Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Do_I_Not_Like_That, about all those rising economies. What you do think would be better for them, to make one trade deal with the EU or the UK (from a volume of transaction point of view)? What will be their priorities once they have money to spend?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Oh so warmongering is OK as long as its other people dying and not us? Might as well make a profit out of it, eh?
Witzkatz is correct, it's disapproval of the situation. I didn't want to add an emoticon, that might have looked even more like what you interpreted it, as if it's actually a smart thing to do. Germany may not be directly involved in many wars these days but our arms manufacturers are making a lot of money from all kinds of governments and groups. Those weapon then create havoc and refugees but then in turn people worry about us never being able to pay for the refugees' needs that end up here from the same warzones we indirectly helped create.
It's the same with globalisation, everybody's happy to buy cheap stuff made somewhere else (and that pollutes their lands) but when poor people safe up some money and want to emigrate to the nice places (like the USA or Europe) suddenly the effects of globalisation become really worrying. We, the developed world, like to (ab)use globalisation but act differently when others would like to do the same.
Herzlos wrote: There does appear to be growing demand for a second referendum now that more information is being presented and the realities and lies have been exposed. I watched a few clips from channel 4 about Leave voters reactions to the 50bn, and a good third said they'd change their vote now if they could.
I think this is somewhat optimistic, as the source below shows. But it's also irrelevant. The referendum that got us into this situation had nothing to do with public demand for one, but instead internal Tory politics. If there is a second referendum it will happen for much the same reasons.
YouGov wrote:Remainers beware: people who think Britain was wrong to vote to leave the EU do not necessarily think the referendum result should be reverse
In a recent YouGov poll for The Times, there appeared to be good news for those who want Britain to remain in the European Union and bad news for those who favour Brexit.
After 16 months of tracking Bregret (or rather, thus far, the relative lack of it), a record high of 47% said they thought Britain was wrong to vote leave the EU, coupled with a record low of 42% saying we were right to do so.
Each individual poll has a margin of error so it is important not to take one set of results out of context. In our most recent poll the numbers have reverted back slightly, with just a 3% gap between right and wrong to leave. However, when you look at the last few months together the trend does seem to be towards slightly more people thinking Britain was wrong to vote to leave the EU.
The average of YouGov’s five most recent polls shows 43% saying we were right to vote to leave and 45% saying we were wrong. By contrast, on average the first five polls of this year saw 46% saying we were right to leave and 42% wrong.
But before anyone gets carried away with the possible implications of this shift, it is important to note that thinking Britain was wrong to vote to leave is not the same as thinking the referendum result should be reversed.
Some Remain voters don’t like the destination, but have strapped in for the ride
In a recent poll we asked Britons which of four different routes they would prefer the Brexit process take. Four in ten (40%) wanted to continue with Brexit on current negotiating terms, whilst 12% wanted Britain to seek a “softer” Brexit – meaning a “go ahead” majority of 52%.
Just 18% wanted a second referendum and a further 14% wanted Brexit abandoned completely, a total of 32% for an “attempt to reverse” Brexit. The remaining 16% said they didn’t know.
The main reason there are so many more people wanting Brexit to proceed rather than halted is because some Remain voters, though still thinking that leaving is the wrong decision, believe that the result of the referendum should be respected. (Previous YouGov research on this group labelled them “Re-leavers”). For example, whilst eight in ten (79%) Leave voters pick one of the “go ahead” options, so do 28% of Remain voters.
This might be changing, though.
Over the past few months, Remain voters’ views have started swinging back towards wanting Britain to stay in the EU. While in June a majority of Remain voters (51%) supported a “go ahead” option, by the end of September this had fallen to 28%. Over the same period the proportion of Remain voters backing an “attempt to reverse” approach rose from 44% to 61%.
As we get further and further away from the referendum itself more people might start to think it is legitimate to try to stop Brexit, and eventually there could be a majority that want to stop Brexit.
But for the moment the public still believe that Brexit means Brexit.
Interesting, however, that was from the end of last month. The channel 4 video concerned reaction to the Brexit bill of £50bn. I wonder how the Yougov statistics would fare now.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Net migration falls by more than 100,000 after Brexit vote
So for once, the May government is starting to deliver on a promise.
Problem seems to be that now non-EU migrants outnumber EU migrants by 2-to-1. Actually cut EU migration down to zero and you're still left with 173.000 immigrants.
