Byretorial - when the music stops!

  • Thread starter Thread starter The Byre
  • Start date Start date
T

The Byre

Elsewhere, @japancool wrote -
But if Louis XIV hadn't bankrupted the French state, Louis XVI wouldn't have had his head cut off, and Napoleon wouldn't have risen to power.
There is a lesson in there for today's governments - unfortunately, that lesson is coming too late!

Heads of state get their heads removed and placed on spikes at the castle gates when things go suddenly wrong and in such a way that it affects everybody. The fun part is that those sudden changes for the worse were the result of gradual creeping mistakes, combined with inevitable cultural changes.

The French crown was financially bust, the nobility was not prepared or able to step in and support a decadent crown and (as the old gag goes) the commoners were revolting! The enlightenment had been creeping across Europe and new concepts and demands by the common man (who increasingly was either able to read or had access to people who could read popular pamphlets for him) better informed and aware than ever before.

The same is happening today!

Leaving the gold standard meant that the dollar could be 'created' out of thin air to pay for imports. So more and more cheap imports flooded into the West with the rise of Chinese industry. Western productivity fell. Then the 2007 CDO crisis lead to the 2008 banking crisis, solved foolishly by QE - more money!

Rather than letting the clearing banks go to the wall, victims of their own Ponzi schemes, the Fed, the BoE and the ECB printed more reserve currency to rescue them.

But QE is like heroin or crack. The more you use, the more you need to use.

Why? Why not just leave things at that and then suck all that QE back out with deflation?

Because deflation slows down the economy in the short term, despite being healthy for the economy in the long term as it increases money's velocity. Falling prices --> your money buys more!

Conversely, QE leads to inflation and rising prices --> your money buys less! Money supply affects velocity because (like oil in an engine) the more there is, the less often it has to go around in circles.

The problem is that politicians are forced by electoral systems everywhere to think in very, very short time-frames - four or five years to the next election! So a deflationary belt-tightening is O-U-T out!

The absolute belief that the C19 crisis could only be solved by throwing fresh money at the population in the form of stimulus cheques and furlough schemes and other ideas like central banks buying mortgages and company bonds meant that QE is now going nuts. There's no other word for it! The US government's debts stand at $30tn.

So what? Interest rates are at record lows so servicing that debt costs almost nothing - right?

US Treasury Secretary Jannet Yellen is going to spend $1.1tn out of the government's Treasury General Account (at $250bn a month) and a further $1.9tn in QE will be spent (at $370bn a month). Add to that, the Fed is spending $120bn already today every month buying up company bonds and mortgage bundles. So $740bn every month is pouring out of the government and the Fed combined!

About three-quarters of a trillion EXTRA dollars pouring into the real economy - what the hell happened to inflation?

House prices are escalating. Commodities are going through the roof - timber prices have quadrupled over the past 18 months, rubber prices are double, corn, wheat, oil, you name it and the prices have all more or less doubled.

But in that strange game of 'Follow-The-Lady', the CPI (consumer price index) everywhere is shuffled and reshuffled, so that products, goods and services move in and out of the consumers' basket, making year-on-year comparisons impossible.

QE is used to buy mortgages, bonds and other financial assets, thereby increasing their prices but reducing their yields (the amount you earn in percentages by owning them). So QE helps to keep interest rates low - but this leads to asset inflation and that leads to increased pressure to increase central bank interest rates to prevent inflation.

So how the F do we stop having to raise interest rates and thereby bankrupt the government and the private sector, now over their collective heads in astronomical debt and rising?

Easy - more QE!

Trust funds and retail punters ain't stupid. They know full-well that this can't go on and they are putting customer funds and those 'Stimmy' cheques into anything that isn't dollars, pounds, or Euros. Shares, gold, platinum, commodity futures, cryptos, the gum on your shoe soles - you name it and they're buying.

I've been watching the share price of a totally worthless zombie company that has a net equity of minus $200m go from $5 to $25. The market cap for a company that has mortgaged everything it once owned and hasn't seen profits ever and has had to cancel nearly all R&D just to keep the doors open, stands at $1bn. Yikes!

