my DVD of Dogma…
It would have cost you 71p and postage to replace on amazon. Not an investment I am tempted by after seeing the blurb
It’s a Kevin Smith movie. Either you like his style (Chasing Amy and Dogma are my favourites although others prefer Office Space) or you don’t
Re: yesterday I speculated which country was farthest from France (once you take into account overseas departments and collectives, etc). My guess was Tajikistan and although not the worst answer in the world, wasn't really close to being right.
The answer appears to be North Korea which appears to be just a shade under 7500km away from France. An honourable mention to South Korea which comes into the French orbit at a little over 7100km.
If anyone thinks I've made a mistake (in my calculations... you'd be here all day otherwise) please feel free to let me know.
Haha, I've just realised the possibility this now opens up. Every* time someone complains about Macron, I'm going to suggest they fuck off to North Korea. I mean, if you want to be as far away from France as you can...
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
Indeed. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only way to fix the economy is to have a housing crash. And if people end up in negative equity then that's a case of caveat emptor.
Investments can go down as well as up.
A regionalised housing crash in south-eastern England might be good.
If not then we're likely to see a slow but long term movement of the young away from there until housing costs re-balance.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
I am not entirely sure your first paragraph is remotely correct. Perhaps you should have added "relatively speaking".
A modest 3 bedroom semi-detached house in North Cardiff that I paid a little over £50k for in 1991 is now pushing towards half a million. On a three times salary mortgage...wow, that's unaffordable to most, other than PB posters. This is why interest rates and mortgage rates following inflation scares the wits out of me.
Re: yesterday I speculated which country was farthest from France (once you take into account overseas departments and collectives, etc). My guess was Tajikistan and although not the worst answer in the world, wasn't really close to being right.
The answer appears to be North Korea which appears to be just a shade under 7500km away from France. An honourable mention to South Korea which comes into the French orbit at a little over 7100km.
If anyone thinks I've made a mistake (in my calculations... you'd be here all day otherwise) please feel free to let me know.
Haha, I've just realised the possibility this now opens up. Every* time someone complains about Macron, I'm going to suggest they fuck off to North Korea. I mean, if you want to be as far away from France as you can...
*Perhaps just once
So the rule is if you want to comment on something/someone negatively, you now have to move as far away as possible from it?
Re: yesterday I speculated which country was farthest from France (once you take into account overseas departments and collectives, etc). My guess was Tajikistan and although not the worst answer in the world, wasn't really close to being right.
The answer appears to be North Korea which appears to be just a shade under 7500km away from France. An honourable mention to South Korea which comes into the French orbit at a little over 7100km.
If anyone thinks I've made a mistake (in my calculations... you'd be here all day otherwise) please feel free to let me know.
Haha, I've just realised the possibility this now opens up. Every* time someone complains about Macron, I'm going to suggest they fuck off to North Korea. I mean, if you want to be as far away from France as you can...
*Perhaps just once
So the rule is if you want to comment on something/someone negatively, you now have to move as far away as possible from it?
Yes, absolutely. It's the only sane solution to minor political disagreements.
Re: yesterday I speculated which country was farthest from France (once you take into account overseas departments and collectives, etc). My guess was Tajikistan and although not the worst answer in the world, wasn't really close to being right.
The answer appears to be North Korea which appears to be just a shade under 7500km away from France. An honourable mention to South Korea which comes into the French orbit at a little over 7100km.
If anyone thinks I've made a mistake (in my calculations... you'd be here all day otherwise) please feel free to let me know.
Haha, I've just realised the possibility this now opens up. Every* time someone complains about Macron, I'm going to suggest they fuck off to North Korea. I mean, if you want to be as far away from France as you can...
*Perhaps just once
So the rule is if you want to comment on something/someone negatively, you now have to move as far away as possible from it?
Yes, absolutely. It's the only sane solution to minor political disagreements.
It would also solve quite a few domestic disputes.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
Indeed. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only way to fix the economy is to have a housing crash. And if people end up in negative equity then that's a case of caveat emptor.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
Indeed. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only way to fix the economy is to have a housing crash. And if people end up in negative equity then that's a case of caveat emptor.
Investments can go down as well as up.
Not going to happen. The Tory vote is a coalition of homeowners. The govt will pull out all the stops to shore up house prices, when necessary. Even when not necessary.
Neither the government, nor their supporters subscribe to the notion that the housing market is a free market.
Precisely. Accounting for propensity to vote, half the electorate is over 55 and that's where the homeowners (and especially the mortgage free homeowners) are concentrated. Property prices are, therefore, sacrosanct on that basis alone, and that's without taking into account the possibility of a negative equity crisis begetting another banking crisis.
Factor in the corrosive effects of Nimbyism and property prices aren't merely going to remain buoyant, they'll keep on outpacing inflation comfortably for decades to come. The only way they're easing is if a heavy enough lid is kept on immigration for long enough for the population to go into decline and free up more property that way, and that process is going to take a very long time.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
Indeed. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only way to fix the economy is to have a housing crash. And if people end up in negative equity then that's a case of caveat emptor.