"tens of thousands" was never going to be possible.
The more concerning thing is why immigration is down so much, and how we can control it. Is it down because of the drop in GBP? Because we're being viewed as xenophobes? Because the sectors migrants work in are being shafted?
Net migration falls by more than 100,000 after Brexit vote
So for once, the May government is starting to deliver on a promise.
Problem seems to be that now non-EU migrants outnumber EU migrants by 2-to-1. Actually cut EU migration down to zero and you're still left with 173.000 immigrants.
How's that "tens of thousands"?
Cameron pulled the figure of 100,000 out of his arse. He could have cut net migration nearly to 100,000 by simply banning all visas for non-EU people, who have always outnumbered EU immigrants. He didn't do it because it's not possible for various good reasons, though it's certainly legally possible due to sovereignty, especially if you ignore some human rights.
The Maybot has followed the same logic.
EU migration is down partly because the GBP has depreciated against the Polish Zloty by 25% in the past 18 months, making it not worthwhile for Poles to work in the UK. This is not the only reason, of course.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Paying farmers more drives inflation, as the wage increase has to come from somewhere. That leads to increased food prices, which means everyone else wants higher wage increases to cope with rising food prices and so on creating an evil circle.
The average UK home spends 11% of its income on food which puts an obvious limit on how much inflation in food prices can fuel overall inflation.
Here is UK food inflation for the last 10 years. Both sets of figures come from the Office of National Statistics.
Spoiler:
Finally, your model is too simplistic. Considered narrowly, paying farmers more only drives inflation if their increased wages outstrips productivity growth. Considered broadly, it only drives overall inflation if it overcomes other sources of deflation.
Fuel prices drive most of the food inflation. We are happy to keep OPEC countries lifting the high life, but not pay our farmers a reasonable wage as we demand chickens at 2 for £5. We can easily afford to pay a small extra amount on food, but we chose it to by giving all the power to the supermarkets, who work to ensure that farmers and farm workers work right on the limit. This can be done very reasonably, without driving up the household food budget, but it means a lot of people eating a little less meat. It could also be done by reducing housing costs. Unfortunately mother of these hints are going to happen soon.
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
Herzlos wrote: "tens of thousands" was never going to be possible.
The more concerning thing is why immigration is down so much, and how we can control it. Is it down because of the drop in GBP? Because we're being viewed as xenophobes? Because the sectors migrants work in are being shafted?
A former Scotland Yard detective has told BBC News he was "shocked" by the amount of pornography viewed on a computer seized from the Commons office of senior Tory MP Damian Green.
Neil Lewis examined the device during a 2008 inquiry into government leaks and has not spoken publicly before.
He said "thousands" of thumbnail images of legal pornography were on it.
Mr Green, Theresa May's deputy, has said he never watched or downloaded pornography on the computer.
Fellow Tory MP Andrew Mitchell defended Mr Green on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, saying: "It is the misuse of entirely legal information to blacken the name of a serving cabinet minister."
But Mr Lewis said a check of the computer's internet history over a three-month period showed pornography had been viewed "extensively".
n Tuesday, Scotland Yard confirmed its department for professional standards was examining allegations that Mr Lewis had disclosed confidential information.
A statement from the Metropolitan Police said: "Confidential information gathered during a police inquiry should not be made public."
'No doubt'
On some days, websites containing pornography were being searched for and opened for several hours.
Mr Lewis, who retired from the Metropolitan Police in 2014, said although "you can't put fingers on a keyboard", a number of factors meant that he was sure it was Mr Green, the MP for Ashford, Kent, who was accessing the pornographic material.
His analysis of the way the computer had been used left the former detective constable in "no doubt whatsoever" that it was Mr Green, who was then an opposition immigration spokesman but is now the first secretary of state.
"The computer was in Mr Green's office, on his desk, logged in, his account, his name," said Mr Lewis, who at the time was working as a computer forensics examiner for SO15, the counter-terrorism command.
"In between browsing pornography, he was sending emails from his account, his personal account, reading documents... it was ridiculous to suggest anybody else could have done it."
Similar material had also been accessed on Mr Green's laptop, he claimed.
A Cabinet Office inquiry, set up last month to investigate allegations that the 61-year-old had made inappropriate advances to a political activist, Kate Maltby, is also examining the pornography claims.