PE ratios everywhere have doubled in the past twelve months. Yikes again!

BIG PROBLEM - Many Western economies are no longer built upon productivity and efficiency but upon rising asset prices. This is especially true for the US and the UK. We call it a service-based economy but it is the act of paying for foreign goods with fiat money we have created out of thin air, backed by the inflated prices for our assets.

But we have been underwriting our lack of actually making stuff by having our assets increase in value. But what happens when our £1m house goes back to being worth £500k? What happens when that $25 company goes back to $5 a share and therefore falls foul of the covenants in its mortgages?

What happens when (de facto) negative interest rates go back to more realistic rates to prevent hyperinflation? What happens when servicing mortgages, government debts, company bonds and all the other debt floating around from credit cards and overdrafts start to cost twice as much or more per month?

Just what happens when the music stops?
 
This is something I have been thinking about recently after a couple of your earlier posts and some other things Ive been reading and opinions Ive been listening to. I believe that western economies are mainly based on asset wealth and looking at the UK in particular that fact is even more pronounced. I am not an economist, I look at this from a more generally simplistic view point.

The UK relies on eastern manufacturers for much of its goods, the textile industries and other tradition manufacturing bases have all but gone. The disparity in wealth distribution in this country is back to where it was at the turn of the last century, the landed gentry have been replaced by the landlord. Wealth creation built on rising asset values and rental yields. We arent producing any manufactured goods in any meaningful numbers. Our exports of manufactured goods have seen a similar fate. I believe we should be manufacturing goods, not mass market rubbish, I dont believe this country understands the value of its Made in the UK brand. I think that the UK brand has value on the world market for certain products. The price of a house in London doesnt increase our countries wealth I believe it just creates a larger economic divide. The middle class hasnt realised it is now the working class and the working class is now the under class. The way the economy now works just fuels that devide and increases the speed at which exsisting wealth is compounded.

The government has just announced plans to "help" new house buyers by providing 95% mortgages, it would be comical if it wasnt so frightening. Just another tool to stimulate rising house prices, another future probllem of toxic debt? Does noone look at history?

Jumping back to manufacturing, we used to make many products for our home market the factory price (for arguments sake) was £10 it was sold for £16 now its imported for £6 and sold for £29, is it just me who sees a major flaw for consumers in this country. Trading companies needing 5 times their money back to make retail trading viable, 5 times so that they can pay extortionate rents to the property asset class. Residential renters pay 40% of their income on housing cost, for the lowest earners its 75%! Its no suprise that borrowing to buy has changed our economy over the last few decades and its not going to change from what I see happening with our economy at the moment.

Addressing the OP's question I believe that property prices have to be reset, if a landlord wants a 10% yield on a property that he is told is worth 1 million he wants 100,000 a year even if it was purchased at 500,000 10 years ago. Where is the value created in that IMO as OP has previousy stated its a ponzi scheme. Wealth is always relative the landlord with 10 houses 10 years ago should still have a relative worth of 10 houses today, but even allowing for inflation his relative wealth is higher, property is, on the whole, a long term business but the value that property provides hasnt increased (and for retail property its actually decreased)

I hope it makes sense, it does to me. Lets create "stuff" other countries want to buy rather than becoming a nation of asset hoarders.
 
Upvote 0
I hope it makes sense, it does to me. Lets create "stuff" other countries want to buy rather than becoming a nation of asset hoarders.

There is a very simple solution to creating a rich country.

Have poor people in it.

The people are wiser now though
 
Upvote 0
The government has just announced plans to "help" new house buyers by providing 95% mortgages, it would be comical if it wasnt so frightening. Just another tool to stimulate rising house prices, another future probllem of toxic debt? Does noone look at history?

I hope it makes sense, it does to me. Lets create "stuff" other countries want to buy rather than becoming a nation of asset hoarders.

Will giving first time buyers help to get a 95% mortgage lead to more house-price inflation or will it make it more difficult to make money from buy-to-let which, it seems, exploits those people who are currently unable to stump up a 10% deposit at the same time as reducing the supply?

Maybe a bit of both?
 