Investments can go down as well as up.
Not going to happen. The Tory vote is a coalition of homeowners. The govt will pull out all the stops to shore up house prices, when necessary. Even when not necessary.
Neither the government, nor their supporters subscribe to the notion that the housing market is a free market.
Yes, I think it was the house price slump and negative equity of the Major years that destroyed the Tory reputation for economic competence. Other aspects of the economy were doing well.
In the end, it is not percentages on the news that impact, but people's own household economy.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
Indeed. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only way to fix the economy is to have a housing crash. And if people end up in negative equity then that's a case of caveat emptor.
Investments can go down as well as up.
Not going to happen. The Tory vote is a coalition of homeowners. The govt will pull out all the stops to shore up house prices, when necessary. Even when not necessary.
Neither the government, nor their supporters subscribe to the notion that the housing market is a free market.
I'm not sure that a coalition of homeowners is necessarily in favour of high house prices though. For example, I'm a homeowner. What good does it do me that house prices are high? It makes it more expensive to move somewhere bigger. It makes it harder for my daughters to ever afford a house. It increases the amount of inheritance tax I will have to pay when my parents die. The only people it really benefits are the owners of multiple houses - who are a pretty small percentage of 'all homeowners' and people looking to downsize - which is possibly even smaller. This particular homeowner would be all in favour of house prices being considerably lower. Of course, house prices don't exist in isolation and there would be external impacts to manage. My point is though that I don't see high house prices as anything which benefits me as a homeowner.
I find it very disturbing the notion that a victim of a crime shouldn't get justice because they already got compensation from one of their abusers so the rest shouldn't get sued.
That's like saying if a murderer gets convicted that their accomplice shouldn't get out on trial once identified because that's "double jeopardy" since the case has already been dealt with and justice served.
That's not how it works. That's never been how it works. One criminal facing justice doesn't let others get away with it without facing justice.
If the accusations are false then he shouldn't have to pay compensation. But if the accusations are true then the fact she got compensation from Epstein is irrelevant.
Surely that depends on the terms of the settlement?
No. Why should it?
The settlement was between her and Epstein. The law explicitly and deliberately permits victims to sue other attackers and so it should.
Innocent until proven guilty, if he's innocent he shouldn't face a judgment but if he's able to be proven guilty then ssaying he shouldn't face justice simply because others have before him isn't justice.
If she agreed it was a full and final settlement of all and any claims related to the events in question it would.
A civil case isn’t “justice” - that’s a criminal case. A civil case is “you’ve wronged me, I want restitution”. If she already has received restitution then you don’t get to double dip.
To be clear, I have no idea what I’d in the settlement, so just challenging your assertion from a theoretical perspective.
Poppymas seems to start earlier every year, I see the sack of jizz was sporting one yesterday. Not even November.
To be fair the appeal was officially launched this week.
I decided in 2018 that a century was long enough. I have stopped wearing them, though I do support a couple of charities for ex military personnel.
Remembrance Day is not just about WW1 though. There are recent wars and soldiers die and get injured in them. Worth remembering them and supporting those organisations which help them (which you do so not criticising you, just to be clear). I give to the British Legion but am neutral about wearing a poppy, it mostly depending on what coat I'm wearing.
I also think it is quite useful to remember that Britain's wars have often been fought by people who were not born on these shores. I rather welcome learning about the contribution of Indian or African soldiers etc. It gives a different and more accurate perspective on the whole "Britain alone" myth which is too often misused politically. And I found it quite moving when a few years ago for the first time the Irish Ambassador was invited to lay a wreath for the very many Irishmen who fought. They were often forgotten - by the British - and sneered at - by the Irish state. My father was one of those men.
I find it very disturbing the notion that a victim of a crime shouldn't get justice because they already got compensation from one of their abusers so the rest shouldn't get sued.
That's like saying if a murderer gets convicted that their accomplice shouldn't get out on trial once identified because that's "double jeopardy" since the case has already been dealt with and justice served.
That's not how it works. That's never been how it works. One criminal facing justice doesn't let others get away with it without facing justice.
If the accusations are false then he shouldn't have to pay compensation. But if the accusations are true then the fact she got compensation from Epstein is irrelevant.
You are confusing criminal trials and civil compensation. It is the latter which is relevant here. It depends on what the compensation agreement said. If it specifically and clearly covered all her abuse by all her abusers then it is not on for her to seek a second bite at the cherry. Whether the compensation agreement does say that is quite another matter.
Significant production is still a decade off at least, but the Australian project is an interesting start.
The government announced a target for several hundred MW of green hydrogen to be in production by the middle of the decade. Coupled with the blue hydrogen projects that are also in the pipeline there should be plenty of low carbon hydrogen floating around by 2030.
This all depends on public sector funding for it to happen, but the commitment seems to be there.
‘Plenty’ sounds seriously optimistic, and blue hydrogen an expensive waste of time. Annual UK consumption of natural gas is around 70m tonnes.
