Cost of living squeeze in 2022
Discussion
Welshbeef said:
I’m a Tory voter.
That MP is utterly out of touch naive inept.
The poorest have in the main already adjusted their spend from premium brands to value brands to save. Maybe a small proportion have not and can still do but trying to tell a group who are really struggling how to suck eggs is utterly out of order and clearly
I am sure you're just here to say absurd things to see what people say in response.That MP is utterly out of touch naive inept.
The poorest have in the main already adjusted their spend from premium brands to value brands to save. Maybe a small proportion have not and can still do but trying to tell a group who are really struggling how to suck eggs is utterly out of order and clearly
The "poorest" were not using premium brands and have now had to move to value brands, that group was already using food banks. Next up you have the group that has moved from value brands to food banks. After that you have the group that was using premium brands and is now using value brands. Then you have the group that is currently still using premium brands.
Welshbeef said:
U wot m8?
How did you jump to that edgy post from someone sympathising with the situation many poor and middle earners are going through?
Because early on in this thread, I responded at length to you regarding your thoughts on how much imported fresh fruit were 'necessary', or how to save money on nutritious feeding.How did you jump to that edgy post from someone sympathising with the situation many poor and middle earners are going through?
You might have sympathy, but you lack empathy or the ability to translate your existence into that of those you're sympathising with - which frankly just ends up coming across as insincere toss from someone who simply does not recognise their privilege.
And yes, I feel f
king unclean writing 'check your privilege', however in this case it's absolutely true.This is what happens when we have a big state and high taxes. Everyone becomes reliant on the state to dig them out.
I've always voted conservative as I thought their core belief was small state, small taxes. But the current shower of s
t running the place are more left than Tony Blair and trying to please all the people. It doesn't work, never has..Loads of people shouting on here about more pay. What difference will it make if most of it is taken in tax.
Cut back on over bloated government, reduce the burden and therefore the need for tax income and everyone gets an instant pay rise. Of course we've got to pay for pissing trillions up the wall on covid first so we're going to suffer for a while.
This is Johnsons current plan. He's too late to get my vote back. We should never have been in this mess in the first place.
Harry H said:
This is what happens when we have a big state and high taxes. Everyone becomes reliant on the state to dig them out.
I've always voted conservative as I thought their core belief was small state, small taxes. But the current shower of st running the place are more left than Tony Blair and trying to please all the people. It doesn't work, never has..
Loads of people shouting on here about more pay. What difference will it make if most of it is taken in tax.
Cut back on over bloated government, reduce the burden and therefore the need for tax income and everyone gets an instant pay rise. Of course we've got to pay for pissing trillions up the wall on covid first so we're going to suffer for a while.
This is Johnsons current plan. He's too late to get my vote back. We should never have been in this mess in the first place.
How is it his plan? Surely the reduction in the civil service is just to privatise those departments? I've always voted conservative as I thought their core belief was small state, small taxes. But the current shower of s
t running the place are more left than Tony Blair and trying to please all the people. It doesn't work, never has..Loads of people shouting on here about more pay. What difference will it make if most of it is taken in tax.
Cut back on over bloated government, reduce the burden and therefore the need for tax income and everyone gets an instant pay rise. Of course we've got to pay for pissing trillions up the wall on covid first so we're going to suffer for a while.
This is Johnsons current plan. He's too late to get my vote back. We should never have been in this mess in the first place.
This just brings it back down to the 2015-2017 numbers which were already on a significant upward trend long before COVID-19 (correlated to Brexit).
MesoForm said:
Much as I hate to defend the guy, the 30p for a meal came from the food bank he volunteers at. That's the figure they use when costing up meals, his comments about getting people learning to cook/budget came from the food bank putting people on courses and seeing the affects it had too.
He just worded it in a spectacularly bad way.
Just look online at what they do to achieve 30p a meal.He just worded it in a spectacularly bad way.
Absolute load of old pony.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/tested-cheap-weetab...
I have Weetabix daily.
I have tried say tesco value Weetabix load of rubbish and tried No Frills Kwiksave Weetabix too back in the day load of rubbish.
For me I’ll not downgrade from the proper brand on Weetabix.
Plenty of other foods we have tried and could/have downgraded.
I have Weetabix daily.
I have tried say tesco value Weetabix load of rubbish and tried No Frills Kwiksave Weetabix too back in the day load of rubbish.