Upvote 0
Will giving first time buyers help to get a 95% mortgage lead to more house-price inflation or will it make it more difficult to make money from buy-to-let which, it seems, exploits those people who are currently unable to stump up a 10% deposit at the same time as reducing the supply?

Maybe a bit of both?

I dont know, but from what I have seen over the years is that the headline price is virtually totally dependent on its "affordablity" If £100 a week buys £50k of "asset" then if affordability is £300 a week a £100K asset will soon move to £150K and thats another £50k of free wealth to the existing assett classes. There is no real value created. The only mechanism keeping that total "asset" price in check is the potential first time buyers inability to raise the initial deposit. Easy peeasy for the exisiting asset classes to secure finance using their acumulated collateral increaded revenues and debt servicing history. Oh and the classic ferrari (wealth storage device) has doubled over the last x months too thats another nett 100K- to however many milions of free asset/wealth to prop up their leverage capabilities. What has been created? debt and more nett asset wealth for the asset class.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Byre
Upvote 0
There is a very simple solution to creating a rich country.

Have poor people in it.

The people are wiser now though

Like Monaco you mean (Im playing devils advocate, its a fair point you have made) wealth is only wealth because its relative to those without it. The gap is widening though, which I dont believe is a good thing (even if you are on the right side of the equation)
 
Upvote 0
Like Monaco you mean (Im playing devils advocate, its a fair point you have made) wealth is only wealth because its relative to those without it. The gap is widening though, which I dont believe is a good thing (even if you are on the right side of the equation)

Like Britain a few generations back where, where you worked 60 hours a week, your family of 7 lived in the 2 bedroom terrace provided by your employer, furthest you travelled was 2 mile bike ride to the pub, also owned by your employer and you doffed your cap and were thankful for what you got

Britain was great in those days, of course the history books only talk about the 10% though

Let's make Britain great again (as long as we are fortunate enough to be in the top 10%)
 
Upvote 0
Hmm. Given that house prices form less than 10% of the CPI weighting, why would asset inflation cause the CPI to rise significantly?

Do asset prices influence the Consumer Price Index? I think a more interesting number would be what is the total value of the UK's housing market and express that number in relation to the GDP. Other than that I have no idea what point you are putting accross.
 
Upvote 0
Like Britain a few generations back where, where you worked 60 hours a week, your family of 7 lived in the 2 bedroom terrace provided by your employer, furthest you travelled was 2 mile bike ride to the pub, also owned by your employer and you doffed your cap and were thankful for what you got

Britain was great in those days, of course the history books only talk about the 10% though

Let's make Britain great again (as long as we are fortunate enough to be in the top 10%)

As business owners we would be in the top 10%. Some would claim we were part of the 1%.
'First against the wall when the revolution comes' and all that malarky.

Downside is we take risks and those risks can see us viewed as part of the problem when we are part of the solution.
 
Upvote 0
Like Monaco you mean (Im playing devils advocate, its a fair point you have made) wealth is only wealth because its relative to those without it. The gap is widening though, which I dont believe is a good thing (even if you are on the right side of the equation)

Reducing wealth gap is hard, it has happened many times in history and usually badly. Bodies underfoot, heads rolling into baskets, people crying 'Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me!' etc.

Most commonly it has moved wealth around rather than making everyone rich. The poor still usually remain poor. Sadly sometimes they don't - and it ruins the local economy. Knock on effect with refugees / beggars etc.

And you are right, even on the 'good' side of the wealth equation the widening can be a very bad thing. Without any foolproof plans to reverse the problem all that happens is fools and their money are soon parted.
Give everyone £1000. Some would spend most of it on wine, women and song. And waste the rest.
Some would buy what they desire. Some would pay off debts. Some would save for a rainy day.
And in the short term again the wealthy would get wealthier and the poor would get poorer. Except now with even bigger divide.

There are no easy solutions to the problem. There are a few long term solutions - all bad to very bad and not even the communists had the stomach to implement them.
 
Upvote 0
"Let's kill all the lawyers." - William Shakespeare.

Its a start!