Oh yes, it will take until 2040 or thereabouts to ramp up hydrogen production to allow the entire gas distribution network to switch over. But between the late 2020s and then it can be done zone by zone.
Blue is much cheaper to produce than green at present. That is likely to change in the future, but for the first phase of bulk production blue will dominate. Green has a role now for smaller scale production, for example linked to transport applications.
But ad I say, it is all much more expensive than carrying on with fossil fuels, so the government needs the right combination of carrot and stick to get things moving.
For those still around, it will be fascinating to see what our energy mix is in 2050. And whether we do achieve net zero.
But blue hydrogen has no benefit over using natural gas in CO2 terms. And if you add in carbon capture and storage, it’s no longer cheap.
We still need to work out how to make the distribution network work with hydrogen:
1 - The far smaller hydrogen molecules H compared to say methane CH4, which leak far more easily. Requires far better seals, especially as H2-O2 explosions are somewhat violent. 2 - The far lower energy density of hydrogen compared to natural gas. I believe it is 70% or so less, which means we need to burn a lot more of it for the same output, which means we need a much higher pressure in our gas network for the same output, which will make the elak problem worse, or to use far less.
Are these solved yet?
Hydrogen molecules can leak through solid metal pipes can they not?
Is that not an oxymoron, sounds dangerous in any case
For years and years we were lied to about how EU immigration doesn't supress wages, but as soon as that supply of cheap labour is unavailable to those sectors wages rise through the roof.
The biggest surprise was just how big was the ‘churn’ of such cheap labour. Employers were able to pay minimum wage in central London becuase people would be happy to stick the living conditions in the short term in order to significantly better themselves and their families ‘back home’. Similar for farm workers and lorry drivers.
It might be interesting to know what proportion of Eastern European migrants were only short term workers and how many have been permanent.
And how that varies between different locations.
Likewise with migrants from Southern Europe.
Certainly most of our Spanish and Portuguese nurses were only here for a couple of years, and Greek doctors too. Some stayed even before Brexit, but a small minority. In other sectors too, I am sure. Who wants to be harvesting beets aged 40?
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
Indeed. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only way to fix the economy is to have a housing crash. And if people end up in negative equity then that's a case of caveat emptor.
Investments can go down as well as up.
And wipes out most of the banks in the process
Philip's brand of economic theory would see a run on the banks as a mere market adjustment. Move along, nothing to see.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
Indeed. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only way to fix the economy is to have a housing crash. And if people end up in negative equity then that's a case of caveat emptor.
Investments can go down as well as up.
That is a bit like cutting off your legs because your shoes are too tight. Dumber than dumb.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
I am not entirely sure your first paragraph is remotely correct. Perhaps you should have added "relatively speaking".
A modest 3 bedroom semi-detached house in North Cardiff that I paid a little over £50k for in 1991 is now pushing towards half a million. On a three times salary mortgage...wow, that's unaffordable to most, other than PB posters. This is why interest rates and mortgage rates following inflation scares the wits out of me.
The big change in house prices was due to a shift from 3x single income mortgages to 5x double income.
So assuming a £25k median wage that moved the mortgage on a house from £75k to £250k. Deposits moved from 10% - 7.5k or 30% of a single salary - to 5% ie 12.5k or 25% of a double salary.
Low interest rates then allowed people to push the envelope in terms of adding another turn of salary on top
Good header, TSE. I think it’s reasonably likely that the economy will deny the Tories a majority at the next election. The combination of the massive increase in government debt, and the UK’s ageing demographics (with Brexit disruption thrown into the mix) are likely to make the next decade a struggle for whoever is in government.
I agree with you on "reasonably likely" but I do think the Con majority is overpriced at 2.46. IMO this government has been super lucky to have had Covid happening almost as soon as they got elected. It's imbued them (especially Johnson/Sunak) with a kind of parental authority and created a sense of gratitude from the public for shepherding us through it. With this comes a willingness of people to cut them slack. I don't mean all people (eg there's very little from me or you) or unlimited slack, just more slack than usual from more people than usual, but this is enough to weight the deck. It's political gold. It provides excellent protection for Johnson & Co (and their signature policy of Brexit) against the sort of outcomes which would otherwise sink them, in particular wrecked public finances and falling living standards. "Boris is doing his best, bless him, and it's not his fault the whole world got sick." This is the sentiment I detect and I fear, the sentiment standing between us and the dream which keeps us going as Winter looms, the grand inspiring vision we try to keep in our mind's eye at all times, that Shining City on the Hill - a hung parliament.
Re: yesterday I speculated which country was farthest from France (once you take into account overseas departments and collectives, etc). My guess was Tajikistan and although not the worst answer in the world, wasn't really close to being right.
The answer appears to be North Korea which appears to be just a shade under 7500km away from France. An honourable mention to South Korea which comes into the French orbit at a little over 7100km.