For me I’ll not downgrade from the proper brand on Weetabix.
Plenty of other foods we have tried and could/have downgraded.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: And you can afford Weetabix so you don't need to.
Not quite sure what the point is
What?Not quite sure what the point is
You seem to be saying or implying that people who can afford not to downgrade shouldn’t bother? Why?
My point was (aligned to Martin Lewis) try the downgrade from brands to own label (or local butchers Sway) somethings you may find indifferent some a change but it’s perfectly good and some just not for you. Those things can make a difference
Not everyone middle and higher income levels have don’t this yet as you point out why no need / but wasting £ isn’t good for anyone. So a useful exercise.
So is no birthday gifts or Xmas gifts as it puts a burden on the other person to buy you something.
Tankrizzo said:
Biggy Stardust said:
Sway said:
use a slow cooker ('insulated' with a doubled tea towel over the lid meaning you can get the outcome you'd normally get from the 'high' setting but on the low setting),
TYVM for that. 
Slow cooker 'pots' are awesome thermal stores. They're big and thick and heavy. If someone is home during the day, then putting the slow cooker on first thing in the morning, then taking the pot out and into the straw oven at lunchtime - and it'll be lovely by dinner time.
Apologies as I came across unduly harsh there and I know you mean well but respectfully I think you're coming across a little bit tone deaf on this one.
I started to buy M&S baked beans because they're about a third the price of Heinz and I can't tell any real difference.
Small example and I can give myself a little pat on the back at saving a quid on the weekly shop but it's a first world problem when plenty of people can't afford a 25p tin of value beans or their entire days food is less than I throw away because I'm not hungry or forgot it was in the fridge or what have you.
It's as someone pointed out above those people at the bottom aren't downgrading from Weetabix to value brands they're dependent on other peoples charity to eat.
I started to buy M&S baked beans because they're about a third the price of Heinz and I can't tell any real difference.
Small example and I can give myself a little pat on the back at saving a quid on the weekly shop but it's a first world problem when plenty of people can't afford a 25p tin of value beans or their entire days food is less than I throw away because I'm not hungry or forgot it was in the fridge or what have you.
It's as someone pointed out above those people at the bottom aren't downgrading from Weetabix to value brands they're dependent on other peoples charity to eat.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Apologies as I came across unduly harsh there and I know you mean well but respectfully I think you're coming across a little bit tone deaf on this one.
I started to buy M&S baked beans because they're about a third the price of Heinz and I can't tell any real difference.
Small example and I can give myself a little pat on the back at saving a quid on the weekly shop but it's a first world problem when plenty of people can't afford a 25p tin of value beans or their entire days food is less than I throw away because I'm not hungry or forgot it was in the fridge or what have you.
It's as someone pointed out above those people at the bottom aren't downgrading from Weetabix to value brands they're dependent on other peoples charity to eat.
Indeed.I started to buy M&S baked beans because they're about a third the price of Heinz and I can't tell any real difference.
Small example and I can give myself a little pat on the back at saving a quid on the weekly shop but it's a first world problem when plenty of people can't afford a 25p tin of value beans or their entire days food is less than I throw away because I'm not hungry or forgot it was in the fridge or what have you.
It's as someone pointed out above those people at the bottom aren't downgrading from Weetabix to value brands they're dependent on other peoples charity to eat.
And the real point, is that f
king 'weetabix' or whatever the cheaper brands are called, are not the 'essential'.A nutritious breakfast is.
Which, when you actually look at the nutritional value, weetabix would be far down the scale compared to the much cheaper porridge:
Weetabix
Porridge
That extra protein will also ensure you feel fuller for longer, and less likely to snack. That's also without any toppings - and they can be added incredibly cheaply to add vitamins, flavour, etc.
That weetabix breakfast costs 24p per serving (I've excluded milk, as that's about the same quantity for both). Porridge, bought 'inefficiently', is 18p per serving - and that's for a much bigger portion. The concept of 'breakfast cereal' really is a wonder of advertising changing behaviours over decades. They're made from the 'waste' that previously was discarded or used as animal feed.
When it comes to meat, it's not a downgrade compared to supermarket offerings. It's an upgrade, for less price! Just like porridge compared to weetabix.
Edited by Sway on Friday 13th May 17:09
Sway said:
Indeed.
