Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[leicsmac]

31 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Where does it say that? 

It doesn't explicitly, but then it doesn't have to - like I said, the implication is clear; "probably because not everyone makes bad life choices" and "why should I help" in a post wrt folks struggling to get by = their life choices are what led them there solely and no other factors are involved.

 

Of course, if I'm mistaken due to lack of clarity, I'd welcome some elaboration.

[Innovindil]

Just now, leicsmac said:

It doesn't explicitly, but then it doesn't have to - like I said, the implication is clear; "probably because not everyone makes bad life choices" and "why should I help" in a post wrt folks struggling to get by = their life choices are what led them there solely and no other factors are involved.

 

Of course, if I'm mistaken due to lack of clarity, I'd welcome some elaboration.

I have not, and don't believe, that no other factors are in play. 

 

But when 5 out of 6 people using food banks are unemployed, I dare say it's hard to blame the tories for it or not see at the very least some correlation between a life choice and where they are. Unemployed people are the exact type of people who should be using food banks. 

 

Admittedly not all of those unemployed are unemployed through their own choices, but that doesn't automatically make it the fault of the tories either. 

 

Exceptions happen, it doesn't mean a lot of the people now struggling didn't put themselves into that position. 

 

And before you say "but muh benefits" my brother is a single parent, I've mentioned it before I'm sure, he lives in a house in Syston, which I'd have to MAX out my mortgage availability to afford, doesn't work, has no other income beyond what is given to him in benefits. He has the IQ of a potato, and he's getting by fine. I fail to understand how others (beyond the exceptions, disabled, unhealthy etc) struggle. And I fail to see why I should feel bad for them when I have to pull 47hour weeks to afford my house. Harsh, but surely understandable. 

[leicsmac]

34 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

I have not, and don't believe, that no other factors are in play. 

 

But when 5 out of 6 people using food banks are unemployed, I dare say it's hard to blame the tories for it or not see at the very least some correlation between a life choice and where they are. Unemployed people are the exact type of people who should be using food banks. 

 

Admittedly not all of those unemployed are unemployed through their own choices, but that doesn't automatically make it the fault of the tories either. 

 

Exceptions happen, it doesn't mean a lot of the people now struggling didn't put themselves into that position. 

 

And before you say "but muh benefits" my brother is a single parent, I've mentioned it before I'm sure, he lives in a house in Syston, which I'd have to MAX out my mortgage availability to afford, doesn't work, has no other income beyond what is given to him in benefits. He has the IQ of a potato, and he's getting by fine. I fail to understand how others (beyond the exceptions, disabled, unhealthy etc) struggle. And I fail to see why I should feel bad for them when I have to pull 47hour weeks to afford my house. Harsh, but surely understandable. 

Thank you for the clarification on that. I wouldn't blame the current government for all the ills in this regard either, and nor do I think that personal responsibility doesn't sometimes lead to this kind of situation.

 

I do however take issue with the idea that if a person ends up in a bad situation, that they must have done something to end up there - as an absolute, and I'd much rather someone get help and not "deserve" it than someone need help and not get it.

 

In today's society the idea that "every man is an island" is a dangerous and fallacious myth.

[Webbo]

4 hours ago, toddybad said:

I'm not saying its like a tap but its an established economic principle that you don't cut during a downturn. That's exactly what Osborne did.

 

I mean look, you don't want a labour government. Fair enough. Let's take them out of it.

 

Even if you're voting Tory forever i can't see on what basis you'd say they've done a good job.

 

- promised to rid us of deficit in 1 parliament. Now promised for 2025 and constantly moving back. 

- promised immigration in the tens of thousands. Immigration went up.

- wages falling

- personal debt rising

- food bank use spiralled in last 7 years

- public sector performance dropping off a cliff

- 20k less police, 40k nursing vacancies, military cuts etc

 

The only positive is record low unemployment. Ordinarily this would be a huge plus, granted, but all the other figures suggest that more working people are in poverty than ever before.