If anyone thinks I've made a mistake (in my calculations... you'd be here all day otherwise) please feel free to let me know.
Haha, I've just realised the possibility this now opens up. Every* time someone complains about Macron, I'm going to suggest they fuck off to North Korea. I mean, if you want to be as far away from France as you can...
*Perhaps just once
So the rule is if you want to comment on something/someone negatively, you now have to move as far away as possible from it?
Yes, absolutely. It's the only sane solution to minor political disagreements.
Hang on, though, wouldn’t Macron have to move somewhere in north Asia as well to be far away from the Uk?
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
For the people struggling on UC the changes you describe move the situation from being impossible to merely grim. They still face an increase in the cost of living, just less severe than it would have been.
I never thought i would ever hear the words "labour shortage" in my lifetime. There is always a shortage of skilled labour. But for unskilled?
Yep. For a whole stack of reasons: 1. The job is "demeaning" 2. The jobs are miles and miles from where the available labour is 3. The job results is a net loss vs not taking it (via UC taper plus cost of getting to the job) 4. The job is shiftwork and the potential worker has kids. etc etc etc
The hard right element of the Tories always pile in with "make people work for their benefits". I remember IDS in the Valleys suggesting to unemployed mums that there were jobs aplenty in Cardiff. Yeah. Minimum wage bar jobs, in the evening. With no childcare or public transport available even if they could be afforded on minimum wage.
The stuctural labour issue of the last decade or two is that we both have people wanting work and jobs needing filling. But the two are geographically and financially incompatible. The move to flexible working must be allowed to help spread job locations about, and we need things like wrap-around childcare that doesn't cost a 2nd mortgage.
Geography doesn't explain why London continually has higher unemployment than the country as a whole.
But there are certainly parts of the country where the geographical issue is vital and I don't see how some places eg the South Wales Valleys will ever be economically strong. After all the population is only there as a legacy of mining and the pits aren't going to come back.
Its a pity we cannot remove the 'unemployables' from London and swap them for people who do want to work from the remote parts.
Moving Parliament to Merthyr would successfully relocate 1437 of them.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
I am not entirely sure your first paragraph is remotely correct. Perhaps you should have added "relatively speaking".
A modest 3 bedroom semi-detached house in North Cardiff that I paid a little over £50k for in 1991 is now pushing towards half a million. On a three times salary mortgage...wow, that's unaffordable to most, other than PB posters. This is why interest rates and mortgage rates following inflation scares the wits out of me.
Isn't North Cardiff the Welsh equivalent of Hampstead ?
That's certainly more than double the average house price in Cardiff:
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
Indeed. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only way to fix the economy is to have a housing crash. And if people end up in negative equity then that's a case of caveat emptor.
Investments can go down as well as up.
Not going to happen. The Tory vote is a coalition of homeowners. The govt will pull out all the stops to shore up house prices, when necessary. Even when not necessary.
Neither the government, nor their supporters subscribe to the notion that the housing market is a free market.
Precisely. Accounting for propensity to vote, half the electorate is over 55 and that's where the homeowners (and especially the mortgage free homeowners) are concentrated. Property prices are, therefore, sacrosanct on that basis alone, and that's without taking into account the possibility of a negative equity crisis begetting another banking crisis.
Factor in the corrosive effects of Nimbyism and property prices aren't merely going to remain buoyant, they'll keep on outpacing inflation comfortably for decades to come. The only way they're easing is if a heavy enough lid is kept on immigration for long enough for the population to go into decline and free up more property that way, and that process is going to take a very long time.
That is true, but every now and again we hit bumps in the road. House prices falter, and then a few years later they take off again. If a Government is unfortunate to be enjoying incumbency during a bump in the road they will be punished.
With new world economic theory I may be completely wrong here, but my old economics text books told me. Increase in money supply leads to inflation which leads to interest/ mortgage rate rises which then (albeit temporarily) adjust the housing market.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
Indeed. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only way to fix the economy is to have a housing crash. And if people end up in negative equity then that's a case of caveat emptor.
Investments can go down as well as up.
Not going to happen. The Tory vote is a coalition of homeowners. The govt will pull out all the stops to shore up house prices, when necessary. Even when not necessary.
Neither the government, nor their supporters subscribe to the notion that the housing market is a free market.
I'm not sure that a coalition of homeowners is necessarily in favour of high house prices though. For example, I'm a homeowner. What good does it do me that house prices are high? It makes it more expensive to move somewhere bigger. It makes it harder for my daughters to ever afford a house. It increases the amount of inheritance tax I will have to pay when my parents die. The only people it really benefits are the owners of multiple houses - who are a pretty small percentage of 'all homeowners' and people looking to downsize - which is possibly even smaller. This particular homeowner would be all in favour of house prices being considerably lower. Of course, house prices don't exist in isolation and there would be external impacts to manage. My point is though that I don't see high house prices as anything which benefits me as a homeowner.
Most outright homeowners are old and their property is their major, and perhaps only significant, asset. They'll be thinking about downsizing, equity release and inheritances.
