Yeah it's probably an atheist or a buddhist kiwi. Let's not jump to conclusions though. We'll have to wait and see what develops.
Let's hope this knife thing in Russell Square is nutter derived and not a bit of organised terrorism, though that will be scant comfort to the victims and their families. On a totally unrelated point, just read that only 38% of British parents feel it's important to leave an inheritance for their kids, following the leads of intellectuals like Simon Cowell and Nigella Lawson who have stated that they will leave nothing of their millions to their offspring. Personally I would like to help my kids get on the housing ladder, trouble is that this would bankrupt me and require me to live with them or be homeless. Also just read a representative of the National Obesity Forum (always have to think twice on whether this is pro or anti plumpness) blaming successive governments for the 'obesity epidemic'. Quite right, every household should have an Anti Obesity Policeperson, charged with yelling 'don't eat that crisp!' at every instance of transgression. Or people could take some responsibility for themselves. Finally, having read the opinion pieces in the Times, I can say that in my opinion the quality of thinking and certainly honesty on here is much better than these 'paid to have opinions' pillocks can muster. Better do some work now.
Dame Lowell Goddard has become the THIRD person to quit as chair of the independent inquiry into child sex abuse. Another ****-up by the ex-Home Secretary.
I have no idea what this inquiry is meant to achieve. I'm also confused what cutting interest rates will do, apart from getting people to borrow more cheap money, but still have to pay it back.
Me too, if I'm honest. But, then again, I'm often outwitted by my toaster. Interest rates are so low that a 0.25% rate reduction will surely only have a negligible impact in people's pockets? I can't see it helping those families living with unmanageable debt beyond the cost of their homes, as I suspect these borrowings are against expensive and fixed interest rates. Stroller's piece from the BofE suggests that the MPC is having to take special measures to reduce the cost of money for the banks in order for them to pass this on to their clients, which is code for 'don't expect to see much of a reduction in your mortgage payment' as lenders pretend to plead poverty and become slow to pass rate savings through the systems. With a lower pound following the Brexit referendum, I'd have thought the last thing some importers needed right now was a cut in interest rates, as this inevitably leads to a further devaluation of sterling. Good news for exporters, whilst firms with natural hedging shouldn't suffer too greatly. So the cynic in me (who's never that far from the surface at the best of times) thinks that Joe Schmoe might see tuppence ha'penny saving in his mortgage payment if he's lucky, but is likely to be hit harder by the higher cost of imported products, particularly energy and food.
The more I think it about it (not much I'm not that sad) the odder it gets. I thought that the Bank's job was to keep inflation around 2.0%. Even with this cut they reckon the effects of devaluation will give us a rate of 2.5%, and the cut adds to devaluation. Lower interest rates are meant to stimulate the economy by getting people to spend more aren't they? But our economy (and the US one) was doing better than Europe and Japan with their negative rates anyway. The combination of low interest rates and rising inflation (even if it is still pretty low) really punishes savers, the people who actually try to look after their future, increases debt and stores up problems for the future. It also makes it more likely that people like me will delay retiring, squeezing the jobs market more. Especially because my wife is now talking of remodelling the entire house given that it's not worth sitting on the cash we have, every day it is worth less. Yep, that would have been the bold thing to do. Or just leave them as they were.
That is exactly the point. People delude themselves constantly that they feel good when they spend. And governments rely on the innate stupidity and flock mentality of a stampeding horde of shoppers convinced they are getting a bargain buying something several sizes too small or too big. Next time you hop on a plane on a business go into the duty free shop and just look at them. And the prices they have been suckered into paying. How many of them behave responsibly with their credit cards?
My 16 year old daughter has been out hunting for a summer / part time job this week. In the course of this I discovered that the minimum wage for under 18 year olds is £3.87 an hour. It's disgraceful.
Really can't see what the fuss is about with this Australian family in Scotland facing deportation. Study visa run out, failed to find suitable work, time to leave. Or possibly move to a place in the UK where they could find work.
£6.00 something, goes up again to £7.00 something for over 25s I think. Daughter got a job waitressing at some pizza place, but she gets to keep all her tips. Quite right too on that pay.
Sympathies to any of you suffering from the Southern Rail fiasco, but I'm sick of hearing about it on the national news, which is as totally London centric as ever. The same rail company and Union people have been interviewed for weeks and they always say the same thing.
They are trying to get money moving. It's that simple. If nobody spends, borrows, or loans, the economy stagnates. By making it cheaper for (primarily) business to borrow, they encourage investment where otherwise it would not happen. That creates jobs, and the ability for people to spend, which creates turnover, which creates more investment, etc. Raising interest rates would have the negative effect, with businesses potentially cancelling investment, and many people having a direct hit in mortgage payments that would reduce their spending capital. I don't envy the people at the Bank of England their jobs, but they are - at least - trying to do the right thing here.
I don't envy them either, and I don't doubt that they are trying to do the right thing. But a 0.25 cut won't achieve what you set out without a government economic package to accompany it, and for that we have to wait for some arcane reason until the Autumn statement. We have a government that is scared to make any big decisions while it twitters around floating marginal ideas about bribes for people affected by fracking and grammar schools. I still have no inkling as to whether we want to stay in the EU customs union or not, surely a statement on that would do more for business 'certainty' than anything. In the news today it emerges that the banks have cut the interest rates they pay on savings by 0.4%, obviously more than the Bank of England rate cut. At the same time it appears that a third of British households do not have enough savings to pay next months rent or mortgage. And what incentive do they have to save? At the moment every £100 I save would be worth £97.50 in twelve months, while something I could buy today for £100 would cost me £102.50 in a year. Saving, at least the way most people save, is a mugs game in current circumstances. Which is why I'm burning most of my savings on building work for the next five weeks. It's that of gamble on horses or the stock market, both more attractive than letting you wedge slowly shrink.
There's very little wiggle room when rates had been at 0.5% for so long. Cutting the rate by half, with additional stimulus in the form of so-called "quantitative easing" and anything else the Government comes up with in September, is as much as anyone could do. I wonder where people actually want Government to focus their time - the economy, or Article 50? I for one would much prefer the government to forget about triggering Article 50 for now, and concentrate on our industry and economy. It seems like an unnecessary distraction.