The inquiry is believed to centre on the ministerial code, which sets out the standards of conduct expected of government ministers.
The code says they are expected to demonstrate "the highest standards of propriety" and contains reference to the Nolan Principles that holders of public office should be "truthful".
A spokesperson for Mr Green said: "It would be inappropriate for Mr Green to comment on these allegations while the Cabinet Office investigation is ongoing, however, from the outset he has been very clear that he never watched or downloaded pornography on the computers seized from his office.
"He maintains his innocence of these charges and awaits the outcome of the investigation."
Labour MP Hilary Benn told Today that the evidence from Mr Lewis should be considered.
Despite being told about Mr Lewis's role examining Mr Green's computers, the Cabinet Office inquiry has not contacted him to give evidence.
The Cabinet Office declined to give an explanation for that, but it's thought its inquiry may have approached the Metropolitan Police directly for details about the computers.
The force has confirmed it is co-operating with the inquiry.
During his time on SO15, Mr Lewis worked on some of Britain's most high-profile terrorism inquiries, including the 21/7 attack on London's transport network in 2005 - when he took a lead role examining digital devices.
He also worked on Operation Miser, an investigation into Home Office leaks that began in October 2008 and resulted in Mr Green's Commons office being searched by police.
Mr Lewis's job on the investigation was to search for material relating to documents that had been disclosed without authorisation from the Home Office, on computers used by Mr Green.
'Not morally correct'
In accordance with standard police practice, Mr Lewis carried out the examination on digital copies he had made of the computers' hard drives.
When he ran a "gallery view" of images viewed on the desktop computer in Mr Green's Portcullis House office he noticed "a lot of pornography thumbnails which indicated web browsing", that he later confirmed by an examination of the computer's internet history.
The pornography was not "extreme", as some reports have suggested, and did not contain images of children or abuse, said Mr Lewis, who previously served in the Met's obscene publications unit and carried out investigations into paedophiles.
The matter was not referred to the Crown Prosecution Service for a charging decision.
The former detective, who spent 25 years with the Met, said after the leaks inquiry ended he was ordered by the force to delete the data on the computer copies he had made.
"Morally and ethically I didn't think that was a correct way to continue," he said.
The officer erased the data, as instructed, but kept the copies knowing experts could retrieve the information if they had to. However, he now believes the items may have been destroyed.
When he left the force after being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, Mr Lewis said the only police notebook he took with him was the one he had used during Operation Miser.
The notebook, seen by the BBC, contains a reference to pornography.
"This one case, Operation Miser, I have never been comfortable with," he said, claiming the Parliamentary authorities should have been informed about the "extensive" time Mr Green allegedly spent looking at pornographic material.
"If a police officer does that, or anyone else, you'd be dismissed, you'd be thrown out."
The MPs' code of conduct states members should always behave with "probity and integrity, including in their use of public resources".
The pornography allegations were first alluded to by Bob Quick, a former Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner, in written evidence to a Parliamentary committee in 2009.
He said the discovery of "private material" on Mr Green's office computer had "complicated" the inquiry into Home Office leaks.
In 2011, Mr Quick expanded on the matter in a draft statement for the Leveson Inquiry into press ethics, but it was removed from the final version, only to resurface last month in a Sunday Times article.
Mr Green responded to Mr Quick's assertions by accusing him of spreading "disreputable political smears", an attack that so infuriated Mr Lewis that he approached the former counter-terrorism chief to offer his support. He even thought about contacting the cabinet minister directly.
"His outright denial of that was quite amazing, followed by his criticism of Bob Quick," said Mr Lewis.
"I think he [Mr Green] should have resigned a long time ago."
Sir Paul Stephenson, Met Commissioner during the leaks investigation, told the BBC he had been briefed about the pornography in 2008 but considered it to be a "side issue".
The Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has said it has no record of a referral being made.
What he does in his spare time is entirely his business.
I don't really care what he may have been spanking over --- subject to usual legality and so forth.
But as this is his HoC/work computer ....
I don't really think he has a leg to stand on does eh ?
... that said..
The pornography was not "extreme", as some reports have suggested, and did not contain images of children or abuse, said Mr Lewis, who previously served in the Met's obscene publications unit and carried out investigations into paedophiles.
The matter was not referred to the Crown Prosecution Service for a charging decision.