Doing the hemp fandango from the nearest lampposts.... :)

No seriously there are worse ideas around. Did see one idea a few years back about returning to nomadic lifestyle. Only reduced the global population by about 6.95 billion... a minor detail I'm sure the people with the idea didn't miss.
 
Upvote 0
The poor still usually remain poor. Sadly sometimes they don't - and it ruins the local economy. Knock on effect with refugees / beggars etc.

That's the cycle we are in at the moment (apart from the very top 1%)

The gap between absolute poverty and average is narrowing.

Great if you are poor, not so great for the average and the country.

The 1% isn't the problem, they have, and always will exist, what causes the problems is when the average think they are worse oFf because the poor are catching them up.

It's like everything else - A balancing act
 
Upvote 0
That's the cycle we are in at the moment (apart from the very top 1%)

The gap between absolute poverty and average is narrowing.

Great if you are poor, not so great for the average and the country.

The 1% isn't the problem, they have, and always will exist, what causes the problems is when the average think they are worse oFf because the poor are catching them up.

It's like everything else - A balancing act

Lots of average.....

Here in the UK we don't see absolute poverty except on the TV. It doesn't exist here.
Relative poverty does - and plenty of average here.
 
Upvote 0
I have my eye on the housing market. Near me there is a street of bungalows. At the end of 2019 one came up for £125k, in Nov 2020 there was another for £140k and yesterday another for £165k. All similar condition. Prices up by a third in just over 12 months.

I see there being a big wave of homelessness here in the UK in the medium term. I mean families and not just the odd person having a bad time. If someone with kids is on NMW or one of the recently redundant and can't afford the rent then they will be out sooner or later. There aren't council houses like there were in the 80s that you could just walk in to if you got reposessed. B&Bs are already being used as 'temporary' accommodation. The next wave of reposessions is starting when there is already pressure on the system.

The 95% mortgage is great if they aren't already in up to their eyes in debt can save for a deposit and have good credit history. Chances are things will be against them, time, deposit, credit history, chances of bank offering a mortgage. Good time to leave home perhaps but not good if someone is already in financial trouble.

The landlords at the lower end set rents based on what they get from the government in housing benefits plus an amount that they think the tennant can top up. I can see that top up increasing and landlords being more picky about who they take on because they can afford to be.
 
Upvote 0
I have my eye on the housing market. Near me there is a street of bungalows. At the end of 2019 one came up for £125k, in Nov 2020 there was another for £140k and yesterday another for £165k. All similar condition. Prices up by a third in just over 12 months.

I see there being a big wave of homelessness here in the UK in the medium term. I mean families and not just the odd person having a bad time. If someone with kids is on NMW or one of the recently redundant and can't afford the rent then they will be out sooner or later. There aren't council houses like there were in the 80s that you could just walk in to if you got reposessed. B&Bs are already being used as 'temporary' accommodation. The next wave of reposessions is starting when there is already pressure on the system.

The 95% mortgage is great if they aren't already in up to their eyes in debt can save for a deposit and have good credit history. Chances are things will be against them, time, deposit, credit history, chances of bank offering a mortgage. Good time to leave home perhaps but not good if someone is already in financial trouble.

The landlords at the lower end set rents based on what they get from the government in housing benefits plus an amount that they think the tennant can top up. I can see that top up increasing and landlords being more picky about who they take on because they can afford to be.

I have worked with homeless charities since the early 80s.
Even back then there were not council houses that could be simply walk into if repossessed.
Homeless families were around then too - a few weeks or a few months in a bedsit if they were lucky. Single people could end up in a homeless hostel for months or longer.

Thatcher brought in the right to buy council houses, made no difference overall to the housing though did make a difference to what a council could do and what money it had. Someone living in a council house still lived in a house. Someone buying the house from them or renting the house from them still lived in a house.

The landlords at the lower end also often have mortgage to cover, tenants to evict and so on. Not always profits.
Someone stops paying rent in say march 2020 you get to pay the mortgage and have no income to pay it with. Maybe this year can evict, maybe late this year.... then clean and redecorate / replace stuff as needed before advertising for next tenant....
It's not all smooth sailing for landlords.
 
Upvote 0
Great if you are poor, not so great for the average and the country.
It is only great for the poor if the narrowing gap is caused by the poor moving up. The reality is that the average is moving down and there is no advantage for the poor, other than there being more of them.
 
Upvote 0
Homeless families were around then too

Yes, I mentioned the 80s cos I was one of those. I was 14 though and not an adult. Old enough to understand but not old enough to be able to do anything about it. I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

My point was more general though that I believe homelessness will happen more in the coming few years and there just isn't the social housing stock for it even if we started building in huge numbers today.
 
Upvote 0
Yes, I mentioned the 80s cos I was one of those. I was 14 though and not an adult. Old enough to understand but not old enough to be able to do anything about it. I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

My point was more general though that I believe homelessness will happen more in the coming few years and there just isn't the social housing stock for it even if we started building in huge numbers today.
I am always confused by the idea that increased homelessness caused by poverty can only be rectified by additional housing stock. (I absolutely agree that additional housing stock is needed). If a family is evicted for non-payment of rent, someone else will take the property, thereby vacating another property. The level of homelessness won't rise, the identity of the homeless may change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr D and Darren_Ssc
Upvote 0
As business owners we would be in the top 10%. Some would claim we were part of the 1%.
'First against the wall when the revolution comes' and all that malarky.

Downside is we take risks and those risks can see us viewed as part of the problem when we are part of the solution.

To be in the top 10% (annual income) of households (2 adults) in the UK, you would need a taxable income of £88,000 (2014 data) I personaly dont believe many business owners have such a taxable income. I look at my competitors filed accounts (and other companies I am curious about from time to time) and many dont have a nett worth anywhere near that (some with a few years trading too) Now unless Im missing something blaringly obvious that looks to me as though many Limited companies in the UK dont make any meaningful money. If you want to join the top percentiles now and in the future you have to pay tax therefore you have to make profit. To me the "I dont make any profit for tax purposes" is a load of b******x. I believe on the whole they dont pay much tax because they dont make much money on an annual basis (maybe another thread one day).

The point being, many business owners are kidding themslves as to where they are in the grand scheme of things. Non business people have always been deceived by the illusion of the success of a "business owner". Some will be in the top 1% but they are rarer than hens teeth (even on this forum). I would hazzard a good guess that noone on this forum is in the top .01%.

It must follow on (based on my assumptions re annual taxable income) that business owners struggle to create any meaningful long term wealth, despite the higher percieved risks they may be taking to achieve this. Again the asset class sits on their assets and reap the rewards both in income and appreciation of assets without really creating anything(IMO not good for long term interenational prosperity) unless of course these asset classes are also buying up wealth creating businesses here and elsewhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gpietersz
Upvote 0
I am always confused by the idea that increased homelessness caused by poverty can only be rectified by additional housing stock. (I absolutely agree that additional housing stock is needed). If a family is evicted for non-payment of rent, someone else will take the property, thereby vacating another property. The level of homelessness won't rise, the identity of the homeless may change.

The 'family' that gets evicted is not going to be homeless either. Homelessness has little to do with the cost and/or supply of housing. Sure, if you use the term technically, more people wil be stuck living with parents, sharing with friends, sofa surfing or, heaven forbid, remaining married to people they hate.
 
Upvote 0
If a family is evicted for non-payment of rent, someone else will take the property

If the family own their own home and until recent times were paying the mortgage and then get evicted, they go into social housing. Someone using the 5% deposit scheme leaves home to buy the evicted house so social housing market has one more customer.
 
Upvote 0
Regarding house prices, I moved out of home when I was 23 in 1993.
I had two part time jobs then which added up to a full time and a quarter job. My parents acted as guarantors although I paid the mortgage and bills myself so never needed their help.
My first house came on to the market a little while back and I was shocked to realise that now, with my own business and fairly good wage, I wouldn’t get a mortgage on my own for that same house.
House prices have risen faster than wages, so how can the country rectify that?
My niece is now looking for her first place, a single bedroom flat in our market town in the south east (non commuter belt, average town) sold the same day as it came to market. The owners of the next flat will see that and make sure they increase the price.
Maybe it’s time we started to hammer the landlords, most of whom have only entered the buy to let market as the returns on their savings elsewhere we so poor. Let’s encourage them to sell their portfolios and increase the housing stock available? Maybe start with those who own over 50 homes, then bring it down every few years?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Darren_Ssc
Upvote 0
There’s a food bank in every town now and I can’t get my head around that fact. How on earth did we as a ‘civilised’, wealthy country come to this?
 