Middle-aged mortgage payers will also, in a great many cases, be thinking of inheritances and also stand to be torpedoed below the water line by substantial hikes in interest rates and/or by a price crash resulting in negative equity.
Widespread negative equity would also imperil the banking system.
I am in the stuck in a flat, can't afford a house predicament, but I don't expect to be rescued from this. There are simply far too many vital interests invested in a buoyant property market. The maintenance of high property prices is too systemically important to finance and too personally important to the key voter demographics.
The Government doesn't care if the young keep getting constantly screwed over and it arguably can't afford to care either.
The reason house prices are high in SE England is that people like living in SE England. Better climate, better infrastructure, nicer pubs and superior restaurants than any other segment of the UK. And London is the best city in the world. Also, the SE England countryside is woefully underrated by northerners. It is, in many parts, absolutely lovely.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
Indeed. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only way to fix the economy is to have a housing crash. And if people end up in negative equity then that's a case of caveat emptor.
Investments can go down as well as up.
Not going to happen. The Tory vote is a coalition of homeowners. The govt will pull out all the stops to shore up house prices, when necessary. Even when not necessary.
Neither the government, nor their supporters subscribe to the notion that the housing market is a free market.
Precisely. Accounting for propensity to vote, half the electorate is over 55 and that's where the homeowners (and especially the mortgage free homeowners) are concentrated. Property prices are, therefore, sacrosanct on that basis alone, and that's without taking into account the possibility of a negative equity crisis begetting another banking crisis.
Factor in the corrosive effects of Nimbyism and property prices aren't merely going to remain buoyant, they'll keep on outpacing inflation comfortably for decades to come. The only way they're easing is if a heavy enough lid is kept on immigration for long enough for the population to go into decline and free up more property that way, and that process is going to take a very long time.
That is true, but every now and again we hit bumps in the road. House prices falter, and then a few years later they take off again. If a Government is unfortunate to be enjoying incumbency during a bump in the road they will be punished.
With new world economic theory I may be completely wrong here, but my old economics text books told me. Increase in money supply leads to inflation which leads to interest/ mortgage rate rises which then (albeit temporarily) adjust the housing market.
I can see bank rate creeping back up to the 0.75% it reached pre-Covid, but it certainly won't breach 1% unless or until this is forced by a sustained spell of high inflation - and I think what we're going through now is temporary. Individuals, businesses and especially governments all over the world are dealing with mountainous debts built up through the Great Recession and dealing with plague: the pressure acting to keep interest rates on the floor is enormous.
Absent rising interest rates and the associated credit crunch and extreme pressure on the finances of distressed households, there is no reason to suppose that constrained supply and sellers' needs and expectations of a healthy profit won't remain the primary drivers of the housing market, with consequent ongoing rises in prices.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
Indeed. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only way to fix the economy is to have a housing crash. And if people end up in negative equity then that's a case of caveat emptor.
Investments can go down as well as up.
And wipes out most of the banks in the process
If they were foolish enough to inflate the market enough that a correction in the market wipes them out then they deserve to be wiped out too. Again caveat emptor applies, if the banks have put their money into tulips then keeping tulips at an extremely high cost to save the banks is a moral hazard we shouldn't engage in.
If it wasn’t for rampant Poppyism, I’d be entirely sanguine about Poppy Day. As it is, I’m long sick of poppies by the time it rolls around. The pressure on news presenters etc to wear poppies is particularly illiberal and nauseating.
My son’s old primary school saved on poppyist organisation by keeping up its poppy mural year round.
I find it very disturbing the notion that a victim of a crime shouldn't get justice because they already got compensation from one of their abusers so the rest shouldn't get sued.
That's like saying if a murderer gets convicted that their accomplice shouldn't get out on trial once identified because that's "double jeopardy" since the case has already been dealt with and justice served.
That's not how it works. That's never been how it works. One criminal facing justice doesn't let others get away with it without facing justice.
If the accusations are false then he shouldn't have to pay compensation. But if the accusations are true then the fact she got compensation from Epstein is irrelevant.
Surely that depends on the terms of the settlement?
No. Why should it?
The settlement was between her and Epstein. The law explicitly and deliberately permits victims to sue other attackers and so it should.
Innocent until proven guilty, if he's innocent he shouldn't face a judgment but if he's able to be proven guilty then ssaying he shouldn't face justice simply because others have before him isn't justice.
If she agreed it was a full and final settlement of all and any claims related to the events in question it would.
A civil case isn’t “justice” - that’s a criminal case. A civil case is “you’ve wronged me, I want restitution”. If she already has received restitution then you don’t get to double dip.
To be clear, I have no idea what I’d in the settlement, so just challenging your assertion from a theoretical perspective.
Where is "double dipped" defined in the law?
It can be full and final from Epstein, that is OK. Andrew is not Epstein though is he?
Restitution from Andrew is a different matter from restitution from Epstein.
If this was a Bradford gang instead of a prince of the realm would you be of the same opinion?