The former detective, who spent 25 years with the Met, said after the leaks inquiry ended he was[b] ordered by the force to delete the data on the computer copies he had made.[/b] "Morally and ethically I didn't think that was a correct way to continue," he said.
The officer erased the data, as instructed, but kept the copies knowing experts could retrieve the information if they had to. However, he now believes the items may have been destroyed.
..excuse me ?
so in fact the Police aren't deleting things when ordered to and hang onto info for the future "just in case" ..?
meanwhile
Spoiler:
... guessing they don't have any UK staff working there eh ?
NEW: Sky News understands that the Government will ask to remain part of the EU’s aviation safety scheme to prevent planes from being grounded after Brexit.
A senior source told Sky News the UK's proposal will be modelled as an "offer" to the EU, given the Government calculates 40% of the technical expertise behind EASA is from the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).
Finally, some actual leverage.
The Government is exploring Article 66 of EASA regulations, which establishes a clear legal route for third-party country participation.
In a future scenario where the UK is an associate member, a domestic dispute over the application of safety regulation would be under the jurisdiction of UK courts.
However, under Article 50 of the same EASA rules, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is the ultimate arbiter of EASA rulings.
Norway and Switzerland have joint committees to allow that jurisdiction to operate indirectly, but it still exists.
Some Brexiteer MPs may feel that such jurisdiction oversteps or blurs the Prime Minister's much-heralded "red line" of no ECJ jurisdiction after Brexit.
But Government sources pointed out it is now "direct jurisdiction" that is ruled out once the UK leaves the EU.
This could well emerge as a model for other areas, where Theresa May's stance on the ECJ has proven difficult for industries run on a pan-European basis, which see no value in diverging from EU regulations.
It is also a possible compromise for the thorny issue of the oversight of EU citizens' rights.
Taken to an extreme, this is the basis for the "Norway model" of staying in the European Economic Area, for which the ECJ has quasi-direct jurisdiction.
Captain Mike Vivian, former head of flight operations and chief flight operations inspector at the CAA, told Sky News: "If you have an alternative system of jurisdiction... if you do that in aviation, you could of course open up different safety standards.
"That would be impossible to accede to, so you have to accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ, which oversees the European agency, EASA, to avoid that happening.
"I can't see there's any way out of that. It's a red line, it seems to me, the Government is going to have to cross."
The US Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) believes the UK needs to settle the issue of post-Brexit aviation regulation within weeks.
Catherine Lang, the FAA's Europe Director, recently said: "It's very important that we point out that the US-EU safety agreement... when the UK exits the EU, their status in that agreement will be extinguished.
"This is wildly important to mitigate and urgently needed to be mitigated because half of the repair stations in Europe are in the UK."
Some of the big aviation players such as British Airways and Heathrow Airport have been relatively relaxed about the impact of Brexit and the chance of no deal resulting from the UK's exit negotiations.
The mutual interest for the European tourist industry and airlines is seen as guaranteeing the avoidance of a "no deal" Brexit, although they have said the UK's EASA status needs to be settled imminently.
However, smaller providers say they are seeing a divergence of business from smaller airports and less popular routes.
Robert Sinclair, the new chief executive of London City Airport, told a Sky News' Brexit Forensics special report on aviation he is "quite worried about the prospect of no deal".
"I think for critical industries like aviation, which is an enabler of other industries and trade and tourism, the consequences of 'no deal' are very, very significant," he said.
"Single market consistency has driven air fares down, which has made flying the preserve of everyone, not just the few.
"And it's made it a lot more prolific and allowed people right across Britain to experience Europe.
"Unfortunately, if we lose that, the risk is that flying becomes more the preserve of the few, like it was 30 or 40 years ago."
seems a no-brainer of a deal... but you know some one will kick off about the euro court....
CAA was so unenthused by idea of EASA exit it told govt it would simply refuse to draw up a Plan B. High-stakes insubordination.
CAA’s Andrew Haines: “we are very uncompromising in our view that we should not be planning for a new independent aviation safety system in the UK. Indeed, we have consciously decided not to do that work as it would be misleading to suggest that’s a viable option.”
*bold play image or gif*
..hmm ..
we finally see the " don't make me jump" defence in use.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/01 13:25:39
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Considering Heathrow is SO IMPORTANT a hub for BUSINESS and the ECONOMY that we have to have a THIRD RUNWAY, one might have thought it would be useful to stay in the airspace safety system that helps deliver thousands of flights a day in and out.