Upvote 0
You would have thought that the government would be trying to maximise the trading opportunities of the country but instead it seems to have pursued a policy of collateral damage to our trade to stop the party splitting and to appease xenophobes and flag waving ‘patriotic’ voters.
 
Upvote 0
There’s a food bank in every town now and I can’t get my head around that fact. How on earth did we as a ‘civilised’, wealthy country come to this?

My dad got a knock on the door the other week from someone delivering him his 'food bank' ration. It turns out that because of Covid they can't wait for people to come to them so had been given a list of vulnerable people in the area who may need assistance. He is registered disabled, he doesn't need free food.

Consider stuff like this when you read about the growing food bank industry.
 
Upvote 0
Maybe it’s time we started to hammer the landlords, most of whom have only entered the buy to let market as the returns on their savings elsewhere we so poor. Let’s encourage them to sell their portfolios and increase the housing stock available? Maybe start with those who own over 50 homes, then bring it down every few years?

A neighbour of mine is pulling in £2.5K a month from a block of 3 flats he bought 20 years ago for £100k. Whilst he may be not a typical buy to let landlord he isn't the only person in such a position, think of how many people have inherited properties?

I am not sure what could be done about this short of a full-blown revolution?
 
Upvote 0
Yes, I mentioned the 80s cos I was one of those. I was 14 though and not an adult. Old enough to understand but not old enough to be able to do anything about it. I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

My point was more general though that I believe homelessness will happen more in the coming few years and there just isn't the social housing stock for it even if we started building in huge numbers today.

Housing stock is a bad solution for homelessness. Sure, great for a few people that just need a place to rent. Not so good for the people who cannot keep a place.
Its a nice easy solution that does not work for everyone yet keeps getting tried.

There is often plenty of stock available. Say in Erdington, which is not ideal for someone based in Kensington. Stock in a far off place is not great.
My sister was lucky to get a house a couple of years back, took her a few months with a 16 year old and a 9 year old to look after. Living in one room in a shelter for several months - and she had to bid on the council stock she liked, often failing because someone else had bid with a higher points total than her.

For well over a decade there have been governments saying that we need to build more houses, have been companies working hard to build properties.
Yet still takes a while to get permission for a housing estate (local people have their own ideas about housing built near them) and we have recently told many of the foreign tradespeople involved in housebuilding to go home.
Do we have the skills base to build lots of homes? Do we have the infrastructure to import the bricks etc that are needed?

Government can interfere, little they can do to improve matters.
 
Upvote 0
Not all landlords are the same.

We didn't want to sell our cottage when buying a new house for personal reasons.

I upgraded it a bit after moving out, then let it out to the son of a family I knew in the village.

Market value is probably £900 a month if let out (a lot more as a holiday cottage), I let him have it for £600 because I trust the family and knew there would be no hassle (he's been in it 6 years now)

Even if I would have sold it 6 years ago, it wouldn't have benefited anyone who needed a home, as I could almost guarantee someone in the village would have either bought it as a 2nd home or bought it to set up as a holiday home.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Darren_Ssc
Upvote 0
To be in the top 10% (annual income) of households (2 adults) in the UK, you would need a taxable income of £88,000 (2014 data) I personaly dont believe many business owners have such a taxable income. I look at my competitors filed accounts (and other companies I am curious about from time to time) and many dont have a nett worth anywhere near that (some with a few years trading too) Now unless Im missing something blaringly obvious that looks to me as though many Limited companies in the UK dont make any meaningful money. If you want to join the top percentiles now and in the future you have to pay tax therefore you have to make profit. To me the "I dont make any profit for tax purposes" is a load of b******x. I believe on the whole they dont pay much tax because they dont make much money on an annual basis (maybe another thread one day).