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
Indeed. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only way to fix the economy is to have a housing crash. And if people end up in negative equity then that's a case of caveat emptor.
Investments can go down as well as up.
And wipes out most of the banks in the process
If they were foolish enough to inflate the market enough that a correction in the market wipes them out then they deserve to be wiped out too. Again caveat emptor applies, if the banks have put their money into tulips then keeping tulips at an extremely high cost to save the banks is a moral hazard we shouldn't engage in.
The problem is that if you wipe out the banks, it's not going to 'fix' the economy. It would instead annihilate it by instantly making capital and even current account running expenses unavailable. So, to take only the most obvious point, all food distribution would stop at once.
Now that could lead to the creation of a different economy (although in practice I suspect the political turmoil would see a totalitarian government come to power minded to seize all assets for themselves) but to put it mildly it would be a very bumpy transition.
Re: yesterday I speculated which country was farthest from France (once you take into account overseas departments and collectives, etc). My guess was Tajikistan and although not the worst answer in the world, wasn't really close to being right.
The answer appears to be North Korea which appears to be just a shade under 7500km away from France. An honourable mention to South Korea which comes into the French orbit at a little over 7100km.
If anyone thinks I've made a mistake (in my calculations... you'd be here all day otherwise) please feel free to let me know.
Haha, I've just realised the possibility this now opens up. Every* time someone complains about Macron, I'm going to suggest they fuck off to North Korea. I mean, if you want to be as far away from France as you can...
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
The point is a simple one. Looking at the cost of living in isolation is meaningless. It needs to be measured against income and for the vast majority, but not all, that shows an improving trend right now.
I seem to recall it being suggested that a relatively small cohort of low income workers in full-time employment are projected to end up a little better off, but for the large majority of us income rises will be insufficient to keep pace with inflation. I can certainly believe that: it's the situation I'm in right now.
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
Housing has only a ludicrous costs in parts of the country, principally London and the Waitrose Belt.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
Indeed. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only way to fix the economy is to have a housing crash. And if people end up in negative equity then that's a case of caveat emptor.
Investments can go down as well as up.
And wipes out most of the banks in the process
If they were foolish enough to inflate the market enough that a correction in the market wipes them out then they deserve to be wiped out too. Again caveat emptor applies, if the banks have put their money into tulips then keeping tulips at an extremely high cost to save the banks is a moral hazard we shouldn't engage in.
Banks and bankers are not merely vital to the tax base but to the entire functioning of the economy. Hence the fact that Brown and Darling were previously forced to bail them. Widespread runs on banks = systemic financial collapse. Can't be risked.
Anyway, that's almost a secondary consideration in all of this, the primary consideration being that the Government's voter base is invested in high and continually rising property prices. We know what happened to the Tories the last time they presided over a price correction and a spell of negative equity, and so do they.
Comments
When I looked in to this, it seemed that our bill could go up by £100 per month next year; a major change. Such an amount could ruin a lot of households.
So the government has to find a solution to this. In this context, green levies on energy bills is toxic.
You’re right though, the money to fund this needs to come about in a fair and sustainable manner.
'Minced pig rectum at 12 o' clock'
The cross-through? The government giving them and theirs the exact same out-out of due process. cf Patterson, Patel and Johnson not needing to worry about things like the ministerial or parliamentary rules applying to them.
Most of the to-the-home network was changed to natural gas from town gas in the first half of the 1970s, and put in then or reused the previous.
At least it seems like meat, rather than bread.
The Guardian tells me today that Osborne's lauded 2015 "Google tax" is now generating a net income of £0.
Maybe there is some method in Sunak's taxing the peasants. Tax is collectible.
Good to see Jonny Come Latelies suddenly become aware that costs going up is a thing.
Why pick "several decades" to mean at most 23 years, even if the definition of several decades can be just about stretched to mean "somewhere between 21 and a hundred years"?
You had many, more accurate, options available "nearly quarter of a century", "about twenty years", but you went for the one that sounded the longest. You did a bit of a spin job on the numbers on behalf of a paedophile's reputation.
I find that quite curious behaviour.
Eyes on No10 for their read out of this...
https://twitter.com/NatashaC/status/1454758006038700033
Presumably the need for support for soldiers wounded in the wars has diminished sharply over the decades, though one still often hears of ex-servicepeople struggling with mental health issues as they rejoin civilian life. Is the British Legion's need for money in decline, or are there still a lot of really good projects?
An American friend was astonished to hear that we don't have a generally-recognised National United Kingdom Day, like all the other countries she could think of (July 4, Bastille Day, German Unity Day, etc.). There are the Saints' Days for each UK country but I don't think most people really get into celebrations for them, and they aren't public holidays. I can see it as the sort of tokenist thing Johnson would enjoy introducing.
If wages go up and inflation does as a result then that will be an improvement for those working for a living, instead of those who aren't. A welcome reversal of the past couple of decades.