Well, speaking as a Leave voter, I have no problem with following a third party, Norway style system, on matters such as aviation, cleaning up Chernobyl etc etc
I've never had a problem with a loose trading organisation with some cooperation on the environment, security, defence etc etc
Radioactive clouds floating around tend to ignore national boundaries. Any military attack on Europe, say Russia for example, is a direct threat to the UK, simply out of geographic proximity.
So, out of naked self-interest, some cooperation with Europe is acceptable to me.
Herzlos wrote: "tens of thousands" was never going to be possible.
The more concerning thing is why immigration is down so much, and how we can control it. Is it down because of the drop in GBP? Because we're being viewed as xenophobes? Because the sectors migrants work in are being shafted?
Herzlos wrote: There does appear to be growing demand for a second referendum now that more information is being presented and the realities and lies have been exposed. I watched a few clips from channel 4 about Leave voters reactions to the 50bn, and a good third said they'd change their vote now if they could.
I think this is somewhat optimistic, as the source below shows. But it's also irrelevant. The referendum that got us into this situation had nothing to do with public demand for one, but instead internal Tory politics. If there is a second referendum it will happen for much the same reasons.
YouGov wrote:Remainers beware: people who think Britain was wrong to vote to leave the EU do not necessarily think the referendum result should be reverse
In a recent YouGov poll for The Times, there appeared to be good news for those who want Britain to remain in the European Union and bad news for those who favour Brexit.
After 16 months of tracking Bregret (or rather, thus far, the relative lack of it), a record high of 47% said they thought Britain was wrong to vote leave the EU, coupled with a record low of 42% saying we were right to do so.
Each individual poll has a margin of error so it is important not to take one set of results out of context. In our most recent poll the numbers have reverted back slightly, with just a 3% gap between right and wrong to leave. However, when you look at the last few months together the trend does seem to be towards slightly more people thinking Britain was wrong to vote to leave the EU.
The average of YouGov’s five most recent polls shows 43% saying we were right to vote to leave and 45% saying we were wrong. By contrast, on average the first five polls of this year saw 46% saying we were right to leave and 42% wrong.
But before anyone gets carried away with the possible implications of this shift, it is important to note that thinking Britain was wrong to vote to leave is not the same as thinking the referendum result should be reversed.
Some Remain voters don’t like the destination, but have strapped in for the ride
In a recent poll we asked Britons which of four different routes they would prefer the Brexit process take. Four in ten (40%) wanted to continue with Brexit on current negotiating terms, whilst 12% wanted Britain to seek a “softer” Brexit – meaning a “go ahead” majority of 52%.
Just 18% wanted a second referendum and a further 14% wanted Brexit abandoned completely, a total of 32% for an “attempt to reverse” Brexit. The remaining 16% said they didn’t know.
The main reason there are so many more people wanting Brexit to proceed rather than halted is because some Remain voters, though still thinking that leaving is the wrong decision, believe that the result of the referendum should be respected. (Previous YouGov research on this group labelled them “Re-leavers”). For example, whilst eight in ten (79%) Leave voters pick one of the “go ahead” options, so do 28% of Remain voters.
This might be changing, though.
Over the past few months, Remain voters’ views have started swinging back towards wanting Britain to stay in the EU. While in June a majority of Remain voters (51%) supported a “go ahead” option, by the end of September this had fallen to 28%. Over the same period the proportion of Remain voters backing an “attempt to reverse” approach rose from 44% to 61%.
As we get further and further away from the referendum itself more people might start to think it is legitimate to try to stop Brexit, and eventually there could be a majority that want to stop Brexit.
But for the moment the public still believe that Brexit means Brexit.
Interesting, however, that was from the end of last month. The channel 4 video concerned reaction to the Brexit bill of £50bn. I wonder how the Yougov statistics would fare now.
By rights I should be angry with that Brexit bill, but on reflection, in the grand scheme of things, and stretched over a number of years, it's loose change.
If Her Majesty's government has need of me, I'll happily drive over to Belgium and dump the suitcases full of cash at Juncker's office, myself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mario wrote: Do_I_Not_Like_That, about all those rising economies. What you do think would be better for them, to make one trade deal with the EU or the UK (from a volume of transaction point of view)? What will be their priorities once they have money to spend?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Oh so warmongering is OK as long as its other people dying and not us? Might as well make a profit out of it, eh?
