UK Politics

[Crazyfool01]

7 minutes ago, lost said:

 

I went for a hair cut today and it had gone up 15% so it seems some business are passing it on.

I went today and it was same price . 

[lost]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

Doesn't kick in till next April. 

 

Yeah probably preemtive but purely anectdotal I'm seeing inflation ticking up again.

[steviewevie]

5 minutes ago, lost said:

 

Yeah probably preemtive but purely anectdotal I'm seeing inflation ticking up again.

I hope you didn't tip them 

[pink_triangle]

11 hours ago, steviewevie said:

Labour governing when they came 3rd would be unsustainable.

If that actually happened it would have to be a Tory/Reform coalition, and if they didn't get enough seats then probably another election.

Anyway, bit silly looking at polls this early in the parliament, by 2028 Bojo will be back.

3rd in the popular vote of 3rd in seats? Our system doesn’t go on popular vote, so think they could govern if they won most seats and could come up an agreement with other parties. That scenario is not what the modelling is possible, but think possible if conservatives and reform split votes ineffectively.

[steviewevie]

maybe there could be a grand coalition...tories and labour. Keep those pesky upstarts out of government. Everyone keeps saying they're pretty much the same...

[steviewevie]

Does anyone feel an inevitably about Reform though? They don't need to win off policies because theirs don't add up, but they have the anti establishment vibe...the sort of vibe that carried through the brexit vote.

 

 

Edited Friday at 08:05 AM by steviewevie

[steviewevie]

Starmer's broken the trains now, as well as the weather.

[steviewevie]

Starmer has upset civil servants now.

[fred quimby]

On 12/5/2024 at 8:16 PM, lost said:

 

I went for a hair cut today and it had gone up 15% so it seems some business are passing it on.

Or it was to do with the state of that thatch 😉

[steviewevie]

More trouble ahead for the govt with spending review..not going to be pretty. They're going to have to put up more taxes in a year or two.

[Neil]

On 12/3/2024 at 6:52 AM, steviewevie said:

Starmer says can be close to both EU and US. Good luck with that. EU our largest trading partner, US a large trading partner but also important in terms of security. Any further distance from EU hurts growth. Tariffs by US hurts growth. Trump hates EU, he just sees them as a competitor/rival/enemy like China. US possibly going to go through a chaotic, distabling period. EU economies struggling and populism on the rise. Some sort of reckoning coming for Ukraine/Russia/NATO. Try squaring that.

At same time maybe business will see us as a good place to invest, between but close to two big economic blocks, politically stable compared to both etc.

Or we'll play piggy in the middle of various trade wars which will f**k our economy and we'll descend into our own messy populism.

the existence of the EU limits the ability to cut a deal, the EU will have to play with the same parameters as ever cos it cant give a non member better terms than members have.

[Neil]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

More trouble ahead for the govt with spending review..not going to be pretty. They're going to have to put up more taxes in a year or two.

they need to find better ways to spread the tax burden, not helped by stuff like  the switch to EVs, which loses the petrol taxes.

[steviewevie]

7 hours ago, Neil said:

they need to find better ways to spread the tax burden, not helped by stuff like  the switch to EVs, which loses the petrol taxes.

the petrol taxes that they never unfreeze anyway.

Looks like they will be chucking a lot at NHS in desperate attempt to get waiting times down before next election, because they think that is key to them winning...but that means lack of cash for other stuff that desperately needs more money...justice, local govt, education. Then will likely be a need to increase defence spending when Trump starts making various NATO threats etc.

And with taxes as we've seen they're always unpopular with someone. I think they should put up income tax, but that would probably be the nail in the coffin for the govt, or if want to go after wealth with capital gains on house/land sells etc...which would likely be another nail.

[gary1979666]

9 hours ago, steviewevie said:

More trouble ahead for the govt with spending review..not going to be pretty. They're going to have to put up more taxes in a year or two.

Sounds like the teachers and nurses are wanting more money too - threats of strikes again!

[lost]

Difficult to tell as labour seem to be all over the place but they may actually fight it this time and expect something in return:

 

 

Edited 10 hours ago by lost

[steviewevie]

18 minutes ago, lost said:

Difficult to tell as labour seem to be all over the place but they may actually fight it this time and expect something in return:

 

 

that was aimed at whitehall...not teachers and nurses.

 

I think there could be strikes, there were unison pickets outside a mental health hospital near here yesterday, but don't think govt will be so forthcoming...going to be a tough couple of years.

[steviewevie]

Anyway, Shabana Mahmood going to announce 4 more prisons today, but that will likely not be enough and maybe, just maybe, they will have to stop locking so many people up...short term sentences are more trouble than they're worth.