 

Even if you can't ever be persuaded not to vote for them, they've done a truly horrific job on virtually every level. 

Firstly, we're not in a downturn. The established economic principle is that you don't run a deficit during a boom and at times like these with steady growth we should be running a balanced budget.

 

People are not in real poverty, it said on the radio yesterday that wages are the equivalent of what they were in 2005, are you claiming we were all in poverty then? We're less well off than what we were, we're not in poverty, not by a long way.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

I have not, and don't believe, that no other factors are in play. 

 

But when 5 out of 6 people using food banks are unemployed, I dare say it's hard to blame the tories for it or not see at the very least some correlation between a life choice and where they are. Unemployed people are the exact type of people who should be using food banks. 

 

Admittedly not all of those unemployed are unemployed through their own choices, but that doesn't automatically make it the fault of the tories either. 

 

Exceptions happen, it doesn't mean a lot of the people now struggling didn't put themselves into that position. 

 

And before you say "but muh benefits" my brother is a single parent, I've mentioned it before I'm sure, he lives in a house in Syston, which I'd have to MAX out my mortgage availability to afford, doesn't work, has no other income beyond what is given to him in benefits. He has the IQ of a potato, and he's getting by fine. I fail to understand how others (beyond the exceptions, disabled, unhealthy etc) struggle. And I fail to see why I should feel bad for them when I have to pull 47hour weeks to afford my house. Harsh, but surely understandable. 

 

Something like 1.3% of welfare payments go to the out of work. 

20000 police officers have lost their jobs due to tory policy. The same number from the armed forces. 

Edited 14 September 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

.

Edited 14 September 2017 by Guest

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Wages are what they were 12 years ago. But prices have been going up for 12 years.

I said the equivalent, they've taken inflation into account.

[Guest]

Just now, Webbo said:

I said the equivalent, they've taken inflation into account.

Yeah i misread it hence edited my comment. 

 

So tell me how you'd feel about labour if they'd presided over the effects of the government's policies?

[Guest]

From the ft earlier this year webbo

 

https://www.ft.com/content/83e7e87e-fe64-11e6-96f8-3700c5664d30

 

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Yeah i misread it hence edited my comment. 

 

So tell me how you'd feel about labour if they'd presided over the effects of the government's policies?

Which policy? If we're talking about the small fall in incomes I'd be using it to score points the same as you are but in reality it's partly due to an oversupply of labour and partly it's down to a rise in inflation due to the fall in the £. It won't last much longer, wages will increase ahead of inflation by next year.

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

From the ft earlier this year webbo

 

https://www.ft.com/content/83e7e87e-fe64-11e6-96f8-3700c5664d30

 

It's behind a paywall.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It's behind a paywall.

Innovindil's feeling flush. Perhaps he'll pay for you?

[Innovindil]

Just now, toddybad said:

Innovindil's feeling flush. Perhaps he'll pay for you?

Which part of "I don't give handouts" don't you lefties understand. 

[The Floyd]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

It's behind a paywall.

Between 2007 and 2015, the UK was the only big advanced economy in which wages contracted while the economy expanded. In most other countries, including France and Germany, both the economy and wages have grown.

Italy and Portugal are yet to reach their pre-crisis levels on both measures, while in Finland and Spain real wages grew in periods of economic contraction.

The UK sits on its own as a rich economy that experienced a strong economic performance while the real wages of its workers dropped.

 

Britain’s GDP went back to pre-crisis levels in the third quarter of 2013 and it is now nearly 10 per cent larger than in the second quarter of 2008. Yet in 2014 wages were almost 10 per cent lower than seven years before. During the same period, salaries in France and Germany grew 7 per cent.

The contraction of UK real wages was reversed in 2015, but it is not going to last. “We expect a squeeze on income growth over the next few years,” writes Jonathan Loynes, chief economist at Capital Economics in a note, “but it should be limited by past standards.”

There are various reasons for the exceptional case of the UK, not least a shift towards lower-paid jobs, low productivity levels and growth, a strong rise in employment and higher inflation.