The point being, many business owners are kidding themslves as to where they are in the grand scheme of things. Non business people have always been deceived by the illusion of the success of a "business owner". Some will be in the top 1% but they are rarer than hens teeth (even on this forum). I would hazzard a good guess that noone on this forum is in the top .01%.

It must follow on (based on my assumptions re annual taxable income) that business owners struggle to create any meaningful long term wealth, despite the higher percieved risks they may be taking to achieve this. Again the asset class sits on their assets and reap the rewards both in income and appreciation of assets without really creating anything(IMO not good for long term interenational prosperity) unless of course these asset classes are also buying up wealth creating businesses here and elsewhere.

You looking at income? Or wealth?
Sure, income is nice and all. However when referring to percentages the common method is to use it in relation to wealth.
So you'd say Elon Musk is in the top 0.1% - he has a lot of valuable shares. That is wealth - but is not income. Daresay he has a good income too, that tends not to be talked about so few will have an idea of that. His wealth does get reported from time to time.


Now, add up all your wealth - your house, pension etc - now take off your mortgage. A figure greater than zero? Then you are probably in the top 75% - how much more than zero will determine where you are. :)
 
Upvote 0
Living in one room in a shelter for several months - and she had to bid on the council stock she liked, often failing because someone else had bid with a higher points total than her.

... and we have recently told many of the foreign tradespeople involved in housebuilding to go home.
Let's play join the dots?
 
Upvote 0
My dad got a knock on the door the other week from someone delivering him his 'food bank' ration. It turns out that because of Covid they can't wait for people to come to them so had been given a list of vulnerable people in the area who may need assistance. He is registered disabled, he doesn't need free food.

Consider stuff like this when you read about the growing food bank industry.

I'm visibly disabled (use 2 walking sticks) so have been stopped many times over the years and given vouchers for foodbank. I have my pride, I have food in the house. 6 days food a year (the average use) aren't going to make a difference to me and they aren't going to solve my problems.
 
Upvote 0
You would have thought that the government would be trying to maximise the trading opportunities of the country but instead it seems to have pursued a policy of collateral damage to our trade to stop the party splitting and to appease xenophobes and flag waving ‘patriotic’ voters.

What? You mean like doing trade deals with lots of countries plus our nearest trading bloc plus say ... India?

What exactly would you have had them do once Brexit referendum result was announced?
 
Upvote 0
There’s a food bank in every town now and I can’t get my head around that fact. How on earth did we as a ‘civilised’, wealthy country come to this?

Franchise opportunity, the need has not changed but the opportunity has increased.
Open a place up, tell everyone free food, give out vouchers to all and sundry - come on guys we are business people, we know what happens when you do effective marketing.

Don't get me wrong, despite their limitations on food supply they can do a good job signposting to appropriate services or helping some of those in need to no longer be in need.
But 6 days of food a year for 1% of the population isn't actually more than a sticking plaster.
It is however immediate help and 'official' 3 days of food can be spread out to go a distance.
 
Upvote 0
What? You mean like doing trade deals with lots of countries plus our nearest trading bloc plus say ... India?

What exactly would you have had them do once Brexit referendum result was announced?

Very easy with hindsight of course but maybe not giving a referendum to sort out an internal party issue to a generally ignorant nation fed on the daily xenophobia of the Daily Mail, Express & Telegraph would have been better for all involved.

What was it Churchill is once said to have claimed? "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute chat with the average voter".
 
Upvote 0
I am always confused by the idea that increased homelessness caused by poverty can only be rectified by additional housing stock. (I absolutely agree that additional housing stock is needed). If a family is evicted for non-payment of rent, someone else will take the property, thereby vacating another property. The level of homelessness won't rise, the identity of the homeless may change.

Indeed - demand for housing increases as population grows up, has kids, moves away from home etc.
Council housing ..... not always great stuff. My local authority got rid of it all to social housing groups who then spent a fortune installing central heating, double glazing, insulation etc - basically all the things needed to make the properties even vaguely similar to private rented ones. Lots of money spent the council could never do.
 
Upvote 0

Latest Articles