[steviewevie]

[Skip997]

2 hours ago, steviewevie said:

Well then maybe it’s about time they started acting like it or saying what they really think, not what they think should 

[steviewevie]

the good old days

[lost]

5 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

the good old days

 

Intersting post after the last one as the exponential rise is due to the industrial revolution / fossil fuels. Cheap energy is inextricably linked to growth, life expectancy and the removal of child labour and slavery from society.

[Alvoram]

On 12/5/2024 at 8:13 PM, mattiloy said:

 

Employer will stand for a 900 quid rise on a median earner on 33,000.

 

Its about 3%.

 

The labour cost is then always a fraction of total cost base. Ofc it varies massively but lets call it around about a half on average.

 

So you’re talking about a 1.5% increase in the cost base.

 

The greater the concentration of the market share (Ie monopoly power) the easier it will be to pass it on in prices. But for the most part competition will suppress the ability to transmit the full effect to consumers. So netto we’re talking about a limited impact. But ofc if you ask a load of business owners if they fancy rattling their sabres over it, i guess they will. And they obviously have.

There's up to an 18% increase in minimum wage too, on top of any tax and NI changes. This affects not only our own wage bill massively, (since hospitality primarily employs young people, we'll be hit hard by the 16.3% increased 18-20 year old category) but also our suppliers too. Even if you pay just above minimum to youngsters, as we do, their wages must still go up accordingly. 

The wage increase will hit hospitality and retail hard, most people in these industries are paid at or just above minimum wage. So prices there will go up sharply at the end of winter, without a shadow of a doubt. 

If you thought 20-50p on a pint was bad last year, just wait. We have no choice, increase and see a drop in footfall, or stick and see annual losses even higher than last year's losses. Either way it will lead to job losses. And I need to keep a roof over our head, so I'd rather be a quieter pub, with less staff, but breaking even, than busy fools, with lots of staff, but losing money. If that's even going to be possible! Wages are always going to be our biggest cost, so they'll always be the first expense to cut into.  

I also think this balancing of the minimum wage categories, as in, bringing up the minimum wage of youngsters at a much higher rate than adults, is a bad idea all around. In hospitality and retail, (and probably other low skilled sectors too,) adults are also paid at or close to minimum wage more often than not too. If youngsters are near enough the same cost to a business, why employ so many? Put a youngster with no experience, no track record of reliability up against a more experienced, proven reliable, job candidate, without the difference in cost to the business, and who do you think will win the job? Rightly or wrongly, cost to the business is a factor when making hires, so traditionally, that has given youngsters the edge in low skilled sectors. Mark my words, this IS going to lead to higher youth unemployment. 

Sorry mattiloy, I quoted you then went off on a completely different rant... 🙈🤣

[steviewevie]

42 minutes ago, Alvoram said:

There's up to an 18% increase in minimum wage too, on top of any tax and NI changes. This affects not only our own wage bill massively, (since hospitality primarily employs young people, we'll be hit hard by the 16.3% increased 18-20 year old category) but also our suppliers too. Even if you pay just above minimum to youngsters, as we do, their wages must still go up accordingly. 

The wage increase will hit hospitality and retail hard, most people in these industries are paid at or just above minimum wage. So prices there will go up sharply at the end of winter, without a shadow of a doubt. 

If you thought 20-50p on a pint was bad last year, just wait. We have no choice, increase and see a drop in footfall, or stick and see annual losses even higher than last year's losses. Either way it will lead to job losses. And I need to keep a roof over our head, so I'd rather be a quieter pub, with less staff, but breaking even, than busy fools, with lots of staff, but losing money. If that's even going to be possible! Wages are always going to be our biggest cost, so they'll always be the first expense to cut into.  

I also think this balancing of the minimum wage categories, as in, bringing up the minimum wage of youngsters at a much higher rate than adults, is a bad idea all around. In hospitality and retail, (and probably other low skilled sectors too,) adults are also paid at or close to minimum wage more often than not too. If youngsters are near enough the same cost to a business, why employ so many? Put a youngster with no experience, no track record of reliability up against a more experienced, proven reliable, job candidate, without the difference in cost to the business, and who do you think will win the job? Rightly or wrongly, cost to the business is a factor when making hires, so traditionally, that has given youngsters the edge in low skilled sectors. Mark my words, this IS going to lead to higher youth unemployment. 

Sorry mattiloy, I quoted you then went off on a completely different rant... 🙈🤣

people have talked about min wage leading to higher umemployement since early 2000s...and yet...

[lazyred]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

people have talked about min wage leading to higher umemployement since early 2000s...and yet...

Next April it is minimum wage rises plus employers NI changes plus reducing small Business Rates relief. It is a lot to absorb in one go.

[steviewevie]

2 hours ago, lost said:

 

Intersting post after the last one as the exponential rise is due to the industrial revolution / fossil fuels. Cheap energy is inextricably linked to growth, life expectancy and the removal of child labour and slavery from society.

yes, good for humans now, sh*t for the planet including future humans...