But you know that already. Because that’s the response multiple brexiteers have answered with each time you make this argument
We've got no car, no kids and no mortgage so our household budget has plenty of slack left in it to absorb the pain (the net result will be to reduce how much we can put away in savings each month,) but you can well imagine how inflationary pressure is going to cause those in more straitened financial circumstances to howl - which is basically most adults of working age. The ludicrous cost of housing, both rented and bought, leaves a great many people with little or nothing in the bank and unable to support significant increases in living costs, save by recourse to taking on more debt.
The best we can all hope for is that the inflationary spike is a correction and doesn't last for more than a year. If it goes on for a sustained period then everyone will be in trouble: workers will need large pay hikes, businesses will be unwilling or unable to stump up (leading to an increase in strike action,) and the Government will get the blame for it all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMruFhUuwXY
NZ has an essentially non-subsidy farming sector aiui. In Europe, statist or non-statist bits of party platforms is interesting.
Compare the Swedish-left approach to housing, with their approach to markets, with their approach to the super-rich, with their approach to schools, with similar in other countries, for example.
Wealth distribution in Sweden (Gini:0,867), for example, is less equal than in the Trump's USA (Gini:0.8522), and is far less equal than in Conservative UK (Gini:0,746) or Singapore (Gini:0.757).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_inequality
Personally, I've little problem with songs by such people being played - as long as the bad side of their character is freely acknowledged (in some cases, it would be nice if royalties went to victims or charities).
My issue is with people who pretend some bad behaviour is excusable because they liked other stuff the person did. Who excuse and/or ignore the behaviour.
I think there was a lot after the world wars too, but there was much more community of understanding for those like my Grandfather who fought in Flanders and Mesopotamia. He rarely spoke of it, but nearly every male in Manchester knew what it had been like. Compare that with the disconnect that a modern veteran feels when discharged to a world that neither knows nor cares of what he has seen or done.
There is also the issue that many materials are surprisingly... spongy when viewed at the microscopic level.
There is a enough literature out there on how to store and handle hydrogen - just be very, very nervous of the "we don't need to bother with X" attitude.
And many people there do not consider their prices ludicrous but rather a good thing.
Hydrogen embrittlement of steel is quite interesting.
I might be wrong, but I think Ben Rich's book 'Skunkworks' goes into some work he did in the 1960s on hydrogen for use in the Suntan aircraft, back when they were learning lessons the hard way...
Tories need to be careful of such dismissive ignorance of people's everyday experiences. You can tell people they are better off and win their vote when they feel better off. And lose their vote when you tell them that despite their real experiences they are better off - because clearly that means someone else making dough off their backs.
Old people who own their houses outright tend to think of ever-spiralling prices as an unalloyed good, but they're not much use to anyone else. Those who don't own homes are largely stuck renting and can't afford to buy; people in small homes can't afford to trade up; those saddled with enormous mortgages are just a couple of interest rate hikes or a modest drop in household income away from disaster.
And he really wasn't that young, either.
On the legal side it's not so much her moral character that is being attacked as it being pointed out that she may have been a active consensual participant in the trafficking rather than a victim. I would be quite interested to understand why the US criminal authorities are not using her testimony in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. That suggests some real concerns about her which go beyond the fact that victims of abuse may not remember dates accurately etc.
Either way Andrew's character is not likely to recover. He was very ill advised to do that interview. Indeed most of the interviews which Royals do turn out to be a bad idea. They're best saying as little as possibly frankly or only on very narrowly defined subjects. Anne probably gets this most right of all of them.
Investments can go down as well as up.
That's something that didn't apply before 1916 or so, or has done so since the mid 1960's.
The answer appears to be North Korea which appears to be just a shade under 7500km away from France.
An honourable mention to South Korea which comes into the French orbit at a little over 7100km.
If anyone thinks I've made a mistake (in my calculations... you'd be here all day otherwise) please feel free to let me know.
I can't see inflation being over in just a year, but what worries me most is interest rates following suit and the pressure that puts on mortgage repayments. All the ingredients are in place for things to get out of control.
I think that one of the major effects has been a reduction of productivity, so more workers are needed to get the same output. It isn't that workers have disappeared, but rather that each produces less. Certainly so in the health sector.
The settlement was between her and Epstein. The law explicitly and deliberately permits victims to sue other attackers and so it should.
Innocent until proven guilty, if he's innocent he shouldn't face a judgment but if he's able to be proven guilty then ssaying he shouldn't face justice simply because others have before him isn't justice.
And how that varies between different locations.
Likewise with migrants from Southern Europe.
See Isam's post earlier and the paper it links to. An increase of 10pp of foreign labour is associated with in a reduction of wages of about half a percent overall and cherry picking the most heavily affected sectors, 2.5%. Also, there's no difference between EU and non-EU immigration on this effect. Lastly, the labour that was available before hasn't suddenly all gone away, so I'm not really sure what you are talking about here.
Neither the government, nor their supporters subscribe to the notion that the housing market is a free market.
We will see.
We will see.