More people in work but with lower pay

Only the US and Canada have greater flexibility in labour market regulation than the UK, according to the OECD. Thanks to a more flexible job market, people were able to find jobs quicker than in other countries. Employment expanded by 2.4 per cent in the six years to 2013, while in France there was no job expansion and the EU as a whole experienced job losses.

After the crisis, labour supply increased, but these “unusual increases in labour supply” were absorbed by the market, writes the OECD in its latest country survey. Pension reform and other policies contributed to the increase in supply with a rising number of older workers and incentives to work rather than live off benefits. Meanwhile “sustained inflows of well-educated immigrants have boosted the working-age population”, says the OECD.

Such employment expansion coincided with the loss of labour bargaining power due to the risk of unemployment and “slack” remaining higher than pre-crisis levels. Unemployment, underemployment and involuntary part-time working, for example, were far above their levels in 2008. Coupled with low and falling levels of unionisation, employment growth came at the expense of a fall in real wages.

The expansion has begun to slow, not just because of the Brexit vote, but also because the economy is close to full employment, reducing downward pressure on wages.

Wages have not kept up with inflation

Inflation is likely to squeeze real wages in the next couple of years just as it did after the crisis.

Between 2007 and 2015 the UK had one of the highest inflation rates among big advanced economies, largely because of high energy prices and the depreciation of the pound. Consumer prices expanded at an annual rate of over 5 per cent at their peak in September 2011, well above the rate of expansion of nominal earnings.

Now inflation is rising rapidly once again.

It is expected to exceed 2.5 per cent this year because of the pound falling further. But in a tight labour market, high inflation “may make it harder for firms to award small pay increases”, says Capital Economics.

When employment was expanding, it was in lower-paid jobs

Employment growth was driven largely by self-employment and part-timers, while the number of full-time jobs shrank. “The rapid rises in employment over the past few years have been made up by a larger than usual share of low-skilled jobs which tend to be lower paid,” says Capital Economics.

The number of managers fell more than 24 per cent in the eight years to the third quarter 2015, while the number of sales and service workers expanded by a similar amount.

So as manufacturing and financial services lost workers, the workforce in accommodation and food services expanded.

The trend is now reversing, and the number of managers, professionals and technicians grew in the last year, while the number of elementary occupations contracted. Which means that the composition of jobs should stop pushing the average real wages level down.

Companies hired people rather than invested in capital

UK employment expanded at the expense of capital stock, which contributed to low (and falling) levels of productivity. In turn, lack of investment growth hampered productivity with negative effects on wages. “Whether pay drives productivity, or productivity drives pay, they go hand in hand,” as Sarah O’Connor, our labour correspondent, puts it.

Inflation and the dynamics of the labour market are pulling real wages in opposing directions. Ultimately further progress in living standards rests on boosting productivity growth, a challenge for the coming years.

[Captain...]

15 hours ago, Innovindil said:

I fail to see why I should feel bad for them when I have to pull 47hour weeks to afford my house. Harsh, but surely understandable. 

That sounds like some terrible life choices. You must have made some poor decisions to have to work 47 hours a week to keep your house. Is it debt, overspending or just a low wage? Maybe you should get a better job, or move to a smaller house in a worse area.

[Innovindil]

12 minutes ago, Captain... said:

That sounds like some terrible life choices. You must have made some poor decisions to have to work 47 hours a week to keep your house. Is it debt, overspending or just a low wage? Maybe you should get a better job, or move to a smaller house in a worse area.

Well considering my mortgage is my only debt, my house is bigger than I need it and I pretty much don't want for anything, I'd say I've found a decent balance between working hours and standard of living. Only thing I could use a handout for is a Ferrari, you think if I ask corbyn nicely he'd promise me one in the next manifesto? 

[Strokes]

32 minutes ago, Captain... said:

That sounds like some terrible life choices. You must have made some poor decisions to have to work 47 hours a week to keep your house. Is it debt, overspending or just a low wage? Maybe you should get a better job, or move to a smaller house in a worse area.