Witzkatz is correct, it's disapproval of the situation. I didn't want to add an emoticon, that might have looked even more like what you interpreted it, as if it's actually a smart thing to do. Germany may not be directly involved in many wars these days but our arms manufacturers are making a lot of money from all kinds of governments and groups. Those weapon then create havoc and refugees but then in turn people worry about us never being able to pay for the refugees' needs that end up here from the same warzones we indirectly helped create.
It's the same with globalisation, everybody's happy to buy cheap stuff made somewhere else (and that pollutes their lands) but when poor people safe up some money and want to emigrate to the nice places (like the USA or Europe) suddenly the effects of globalisation become really worrying. We, the developed world, like to (ab)use globalisation but act differently when others would like to do the same.
On reflection, what with global warming and melting ice caps, there may not be anybody left to strike trade deals with
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/12/01 13:54:13
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Herzlos wrote: "tens of thousands" was never going to be possible.
The more concerning thing is why immigration is down so much, and how we can control it. Is it down because of the drop in GBP? Because we're being viewed as xenophobes? Because the sectors migrants work in are being shafted?
Kilkrazy wrote:The current record high employment rate argues that the UK economy is running out of labour force and needs more people not fewer.
Solution seems to involve running the economy to the ground so that foreigners aren't needed any more.
A cunning plan worthy of Blackadder.
Robots and automation, as smarter people than me have pointed out, may make the need for migrants redundant. Naturally, only time will tell.
According to smarter people than me we'd all be driving flying cars to Mars. Or alternatively we'd all be dead save for small bands of mutants scavenging for lost-era artifacts.
Brexit spills over from the negotiating room to the football pitch with England Vs. Belgium
and we also have the Battle of the Tax Havens: England and Overseas Territories Vs. Panama
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Paying farmers more drives inflation, as the wage increase has to come from somewhere. That leads to increased food prices, which means everyone else wants higher wage increases to cope with rising food prices and so on creating an evil circle.
The average UK home spends 11% of its income on food which puts an obvious limit on how much inflation in food prices can fuel overall inflation.
Here is UK food inflation for the last 10 years. Both sets of figures come from the Office of National Statistics.
Finally, your model is too simplistic. Considered narrowly, paying farmers more only drives inflation if their increased wages outstrips productivity growth. Considered broadly, it only drives overall inflation if it overcomes other sources of deflation.
The problem here is that you are just using averages which is a very poor way of thinking of numbers when there is a large number of them. A small number of people that spend a tiny proportion of their wages on food can skew the figures massively. The conversation is more about the impacts on the lower earners that will be spending 50% or more on food. These are the same people that will be taking on the lowest paid jobs. The millionaire won't really notice a food price increase. The person on the lowest income definitely will. They won't gain any benefit from a hike in wages simply as they will see that taken back off them in food increases. The average might be 11% but it makes no distinction on people's actual income. That's part of the problem with inflation figures - it includes things that only the wealthiest might use consistently (e.g. flight prices). If you have an inflation level based solely on 'essentials' proportional to the how often they are purchased food price increases would have a much greater impact. Inflation is massaged down at the moment but the real impacts on the lowest paid are much greater.
-----
Anyway came to a shocking Wrexit revelation with my niece today. After Wrexit there will be no Christmas because of issues with Santa.
After Wrexit, Santa is a migrant from the EEA area. Santa doesn't earn any income and hence won't be allowed through customs. He is most maligned by the a proportion of the population that see someone that is lazy and spends 99.7% of the year doing nothing other than eating Mince Pies that he has taken from hard working British people. So you heard it here first, Christmas cancelled from 2019 because of Wrexit. My niece seemed very disappointed....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Brexit spills over from the negotiating room to the football pitch with England Vs. Belgium
and we also have the Battle of the Tax Havens: England and Overseas Territories Vs. Panama
So I fully expect the England team to turn up at the game then, tell everyone they are going to a have a deep and meaningful game, play like complete idiots and then capitulating completely at the end. Sounds about right.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/01 19:06:45
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Whirlwind wrote: The problem here is that you are just using averages which is a very poor way of thinking of numbers when there is a large number of them. A small number of people that spend a tiny proportion of their wages on food can skew the figures massively. The conversation is more about the impacts on the lower earners that will be spending 50% or more on food. These are the same people that will be taking on the lowest paid jobs. The millionaire won't really notice a food price increase. The person on the lowest income definitely will. They won't gain any benefit from a hike in wages simply as they will see that taken back off them in food increases. The average might be 11% but it makes no distinction on people's actual income. That's part of the problem with inflation figures - it includes things that only the wealthiest might use consistently (e.g. flight prices). If you have an inflation level based solely on 'essentials' proportional to the how often they are purchased food price increases would have a much greater impact. Inflation is massaged down at the moment but the real impacts on the lowest paid are much greater.