*Perhaps just once
If not then we're likely to see a slow but long term movement of the young away from there until housing costs re-balance.
A modest 3 bedroom semi-detached house in North Cardiff that I paid a little over £50k for in 1991 is now pushing towards half a million. On a three times salary mortgage...wow, that's unaffordable to most, other than PB posters. This is why interest rates and mortgage rates following inflation scares the wits out of me.
Factor in the corrosive effects of Nimbyism and property prices aren't merely going to remain buoyant, they'll keep on outpacing inflation comfortably for decades to come. The only way they're easing is if a heavy enough lid is kept on immigration for long enough for the population to go into decline and free up more property that way, and that process is going to take a very long time.
Also, 'me and you are British'.
*shudder*
In the end, it is not percentages on the news that impact, but people's own household economy.
For example, I'm a homeowner. What good does it do me that house prices are high? It makes it more expensive to move somewhere bigger. It makes it harder for my daughters to ever afford a house. It increases the amount of inheritance tax I will have to pay when my parents die.
The only people it really benefits are the owners of multiple houses - who are a pretty small percentage of 'all homeowners' and people looking to downsize - which is possibly even smaller.
This particular homeowner would be all in favour of house prices being considerably lower.
Of course, house prices don't exist in isolation and there would be external impacts to manage. My point is though that I don't see high house prices as anything which benefits me as a homeowner.
A civil case isn’t “justice” - that’s a criminal case. A civil case is “you’ve wronged me, I want restitution”. If she already has received restitution then you don’t get to double dip.
To be clear, I have no idea what I’d in the settlement, so just challenging your assertion from a theoretical perspective.
I also think it is quite useful to remember that Britain's wars have often been fought by people who were not born on these shores. I rather welcome learning about the contribution of Indian or African soldiers etc. It gives a different and more accurate perspective on the whole "Britain alone" myth which is too often misused politically. And I found it quite moving when a few years ago for the first time the Irish Ambassador was invited to lay a wreath for the very many Irishmen who fought. They were often forgotten - by the British - and sneered at - by the Irish state. My father was one of those men. You are confusing criminal trials and civil compensation. It is the latter which is relevant here. It depends on what the compensation agreement said. If it specifically and clearly covered all her abuse by all her abusers then it is not on for her to seek a second bite at the cherry. Whether the compensation agreement does say that is quite another matter.
So assuming a £25k median wage that moved the mortgage on a house from £75k to £250k. Deposits moved from 10% - 7.5k or 30% of a single salary - to 5% ie 12.5k or 25% of a double salary.
Low interest rates then allowed people to push the envelope in terms of adding another turn of salary on top
In which case North Korea would be quite close
That's certainly more than double the average house price in Cardiff:
https://www.plumplot.co.uk/Cardiff-house-prices.html
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/bulletins/housepricestatisticsforsmallareas/yearendingdecember2020
With new world economic theory I may be completely wrong here, but my old economics text books told me. Increase in money supply leads to inflation which leads to interest/ mortgage rate rises which then (albeit temporarily) adjust the housing market.
Middle-aged mortgage payers will also, in a great many cases, be thinking of inheritances and also stand to be torpedoed below the water line by substantial hikes in interest rates and/or by a price crash resulting in negative equity.
Widespread negative equity would also imperil the banking system.
I am in the stuck in a flat, can't afford a house predicament, but I don't expect to be rescued from this. There are simply far too many vital interests invested in a buoyant property market. The maintenance of high property prices is too systemically important to finance and too personally important to the key voter demographics.
The Government doesn't care if the young keep getting constantly screwed over and it arguably can't afford to care either.
Polls closed 11am GMT
LDP set to lose seats but will continue to govern, may need Komeito for majority
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/live/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7vg_tcmcA8
https://www.nhk.or.jp/senkyo/database/shugiin/2021/
https://www.asahi.com/senkyo/shuinsen/
https://www.tbs.co.jp/senkyo2021/index.html
Thanks,
DC
Do proportionate measures taken in response to a breach of the UK-EU FTA require Article 16 to be triggered?
Absent rising interest rates and the associated credit crunch and extreme pressure on the finances of distressed households, there is no reason to suppose that constrained supply and sellers' needs and expectations of a healthy profit won't remain the primary drivers of the housing market, with consequent ongoing rises in prices.
My son’s old primary school saved on poppyist organisation by keeping up its poppy mural year round.
It can be full and final from Epstein, that is OK. Andrew is not Epstein though is he?
Restitution from Andrew is a different matter from restitution from Epstein.
If this was a Bradford gang instead of a prince of the realm would you be of the same opinion?
Now that could lead to the creation of a different economy (although in practice I suspect the political turmoil would see a totalitarian government come to power minded to seize all assets for themselves) but to put it mildly it would be a very bumpy transition.
Anyway, that's almost a secondary consideration in all of this, the primary consideration being that the Government's voter base is invested in high and continually rising property prices. We know what happened to the Tories the last time they presided over a price correction and a spell of negative equity, and so do they.