Work hard to get what you want = terrible life choices.

Even if that's true at least he is digging himself out, rather than burdening others and sponging.

[davieG]

Brexit: Burberry's Christopher Bailey sees 'enormous' trade potential

15 September 2017

 

From the sectionBusiness

 

Brexit

Media captionBurberry CEO Christopher Bailey on Brexit opportunities and why the company suspended investment in Leeds

The potential for UK trade post-Brexit is "enormous", according to Christopher Bailey, the chief creative officer of British luxury brand Burberry.

But he told the BBC he hoped an anti-immigration climate would not endanger the UK's "thriving creative culture".

"Being able to share ideas, to collaborate with people from other cultures and countries, is fundamental to any creative business," he said.

Mr Bailey was chief executive of Burberry until July.

He returned to a more creative role, handing the chief executive reins to Marco Gobetti.

'Creatively nourishing'

Asked on the BBC's Today programme what the potential is for post-Brexit Britain, Mr Bailey said it was "enormous".

"I think it's a much smaller world today than it's ever been in terms of being able to trade," he said.

"The possibilities and the potential for growth, both locally here in the UK and overseas, is enormous," he added.

Drawing on Burberry's experience, he said that "Britishness resonates globally".

 

Burberry is considered by many to be the quintessential British brand, thanks to the resilient popularity of its check scarves and trench coats that consumers abroad regard as a classic British look.

Mr Bailey described London as "an energy hub for the creative industries" and said the UK boasted the best design and art schools, attracting people from around the world.

"We've got this creatively nourishing country that people want to feed off," he said.

When asked whether he thought the political climate towards immigration might pose a risk to that, he said he "desperately" hoped not.

Flying the flag

Burberry has benefited from the weakness of sterling since the Brexit vote with tourists, especially from China, taking the opportunity to shop more cheaply on visits to the UK. The company also manufactures some of its products in the UK, providing another benefit from the weaker pound.

Currently the Far East accounts for nearly 40% of Burberry's sales. The firm does not publish a breakdown for individual countries.

Carla Busazi, an analyst with trend forecasters WGSN, said Burberry was in a strong position with its focus on exports and its clearly identifiable brand.

"I think it's good that a brand that flies the flag for Britain sees Brexit as a positive thing. I'm sure there are a lot of fashion brands who are very concerned about what that might mean for them.

"It's going to be something some British brands are going to struggle with and designer brands who predominantly sell in the UK are going to have challenges ahead."

Yorkshire on hold

Brexit, and changes in the industry combined with changing consumer behaviour, have created uncertainty for Burberry, Mr Bailey said, resulting in the suspension of a planned £50m investment in Leeds.

Burberry already has two manufacturing sites in Yorkshire, where its trench coats are made, but shortly following the Brexit vote last year the company said it was putting on hold the decision over whether to continue with the new development.

"Since we made that decision and bought that land a lot of things have changed in the world and as any responsible organisation, when you have these big shifts you need to reflect," said Mr Bailey.

"We are absolutely committed to keeping our manufacturing in this country with our factories in Yorkshire, but with the new site we're just taking a moment to make sure we understand the ramifications."

[Guest]

Writing off student debt cheaper than claimed, says IFS

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/sep/15/writing-off-student-debt-cheaper-than-claimed-says-ifs?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

Decision could cost the government as little as £10bn, well below the £100bn quoted by ministers

 

Student loan debt that is not repaid after 30 years is written off. Photograph: David Cheskin/PA

Richard Adams Education editor

Published:17:40 BST Fri 15 September 2017

 Follow Richard Adams

 

Writing off existing student loans could cost the government as little as £10bn, well below the £100bn figure quoted by politicians, according to new analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

The IFS calculated that immediately scrapping the debt for university tuition would add £20bn to government debt, but that delaying the decision until the end of the current parliament in 2022 would add £60bn.

A cheaper alternative would be to write off tuition fee debt above the £3,465 level of undergraduate fees charged before 2012 – which would add £10bn to government debt.

