Inflation to hit 15%

[onthefencesitter]

www.independent.co.uk/news/business/inflation-bank-england-cost-living-b2137311.html

www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/03/uk-inflation-could-reach-15-by-start-of-2023-experts-say

What do you all think?

Competitive martyrdom won’t solve this problem. Proving that you spend less than others is virtue signalling. No one should have to be in it together. Whatever ‘it’ is.

If someone who can’t swim is drowning, you don’t jump in to drown yourself to show solidarity.

The structural cause is that our economic output has been weak, wages are subsidized by the taxpayer, the economy was closed wholesale and we are not self sufficient in energy.

Well, that's one alternative, though you presumably know that the number of vacancies wasn't sufficient to employ everyone whose sector was closed. It doesn't solve the problem of how to ensure the population were kept at home and obeying regulations in sufficient number, though. Some of you can just go and work in different jobs isn't an approach that facilitates that.

Lockdown like we had requires a critical mass of the population to be comfortable in the face of significant restrictions on their lives and ability to earn a living. There wasn't a non furlough option available if we were locking down.

Lockdown like we had requires a critical mass of the population to be comfortable in the face of significant restrictions on their lives and ability to earn a living. There wasn't a non furlough option available if we were locking down.

yep, regardless of whether you agree with lockdown or not we went with it & therefore people had to be supported.

If someone who can’t swim is drowning, you don’t jump in to drown yourself to show solidarity

No, you do chuck them a life belt though.

Part of the problem IMO is that our managers are not competent for todays organisations. In the 1960s we trained workers to be foreman in manufacturing industries.
We don't need so many of them now because skilled trades are a smaller part of the mix.
We need managers in the NHS and other large knowledge based industries who are much better than the ones we have. To train managers takes a long time and we are not spending that time. Short Termism rules now.

Quite. And let's not forget, many also went with it before it became official policy. Countless workplaces advised staff to stay home days before Johnson admitted the situation.

That's why all the "I knew lockdown was wrong" posts are so redundant - many businesses were doing it, and would done it, anyway. The market saw covid before the government did.

We need managers in the NHS and other large knowledge based industries who are much better than the ones we have

This is so true. One of the reasons the public sector got so fucked over with PFI was because the contract negotiations were in the hands of managers with no relevant experience. The NHS is renowned for it refusal to recruit the best people from outside and the result was entirely predictable, the taxpayer is paying millions, if not billions that could have been saved. The person in charge of the PFI contract I was involved in trained as a physiotherapist, ffs. 🤦‍♀️

This is a joke, right? 🫠

Careful, you're speaking sense, and lots round here won't like that!

Competitive martyrdom won’t solve this problem. Proving that you spend less than others is virtue signalling. No one should have to be in it together. Whatever ‘it’ is.

If someone who can’t swim is drowning, you don’t jump in to drown yourself to show solidarity.

The structural cause is that our economic output has been weak, wages are subsidized by the taxpayer, the economy was closed wholesale and we are not self sufficient in energy.

second this, its the most sense on this entire thread

@pd339 The problem is research shows that giving money to the rich doesn't actually work. They hoard it, invest and save it. It's nice to say...ah what about my champagne bar but during a recession the rich and businesses save and don't spend. That still results in a recession. To stimulate the economy, money needs to be given to the poor who have no choice but to spend it. Its not a race to the bottom but economics

The agenda for change is about management. If you read the mission statements, well, those ideas are not management but bullshit. There are lots of other organizations suffocating with bright speak and wonderful flowery twaddle. The bottom line is results and Britain is full of bone idle bobbleheads spouting textbook MBA-Finance admin/HR crap.
Let's all have a team-building hub session.
That'll pay the bills and put the baby to bed.😂

All knowledge-intensive organisations, including the NHS assuming that preserving it is the considered route ahead require massive investment in big IT infrastructure, which is costly and disruptive but essential if real-time electronic patient records are to be delivered, and where money could be saved to be spent on care instead of shuffling paper files on trolleys around hospitals. Instead they have multiple e-mail systems in the same hospital; ffs, whole Trusts and every unit within them need a single secure system, identified only by NHS number, to be tattooed on every baby at birth or a fingerprint. (I hear the screams of outrage from here!)

Also, government departments make lousy purchasers of complex systems and the software systems... the past is littered with failed initiatives (home office, passports, defence etc) which failed because procurement didn't really understand what they were buying and were too often zipped up by vendors' sales and financing operations.

If going green is making poor people starve and die, is it right to have green taxes now? Maybe put the net zero back because at the moment things cannot continue this way.

We need to plough on with renewable energy and it is the quickest way to energy independence. The government have just auctioned off up to 11gw of renewables that will come on stream via offshore wind over the next few years. We have to carry on down that pathway for the sake of the next few generations. What I want to know is why the general public have to pay the price for green energy when the fossil fuel companies are making a fortune in profits.

@SleeplessInEngland

"Quite. And let's not forget, many also went with it before it became official policy. Countless workplaces advised staff to stay home days before Johnson admitted the situation.

That's why all the "I knew lockdown was wrong" posts are so redundant - many businesses were doing it, and would done it, anyway. The market saw covid before the government did."

++++

I think you are missing a critical point that there is a big difference between staff being asked to work from home where possible but continuing to be paid by the employer and staff being told to do no work, stay at home with 80% of their salaries being paid for with Government debt and printed money and the impact this has subsequently had on the economy and inflation.

@dhair

"yep, regardless of whether you agree with lockdown or not we went with it & therefore people had to be supported."

+++

Isn't that a bit like "yep regardless of whether you agree with Brexit or not we went with it & therefore let's all get behind it" or "regardless of whether you think we should have insured the house or not, it still burnt down and therefore let's all not whinge about sleeping in a tent in the garden."

As an alternative how about not making dumb decisions to begin with and then avoid having to get behind or deal with the consequences.

Nope, it isn't remotely like that.

Stating that lockdown cannot happen without government furlough payments doesn't say anything at all about whether lockdown as a policy should be questioned. It only means that you cannot successfully lock down without a critical mass of the population being paid enough to keep them pacified.

It's a point about not pretending there aren't inevitable consequences of a policy, not about whether we should discuss those inevitable consequences. Basically, people need to not pretend there was a way to do lockdown that didn't involve the state paying millions of people to stay at home. There wasn't. And if someone thinks the financial cost of lockdown wasn't worth what we got out of it, fine, by all means say that.

@Scepticalwotsits

if someone’s buisness (being self employed) isn’t stable, or financially viable it’s not the job of the government to prop it up.

No business is viable if it's forced, by law, to close for months at a time, and/or heavily restricted as to how it operates.

The cost of living payment ain’t going to touch the sides.
Giving people payments of £300, or £600 or whatever it is isn’t going to stop them going into fuel poverty. I’d imagine some of them had that money sealed up as soon as they got it. I know the government can’t bail out everyone for everything bit something needs to give.

And what about the low earners like myself who fall through the cracks? We don’t get anything because the computer says we earn too much, yet we’re finding it tough like many people on this site are.

Nit in a nasty way but the Tories only seem to care about the old people in the south east who vote them in.

The Tories have done nothing for working age people who are working class.

Ironically I’ve heard people on here say that would love to leave here country.
Well due to a vote we had a few years ago, il sorry but that option isn’t that simple anymore.
The UK government knows people are stuck here. Maybe be careful what you wish for.

Sorry about above typo errors.

the Tories only seem to care about the old people in the south east who vote them in.

I imagine they’re quite keen on holding on to the red wall.

@ApplesandBunions

It only means that you cannot successfully lock down without a critical mass of the population being paid enough to keep them pacified.

It's a point about not pretending there aren't inevitable consequences of a policy, not about whether we should discuss those inevitable consequences. Basically, people need to not pretend there was a way to do lockdown that didn't involve the state paying millions of people to stay at home. There wasn't. And if someone thinks the financial cost of lockdown wasn't worth what we got out of it, fine, by all means say that.

+++

Firstly I agree that it is extremely difficult to force businesses to close without paying compensation as we saw with certain gyms, hairdressers and other businesses refusing to close and then getting fined. That's it to say it was impossible but would have been extremely unpopular / demanding on police etc. The Government chose the easier route of cash incentives.

Secondly I also agree that it's about "not pretending that there aren't inevitable consequences of a policy ". However in the current climate of populist politics only the upside ever gets promised and the downside either not mentioned or dismissed as project fear . Witness Liz Truss promising unfounded tax cuts.

Thirdly in answer to your question the financial, economic, educational, social and health cost of lockdown wasn't worth what we got out of it,

Stating that lockdown cannot happen without government furlough payments doesn't say anything at all about whether lockdown as a policy should be questioned. It only means that you cannot successfully lock down without a critical mass of the population being paid enough to keep them pacified.

It's a point about not pretending there aren't inevitable consequences of a policy, not about whether we should discuss those inevitable consequences. Basically, people need to not pretend there was a way to do lockdown that didn't involve the state paying millions of people to stay at home. There wasn't. And if someone thinks the financial cost of lockdown wasn't worth what we got out of it, fine, by all means say that.

Exactly