While what you say is partially true, it wasn't relevant to the post I was replying to. I was objecting to the idea that increasing farm incomes would somehow cause an inflationary death spiral.
However, the ONS do publish information broken down by income deciles. The lowest 10% of households by income spend ~17% of their income on food, while the richest 10% spend ~8%. Food price inflation is thus roughly twice as bad for the poor as the rich.
More as an aside than anything else, having an average income of £1M a year is very roughly where you enter the top 0.1% of households in the UK.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/01 19:22:53
Kilkrazy wrote: It's worth remembering that the rich buy much better quality of food than the poor. Wagyu steak instead of Goblin beefburgers, and so on.
Or horse, as it once turned out.
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
While what you say is partially true, it wasn't relevant to the post I was replying to. I was objecting to the idea that increasing farm incomes would somehow cause an inflationary death spiral.
Well that's fair enough, but the whole conversation started on the basis that with immigration farmers would raise wages and the poorest would be better off. The argument is that food prices will go up because of increased wages and the poorest will see little or no benefit (as whatever wage rise they get will be pushed onto prices etc).
However, the ONS do publish information broken down by income deciles. The lowest 10% of households by income spend ~17% of their income on food, while the richest 10% spend ~8%. Food price inflation is thus roughly twice as bad for the poor as the rich.
Of course the thing that this doesn't show is that those on the lowest income can least afford larger increases because there is little if any head room in their pay packet. For a 'millionaire' (noting it really was an extreme example to avoid arguments of what is rich/poor) the outcome is a little less spent on luxuries/investment and so on, which in reality has a negligible quality of life impact anyway.
Also as pointed out the types of food is also important. If you are having to buy more foods with 'sawdust' in them (as in negligible nutritional value) then that is a type of inflation but a hidden one.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's worth remembering that the rich buy much better quality of food than the poor. Wagyu steak instead of Goblin beefburgers, and so on.
Or horse, as it once turned out.
It was a bit more than once....Don't worry reduced food quality standards after Wrexit will probably mean rat burgers which will be cheaper than chips...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/01 20:22:34
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
We all obviously disagree on a lot of things, but I think we can all agree that two of the greatest tragedies of modern British politics is the politicisation of the police force, and the politicisation of the Civil Service, to the detriment of the nation.
The Tories and Labour are as bad as each other in this regard
Automatically Appended Next Post:
So I fully expect the England team to turn up at the game then, tell everyone they are going to a have a deep and meaningful game, play like complete idiots and then capitulating completely at the end. Sounds about right.
@ whirlwind
Most England fans will tell you that they were doing that long before Brexit
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/02 13:46:37
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
We all obviously disagree on a lot of things, but I think we can all agree that two of the greatest tragedies of modern British politics is the politicisation of the police force, and the politicisation of the Civil Service, to the detriment of the nation.
The Tories and Labour are as bad as each other in this regard
Automatically Appended Next Post:
So I fully expect the England team to turn up at the game then, tell everyone they are going to a have a deep and meaningful game, play like complete idiots and then capitulating completely at the end. Sounds about right.
@ whirlwind
Most England fans will tell you that they were doing that long before Brexit
The Green issue is absolutely deplorable and deeply concerning.
Someone is lying.
An ex-police officer leaking information from an unrelated case is troubling and should worry every right thinking person in the UK. 'Public interest' is a convenient cover now the information is out in the public domain.
We all obviously disagree on a lot of things, but I think we can all agree that two of the greatest tragedies of modern British politics is the politicisation of the police force, and the politicisation of the Civil Service, to the detriment of the nation.