AdvertisementHide

 

The figures are well below the £100bn quoted by the universities minister, Jo Johnson, and other members of the government this year as they sought to push back against suggestions by the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, that his party would end tuition fees and “deal with” existing student debts.

Poorest students will finish university with £57,000 debt, says IFS

The £100bn figure was also quoted by the shadow education secretary, Angela Rayner, in July, when she said: “It is a huge amount, it’s £100bn, which they estimate currently, which will increase. It’s a huge amount of money but of course we also know that a third of that is never repaid.”

But as the IFS pointed out, the £100bn is the total for all student loans, including those for maintenance, for students from outside England, and for those incurred after fees were introduced in 1998 but before they were raised to £9,000 a year in 2012.

If only post-2012 debt for tuition for students from England was scrapped, the policy would increase government debt by around 1% of national income by 2050, or around £20bn in today’s terms.

“Suggestions that debt would rise by £100bn are wrong. £100bn is the outstanding value of all tuition fee and maintenance debt since 1998 – it is not the answer to the question: what would be the impact on public debt of writing off fee loans accumulated under the £9,000 tuition fee regime?” the IFS said in a research note published on Friday.

The current level of £9,000-era tuition fee loans held by the government through the Student Loans Company is £34bn. However, the loan repayment calculations assume that £14bn will never be paid back.

The analysis also cautioned that the main beneficiaries of wiping out the debts would be high-earning graduates, who pay back a higher percentage of their loans than other graduates. Under the current system, student loan debt that is not repaid after 30 years is written off.

The government could pay for the additional debt with a “modest increase” in the top rate of income tax, the IFS suggested.

“This would do something to alleviate concerns that the policy is regressive, although high earners without student debt – people who didn’t go to university as well as those who went but do not have any outstanding debt – would lose out,” it said.

The calculations come as parliament’s education select committee announced it is to hold hearings next month on value for money in higher education, including the controversial issue of high pay among vice-chancellors and senior academics.

Why would we scrap £9,000-a-year tuition fees when we know they work? | Jo Johnson

“We want to examine to what extent the individual student and the taxpayer receives value for money for this considerable financial investment,” said Robert Halfon, the Conservative MP who chairs the committee.

“We want to explore how far our universities are delivering a good-quality service for their students and the extent to which the high salaries of vice-chancellors are linked to positive student outcomes.”

The results of a recent survey found that a third of students said they had received good or very good value for money while in higher education.

Earlier this year the IFS calculated that young people from the poorest 40% of families entering university in England for the first time this year will emerge with average debts of around £57,000.

Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and College Union, said her union would tell the committee about the use of zero-hours contracts in universities.

“It cannot be right that the people teaching our students are constantly anxious, not knowing from term to term, or even week to week, whether they will have a job or how much they might earn,” Hunt said.

[Guest]

UK exporters have 'hoarded' gains from fall in sterling, says ONS

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/15/uk-exporters-have-hoarded-gains-from-fall-in-sterling-says-ons?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

[Innovindil]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

UK exporters have 'hoarded' gains from fall in sterling, says ONS

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/15/uk-exporters-have-hoarded-gains-from-fall-in-sterling-says-ons?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

Don't understand why businesses didn't do what my workplace did, we jacked our prices 10%, more profit for us, but because the £ dropped more than that it was still cheaper than before so could fill the order book. 

 

If they've upped prices by the exact % it's fell then they've played the game pretty bad imo. 

[Buce]

£350 per week for the NHS - BoJo repeats the lie:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41289080

[Facecloth]

6 minutes ago, Buce said:

£350 per week for the NHS - BoJo repeats the lie:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41289080

Don't think £350 a week will help much anyway 

[Guest MattP]

That Boris article is a declaration of war, leadership challenge upcoming you could assume.

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

That Boris article is a declaration of war, leadership challenge upcoming you could assume.

Do you have the original article matt, i couldnt see it all as it behind a paywall.