And the real point, is that fking 'weetabix' or whatever the cheaper brands are called, are not the 'essential'.
Plus if everyone is switching to different products, or choosing not to buy things at all, then the cyclical effect of that is unavoidable and that is when things really start to bite.And the real point, is that f
king 'weetabix' or whatever the cheaper brands are called, are not the 'essential'.Some of the price rises I am seeing in Canada are going to see products left on shelves,
pghstochaj said:
How is it his plan? Surely the reduction in the civil service is just to privatise those departments?
This just brings it back down to the 2015-2017 numbers which were already on a significant upward trend long before COVID-19 (correlated to Brexit).
Worth noting that everyone thinks “Civil Servants” means Whitehall mandarins.This just brings it back down to the 2015-2017 numbers which were already on a significant upward trend long before COVID-19 (correlated to Brexit).
The reality is the Whitehall Mandarins are a very small proportion of the total Civil Service.
Of the 470,000 Civil Servants, two thirds work in one of 5 departments:
- DWP (96,000)
- Ministry of Justice (77,000)
- HMRC (66,000)
- MoD (60,000)
- Home Office (40,000)
These are not Whitehall Mandarins. Most of them are people who:
-DWP: JobCentre clerks, pensions and benefits admin
- MoJ: Prison officers, court clerks
- HMRC: Call centre and tax collectors
- MoD: Maintaining bases and equipment
- Home office: Border Force
So if you want to make any meaningful cuts to the number of Civil servants, you have to cut the above departments and roles.
Cut HMRC? Even longer wait times on the phone, and don’t expect anything to get done about tax dodgers
Cut the border force? Ok more queues at Heathrow.
Cut the prison and probation service? Ok more backlog of cases, probation f
kups, escapes, riots etc.Cut the MoD? Ok expect faulty kit, bases in disrepair, etc.
I exaggerate slightly - but if you want to save money you have to identify where
- Useless work is being done that can be stopped (and thereby remove the people doing it)
- Work can be done more efficiently (by an individual doing more, or by technology replacing a person)
If you don’t do that then cutting resource will mean cuts to service…and we should be clear about those trade-offs.
brickwall said:
Worth noting that everyone thinks “Civil Servants” means Whitehall mandarins.
The reality is the Whitehall Mandarins are a very small proportion of the total Civil Service.
Of the 470,000 Civil Servants, two thirds work in one of 5 departments:
- DWP (96,000)
- Ministry of Justice (77,000)
- HMRC (66,000)
- MoD (60,000)
- Home Office (40,000)
These are not Whitehall Mandarins. Most of them are people who:
-DWP: JobCentre clerks, pensions and benefits admin
- MoJ: Prison officers, court clerks
- HMRC: Call centre and tax collectors
- MoD: Maintaining bases and equipment
- Home office: Border Force
So if you want to make any meaningful cuts to the number of Civil servants, you have to cut the above departments and roles.
Cut HMRC? Even longer wait times on the phone, and don’t expect anything to get done about tax dodgers
Cut the border force? Ok more queues at Heathrow.
Cut the prison and probation service? Ok more backlog of cases, probation fkups, escapes, riots etc.
Cut the MoD? Ok expect faulty kit, bases in disrepair, etc.
I exaggerate slightly - but if you want to save money you have to identify where
- Useless work is being done that can be stopped (and thereby remove the people doing it)
- Work can be done more efficiently (by an individual doing more, or by technology replacing a person)
If you don’t do that then cutting resource will mean cuts to service…and we should be clear about those trade-offs.
You are completely wrong on the MOD civil servants. There aren't many on bases now, they are mostly storemen or admin type of roles. The maintenance of the bases has been carried out by one of the usual crowd of crap firms like Amey/ Carrillion/ Dodd group/ Babcocks for many many years.The reality is the Whitehall Mandarins are a very small proportion of the total Civil Service.
Of the 470,000 Civil Servants, two thirds work in one of 5 departments:
- DWP (96,000)
- Ministry of Justice (77,000)
- HMRC (66,000)
- MoD (60,000)
- Home Office (40,000)
These are not Whitehall Mandarins. Most of them are people who:
-DWP: JobCentre clerks, pensions and benefits admin
- MoJ: Prison officers, court clerks
- HMRC: Call centre and tax collectors
- MoD: Maintaining bases and equipment
- Home office: Border Force
So if you want to make any meaningful cuts to the number of Civil servants, you have to cut the above departments and roles.