The Tories and Labour are as bad as each other in this regard
For all our other disagreements I am absolutely with you on this; I was horrified to find party political candidates when they introduced the Police and Crime Commissioners. I voted for the independent candidate the first time round purely on principle, the second time round there was no independent
Whilst I’m behind civilian oversight of authorities and accountability and prioritisation being done at a local level, party politics has no place in law enforcement.
Zed wrote: *All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
We all obviously disagree on a lot of things, but I think we can all agree that two of the greatest tragedies of modern British politics is the politicisation of the police force, and the politicisation of the Civil Service, to the detriment of the nation.
The Tories and Labour are as bad as each other in this regard
For all our other disagreements I am absolutely with you on this; I was horrified to find party political candidates when they introduced the Police and Crime Commissioners. I voted for the independent candidate the first time round purely on principle, the second time round there was no independent
Whilst I’m behind civilian oversight of authorities and accountability and prioritisation being done at a local level, party politics has no place in law enforcement.
If the police feel bold enough to take on MPs and government ministers with impunity, then God only knows what they're doing to ordinary members of the public...
The Tories have long been the party of law and order, but I've got this feeling that they're in the mood for slapping the police down over this.
We all obviously disagree on a lot of things, but I think we can all agree that two of the greatest tragedies of modern British politics is the politicisation of the police force, and the politicisation of the Civil Service, to the detriment of the nation.
The Tories and Labour are as bad as each other in this regard
Automatically Appended Next Post:
So I fully expect the England team to turn up at the game then, tell everyone they are going to a have a deep and meaningful game, play like complete idiots and then capitulating completely at the end. Sounds about right.
@ whirlwind
Most England fans will tell you that they were doing that long before Brexit
The Green issue is absolutely deplorable and deeply concerning.
Someone is lying.
An ex-police officer leaking information from an unrelated case is troubling and should worry every right thinking person in the UK. 'Public interest' is a convenient cover now the information is out in the public domain.
The rot started with Tony Blair IMO, and has steadily gotten worse. MPs are obviously not above the law, nor should they ever be, but neither are the police, and in my experience, they tend to forget that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/02 20:58:56
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
The Tories whilst being the party of law and order have also been the party of slashing police budgets and numbers.
If MP's are doing something wrong, then I'm all for the police (or any other body) having an appropriate pop at them. Leaking details of an investigation is less acceptable, especially since he did nothing illegal.
Should we be outraged at the amount of time MP's are spending looking at porn whilst they are meant to be working? Absolutely.
We all obviously disagree on a lot of things, but I think we can all agree that two of the greatest tragedies of modern British politics is the politicisation of the police force, and the politicisation of the Civil Service, to the detriment of the nation.
The Tories and Labour are as bad as each other in this regard
For all our other disagreements I am absolutely with you on this; I was horrified to find party political candidates when they introduced the Police and Crime Commissioners. I voted for the independent candidate the first time round purely on principle, the second time round there was no independent
Whilst I’m behind civilian oversight of authorities and accountability and prioritisation being done at a local level, party politics has no place in law enforcement.
If the police feel bold enough to take on MPs and government ministers with impunity, then God only knows what they're doing to ordinary members of the public...
The Tories have long been the party of law and order, but I've got this feeling that they're in the mood for slapping the police down over this.
We all obviously disagree on a lot of things, but I think we can all agree that two of the greatest tragedies of modern British politics is the politicisation of the police force, and the politicisation of the Civil Service, to the detriment of the nation.
The Tories and Labour are as bad as each other in this regard
Automatically Appended Next Post:
So I fully expect the England team to turn up at the game then, tell everyone they are going to a have a deep and meaningful game, play like complete idiots and then capitulating completely at the end. Sounds about right.
@ whirlwind
Most England fans will tell you that they were doing that long before Brexit
The Green issue is absolutely deplorable and deeply concerning.
Someone is lying.
An ex-police officer leaking information from an unrelated case is troubling and should worry every right thinking person in the UK. 'Public interest' is a convenient cover now the information is out in the public domain.
The rot started with Tony Blair IMO, and has steadily gotten worse. MPs are obviously not above the law, nor should they ever be, but neither are the police, and in my experience, they tend to forget that.
It’s not the police. It is a small number of ex officers who have been roundly condemned, both by MPs, colleagues and professional standards. This is not somedeep corruption in the police, despite what some Tory’s would have you believe.
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