Cut HMRC? Even longer wait times on the phone, and don’t expect anything to get done about tax dodgers
Cut the border force? Ok more queues at Heathrow.
Cut the prison and probation service? Ok more backlog of cases, probation f
kups, escapes, riots etc.Cut the MoD? Ok expect faulty kit, bases in disrepair, etc.
I exaggerate slightly - but if you want to save money you have to identify where
- Useless work is being done that can be stopped (and thereby remove the people doing it)
- Work can be done more efficiently (by an individual doing more, or by technology replacing a person)
If you don’t do that then cutting resource will mean cuts to service…and we should be clear about those trade-offs.
eccles said:
brickwall said:
Worth noting that everyone thinks “Civil Servants” means Whitehall mandarins.
The reality is the Whitehall Mandarins are a very small proportion of the total Civil Service.
Of the 470,000 Civil Servants, two thirds work in one of 5 departments:
- DWP (96,000)
- Ministry of Justice (77,000)
- HMRC (66,000)
- MoD (60,000)
- Home Office (40,000)
These are not Whitehall Mandarins. Most of them are people who:
-DWP: JobCentre clerks, pensions and benefits admin
- MoJ: Prison officers, court clerks
- HMRC: Call centre and tax collectors
- MoD: Maintaining bases and equipment
- Home office: Border Force
So if you want to make any meaningful cuts to the number of Civil servants, you have to cut the above departments and roles.
Cut HMRC? Even longer wait times on the phone, and don’t expect anything to get done about tax dodgers
Cut the border force? Ok more queues at Heathrow.
Cut the prison and probation service? Ok more backlog of cases, probation fkups, escapes, riots etc.
Cut the MoD? Ok expect faulty kit, bases in disrepair, etc.
I exaggerate slightly - but if you want to save money you have to identify where
- Useless work is being done that can be stopped (and thereby remove the people doing it)
- Work can be done more efficiently (by an individual doing more, or by technology replacing a person)
If you don’t do that then cutting resource will mean cuts to service…and we should be clear about those trade-offs.
You are completely wrong on the MOD civil servants. There aren't many on bases now, they are mostly storemen or admin type of roles. The maintenance of the bases has been carried out by one of the usual crowd of crap firms like Amey/ Carrillion/ Dodd group/ Babcocks for many many years.The reality is the Whitehall Mandarins are a very small proportion of the total Civil Service.
Of the 470,000 Civil Servants, two thirds work in one of 5 departments:
- DWP (96,000)
- Ministry of Justice (77,000)
- HMRC (66,000)
- MoD (60,000)
- Home Office (40,000)
These are not Whitehall Mandarins. Most of them are people who:
-DWP: JobCentre clerks, pensions and benefits admin
- MoJ: Prison officers, court clerks
- HMRC: Call centre and tax collectors
- MoD: Maintaining bases and equipment
- Home office: Border Force
So if you want to make any meaningful cuts to the number of Civil servants, you have to cut the above departments and roles.
Cut HMRC? Even longer wait times on the phone, and don’t expect anything to get done about tax dodgers
Cut the border force? Ok more queues at Heathrow.
Cut the prison and probation service? Ok more backlog of cases, probation f
kups, escapes, riots etc.Cut the MoD? Ok expect faulty kit, bases in disrepair, etc.
I exaggerate slightly - but if you want to save money you have to identify where
- Useless work is being done that can be stopped (and thereby remove the people doing it)
- Work can be done more efficiently (by an individual doing more, or by technology replacing a person)
If you don’t do that then cutting resource will mean cuts to service…and we should be clear about those trade-offs.
12,000 of the MoD’s 60,000 are DE&S - I remain unconvinced that *more* people in a procurement process leads to a better outcome.
(Especially when the procurement processes I’ve seen were stuffed to the gunnels with secondees from the defence contractors!)
Though not sure cutting DE&S staff numbers would save money - you could halve the number of staff if you had better people, but you’d need to pay them twice as much. Or reduce capability and get screwed by the defence industry.
To be clear I’m not saying “you can’t cut the civil service” - I’m saying without being able to point at wasted work then you’re on a hiding to nothing.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff