LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

So much for this.



So that's UK farming given notice.

The whole thing is a mess. How can foie gras be illegal to make in the UK, but perfectly ok to import? I'm not sure I see chlorinated chickens as much different.

There's an obvious difference.

Which is?

On is exclusively about the conditions in which the animals are reared for food, the other also has an impact on the quality and likelihood of food poisoning (which is my own preoccupation).

They are both about the conditions animals are reared for food - that's why the chickens are chlorinated. If chlorinated chicken is also more likely to cause food poisoning then fair enough.

It is. The bigger point of which chicken is just one example is that lower animal welfare and other standards allow producers to undercut UK production costs, rendering UK farming uncompetitive and shortly thereafter out of business.

Yes, foie gras imports should have been banned with UK production. I don't think that's a reason to give up on the rest of it.

rick_chasey

Look I eat foie gras on occasion so I'm not gonna sit here and say I am deeply concerned about animal welfare, but generally I am all for high levels of food standards, and high standard on food information.

rjsterry

https://twitter.com/jayrayner1/status/1315932562368466944?s=19

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

So much for this.



So that's UK farming given notice.

The whole thing is a mess. How can foie gras be illegal to make in the UK, but perfectly ok to import? I'm not sure I see chlorinated chickens as much different.

There's an obvious difference.

Which is?

On is exclusively about the conditions in which the animals are reared for food, the other also has an impact on the quality and likelihood of food poisoning (which is my own preoccupation).

They are both about the conditions animals are reared for food - that's why the chickens are chlorinated. If chlorinated chicken is also more likely to cause food poisoning then fair enough.

It is. The bigger point of which chicken is just one example is that lower animal welfare and other standards allow producers to undercut UK production costs, rendering UK farming uncompetitive and shortly thereafter out of business.

Yes, foie gras imports should have been banned with UK production. I don't think that's a reason to give up on the rest of it.

You have linked animal welfare to the financial welfare of UK farmers the problem is that one man's animal welfare standards are another man's invisible trade barriers.

I have eaten chicken in America and it did not taste of swimming pools and I did not get ill, I also know people who rear chicks for M&S and if that is the top and of the market then I really think the Yanks may have a point about our motives.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

So much for this.



So that's UK farming given notice.

The whole thing is a mess. How can foie gras be illegal to make in the UK, but perfectly ok to import? I'm not sure I see chlorinated chickens as much different.

There's an obvious difference.

Which is?

On is exclusively about the conditions in which the animals are reared for food, the other also has an impact on the quality and likelihood of food poisoning (which is my own preoccupation).

They are both about the conditions animals are reared for food - that's why the chickens are chlorinated. If chlorinated chicken is also more likely to cause food poisoning then fair enough.

It is. The bigger point of which chicken is just one example is that lower animal welfare and other standards allow producers to undercut UK production costs, rendering UK farming uncompetitive and shortly thereafter out of business.

Yes, foie gras imports should have been banned with UK production. I don't think that's a reason to give up on the rest of it.

You have linked animal welfare to the financial welfare of UK farmers the problem is that one man's animal welfare standards are another man's invisible trade barriers.

I have eaten chicken in America and it did not taste of swimming pools and I did not get ill, I also know people who rear chicks for M&S and if that is the top and of the market then I really think the Yanks may have a point about our motives.

https://www.insidescience.org/news/listeria-or-hysteria-why-brits-fear-american-chlorinated-chicken-imports#:~:text=coli, which cause food poisoning,of food poisoning each year.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, roughly 16 percent of Americans will suffer a bout of food poisoning each year. Whereas the Foods Standards Agency in the U.K. estimates that just over 1 percent of people living in England and Wales will befall the same fate.

“The figures aren’t just plucked out of thin air; there is evidence to back them up, but even so it’s still very difficult to properly measure food poisoning rates because many people don’t report,” said Simon Dawson, director of the food science and technology program at Cardiff Metropolitan University in the U.K. “It’s also not all caused by chickens, obviously.”

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

So much for this.



So that's UK farming given notice.

The whole thing is a mess. How can foie gras be illegal to make in the UK, but perfectly ok to import? I'm not sure I see chlorinated chickens as much different.

There's an obvious difference.

Which is?

On is exclusively about the conditions in which the animals are reared for food, the other also has an impact on the quality and likelihood of food poisoning (which is my own preoccupation).

They are both about the conditions animals are reared for food - that's why the chickens are chlorinated. If chlorinated chicken is also more likely to cause food poisoning then fair enough.

It is. The bigger point of which chicken is just one example is that lower animal welfare and other standards allow producers to undercut UK production costs, rendering UK farming uncompetitive and shortly thereafter out of business.

Yes, foie gras imports should have been banned with UK production. I don't think that's a reason to give up on the rest of it.

You have linked animal welfare to the financial welfare of UK farmers the problem is that one man's animal welfare standards are another man's invisible trade barriers.

I have eaten chicken in America and it did not taste of swimming pools and I did not get ill, I also know people who rear chicks for M&S and if that is the top and of the market then I really think the Yanks may have a point about our motives.

https://www.insidescience.org/news/listeria-or-hysteria-why-brits-fear-american-chlorinated-chicken-imports#:~:text=coli, which cause food poisoning,of food poisoning each year.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, roughly 16 percent of Americans will suffer a bout of food poisoning each year. Whereas the Foods Standards Agency in the U.K. estimates that just over 1 percent of people living in England and Wales will befall the same fate.

“The figures aren’t just plucked out of thin air; there is evidence to back them up, but even so it’s still very difficult to properly measure food poisoning rates because many people don’t report,” said Simon Dawson, director of the food science and technology program at Cardiff Metropolitan University in the U.K. “It’s also not all caused by chickens, obviously.”

put the shoe on the other hoof and see how upset we get when our beef gets banned again. Of course we believe it to be the best in the world and the ban to be an unfair trade restriction.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

So much for this.



So that's UK farming given notice.

The whole thing is a mess. How can foie gras be illegal to make in the UK, but perfectly ok to import? I'm not sure I see chlorinated chickens as much different.

There's an obvious difference.

Which is?

On is exclusively about the conditions in which the animals are reared for food, the other also has an impact on the quality and likelihood of food poisoning (which is my own preoccupation).

They are both about the conditions animals are reared for food - that's why the chickens are chlorinated. If chlorinated chicken is also more likely to cause food poisoning then fair enough.

It is. The bigger point of which chicken is just one example is that lower animal welfare and other standards allow producers to undercut UK production costs, rendering UK farming uncompetitive and shortly thereafter out of business.

Yes, foie gras imports should have been banned with UK production. I don't think that's a reason to give up on the rest of it.

You have linked animal welfare to the financial welfare of UK farmers the problem is that one man's animal welfare standards are another man's invisible trade barriers.

I have eaten chicken in America and it did not taste of swimming pools and I did not get ill, I also know people who rear chicks for M&S and if that is the top and of the market then I really think the Yanks may have a point about our motives.

https://www.insidescience.org/news/listeria-or-hysteria-why-brits-fear-american-chlorinated-chicken-imports#:~:text=coli, which cause food poisoning,of food poisoning each year.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, roughly 16 percent of Americans will suffer a bout of food poisoning each year. Whereas the Foods Standards Agency in the U.K. estimates that just over 1 percent of people living in England and Wales will befall the same fate.

“The figures aren’t just plucked out of thin air; there is evidence to back them up, but even so it’s still very difficult to properly measure food poisoning rates because many people don’t report,” said Simon Dawson, director of the food science and technology program at Cardiff Metropolitan University in the U.K. “It’s also not all caused by chickens, obviously.”

put the shoe on the other hoof and see how upset we get when our beef gets banned again. Of course we believe it to be the best in the world and the ban to be an unfair trade restriction.

Meh. I have a pet belief that eating healthily is a key that unlocks vast amounts of improved health, happiness, the lot, so I am all for anything that blanket improves the quality of food and all against anything that opens the option to reduce it.

surrey_commuter

IFS is very upset with Rishi for saying the Govt is committed to balancing the books pointing out that by 2025 the deficit will be at least £100bn and could be as high as £200bn. if they are right with the £200bn then back of a fag packet maths would suggest that national debt will go up by £1bn in the next 4 years. Give it another Govt and we will probably be at 200% of GDP.

Anybody else agree with me that debt may be a problem? or that the last Budget was the tipping point?

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

So much for this.



So that's UK farming given notice.

The whole thing is a mess. How can foie gras be illegal to make in the UK, but perfectly ok to import? I'm not sure I see chlorinated chickens as much different.

There's an obvious difference.

Which is?

On is exclusively about the conditions in which the animals are reared for food, the other also has an impact on the quality and likelihood of food poisoning (which is my own preoccupation).

They are both about the conditions animals are reared for food - that's why the chickens are chlorinated. If chlorinated chicken is also more likely to cause food poisoning then fair enough.

It is. The bigger point of which chicken is just one example is that lower animal welfare and other standards allow producers to undercut UK production costs, rendering UK farming uncompetitive and shortly thereafter out of business.

Yes, foie gras imports should have been banned with UK production. I don't think that's a reason to give up on the rest of it.

You have linked animal welfare to the financial welfare of UK farmers the problem is that one man's animal welfare standards are another man's invisible trade barriers.

I have eaten chicken in America and it did not taste of swimming pools and I did not get ill, I also know people who rear chicks for M&S and if that is the top and of the market then I really think the Yanks may have a point about our motives.

It's not just animal welfare. The large scale farming practices of the US are pretty destructive to the surrounding environment. If we were to import those practices that would fundamentally change rural Britain. If we just import the food, are we happy to wreck another bit of the world for slightly cheaper food?

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

So much for this.



So that's UK farming given notice.

The whole thing is a mess. How can foie gras be illegal to make in the UK, but perfectly ok to import? I'm not sure I see chlorinated chickens as much different.

There's an obvious difference.

Which is?

On is exclusively about the conditions in which the animals are reared for food, the other also has an impact on the quality and likelihood of food poisoning (which is my own preoccupation).

They are both about the conditions animals are reared for food - that's why the chickens are chlorinated. If chlorinated chicken is also more likely to cause food poisoning then fair enough.

It is. The bigger point of which chicken is just one example is that lower animal welfare and other standards allow producers to undercut UK production costs, rendering UK farming uncompetitive and shortly thereafter out of business.

Yes, foie gras imports should have been banned with UK production. I don't think that's a reason to give up on the rest of it.

You have linked animal welfare to the financial welfare of UK farmers the problem is that one man's animal welfare standards are another man's invisible trade barriers.

I have eaten chicken in America and it did not taste of swimming pools and I did not get ill, I also know people who rear chicks for M&S and if that is the top and of the market then I really think the Yanks may have a point about our motives.

https://www.insidescience.org/news/listeria-or-hysteria-why-brits-fear-american-chlorinated-chicken-imports#:~:text=coli, which cause food poisoning,of food poisoning each year.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, roughly 16 percent of Americans will suffer a bout of food poisoning each year. Whereas the Foods Standards Agency in the U.K. estimates that just over 1 percent of people living in England and Wales will befall the same fate.

“The figures aren’t just plucked out of thin air; there is evidence to back them up, but even so it’s still very difficult to properly measure food poisoning rates because many people don’t report,” said Simon Dawson, director of the food science and technology program at Cardiff Metropolitan University in the U.K. “It’s also not all caused by chickens, obviously.”

put the shoe on the other hoof and see how upset we get when our beef gets banned again. Of course we believe it to be the best in the world and the ban to be an unfair trade restriction.

Our animal welfare standards have improved, largely in response to things like the disaster of BSE.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

IFS is very upset with Rishi for saying the Govt is committed to balancing the books pointing out that by 2025 the deficit will be at least £100bn and could be as high as £200bn. if they are right with the £200bn then back of a censored packet maths would suggest that national debt will go up by £1bn in the next 4 years. Give it another Govt and we will probably be at 200% of GDP.

Anybody else agree with me that debt may be a problem? or that the last Budget was the tipping point?

How are you deciding 200% of GDP is problematic? There are nations for which this is not a problem and nations for which it is.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

IFS is very upset with Rishi for saying the Govt is committed to balancing the books pointing out that by 2025 the deficit will be at least £100bn and could be as high as £200bn. if they are right with the £200bn then back of a censored packet maths would suggest that national debt will go up by £1bn in the next 4 years. Give it another Govt and we will probably be at 200% of GDP.

Anybody else agree with me that debt may be a problem? or that the last Budget was the tipping point?

How are you deciding 200% of GDP is problematic? There are nations for which this is not a problem and nations for which it is.

based upon debt servicing costs will not always be under our control so are likely to become the Govt's biggest single expenditure.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

IFS is very upset with Rishi for saying the Govt is committed to balancing the books pointing out that by 2025 the deficit will be at least £100bn and could be as high as £200bn. if they are right with the £200bn then back of a censored packet maths would suggest that national debt will go up by £1bn in the next 4 years. Give it another Govt and we will probably be at 200% of GDP.

Anybody else agree with me that debt may be a problem? or that the last Budget was the tipping point?

How are you deciding 200% of GDP is problematic? There are nations for which this is not a problem and nations for which it is.

based upon debt servicing costs will not always be under our control so are likely to become the Govt's biggest single expenditure.

So in what circumstances does the debt servicing cost become higher than the value it has to keep the spending high?

rick_chasey

I know you're preoccupied with the cost of servicing debt, but the trade off and the balance to find is the cost of servicing debt vs cost to future growth (and thus tax receipts) for withholding gov't spending.

Withdrawing spending can create economic scarring which permanently knocks off growth (e.g. withdrawing furlough money too soon).

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

I know you're preoccupied with the cost of servicing debt, but the trade off and the balance to find is the cost of servicing debt vs cost to future growth (and thus tax receipts) for withholding gov't spending.

Withdrawing spending can create economic scarring which permanently knocks off growth (e.g. withdrawing furlough money too soon).

Our difference is that your borrowing is all for the future benefit of the economy whereas I see much of it as political.

The last Budget was a £60bn deficit or 3% of GDP, Tthat was a signal that after a decade of trying they had given up on trying to balance the books.

When borrowing was 83% of GDP debt servicing costs were £46bn a year, can you really not see the danger.

Also Govt has been borrowing for 4 years to avoid a Brexit recession, do you think that is counter cyclical? and at what point should they accept the new reality

pangolin

https://twitter.com/allisonpearson/status/1315792326275592193?s=19

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

I know you're preoccupied with the cost of servicing debt, but the trade off and the balance to find is the cost of servicing debt vs cost to future growth (and thus tax receipts) for withholding gov't spending.

Withdrawing spending can create economic scarring which permanently knocks off growth (e.g. withdrawing furlough money too soon).

Trouble with that is gambling on future growth to service the debt.
What if there is no growth due to say, a pandemic?
I thought things were close to a tipping point after the last budget, and now just 🚽

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

I know you're preoccupied with the cost of servicing debt, but the trade off and the balance to find is the cost of servicing debt vs cost to future growth (and thus tax receipts) for withholding gov't spending.

Withdrawing spending can create economic scarring which permanently knocks off growth (e.g. withdrawing furlough money too soon).

Trouble with that is gambling on future growth to service the debt.
What if there is no growth due to say, a pandemic?
I thought things were close to a tipping point after the last budget, and now just 🚽

It’s not so much a gamble.

It’s just a trade off. Either you lose future revenue through reduced growth (even if there is a downturn - if your spending adds 2% of growth, and a pandemic sinks it by 10% you’ll be net 8% down) or it’s lost future spending due to debt servicing.

So you find the balance.

I tend to want to prioritise growing your way out of it as it makes for a better social environment all round, but that’s what the calculation should be.

Markets are a helpful indicator in this as obviously if they’re concerned about the ability of the govt to service the debt rates will go up and obviously the rates impact the cost of debt servicing.

I get SC’s point that there is never the political will to reduce the overall debt.

I don’t think, to borrow a Coopster saying, wetting the bed over debt reaching 200% of GDP because it’s a round number is helpful as it’s just arbitrary. Lenders seem to think the govt can pay it back with consummate ease and will even pay the govt to borrow so trustworthy are they.

So I get the concern but the calculation at this stage is that and given rates, spending is ok.

pblakeney

I get the balance factor, I just think it has been tipped too far for an unavoidable reason. I also think that would be the case regardless of measures taken given the starting point. YMMV, obviously.

pangolin

Listening to someone being interviewed on R4 earlier saying it wasn't such a worry as rates are so low currently, and we can pay it back over decades or even centuries. Those 2 arguments seem slightly at odds with each other.

orraloon

'We' don't pay it back. 'We' kick it down the timeline and let da kidz or da grandkidz or da greatgrandkidz... sort out the clusterfxck.

orraloon

But it's ok, 'cos 80 seat majority, innit.

Stevo_666

pangolin said:

Listening to someone being interviewed on R4 earlier saying it wasn't such a worry as rates are so low currently, and we can pay it back over decades or even centuries. Those 2 arguments seem slightly at odds with each other.

Paying the intrest is one thing and perfectly feasible with the current record low rates. Paying back the principal is another thing altogether given it is well over £2 trillion - and while annual outgoings continue to exceed income is likely to continue rising.

Short term the markets are happy to oblige by lending, but it clearly can't go on indefinitely and the question is more about when will come to the crunch than whether - even if the 'when' may be a long way off.

It's a long term issue for many countries
https://usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html

surrey_commuter

Rates are only low because the BofE keeps buying the Treasury’s debt. If this relatively recent practice is revealed to be snake oil then rates could return to historic (pre GFC) levels, say 5%, then as we roll over our debt the servicing costs will double to £100bn pa before doubling again. And there will be nothing we can do about it.

So to play Rick’s previous game what are you going to cut to pay for that and balance the books?

Anybody fancy a 25% cut in all public sector pay, benefits and pensions?

Or the magic money tree keeps flowering and we hit the next economic crisis at 250% debt ( well we would be mad not to) and we just borrow a load more to get ourselves out of that hole, that puts us on 300%. A decade later and we have another crisis and up to 400%.

Think I am mad well after ten years of post GFC May got the deficit down to £40bn before Boris bounced it back up to £60bn.

pblakeney

The snake oil continues. BoE is currently considering negative interest rates. I don't know the consequences, but I doubt they are good.

briantrumpet

Still remembering the great deal five-year 8% fixed rate self-certified mortgage I got in 1992...

orraloon

Not considering. Incoming. November.

surrey_commuter

briantrumpet said:

Still remembering the great deal five-year 8% fixed rate self-certified mortgage I got in 1992...

Possibly the most lucrative thing you will ever do.

briantrumpet

surrey_commuter said:

briantrumpet said:

Still remembering the great deal five-year 8% fixed rate self-certified mortgage I got in 1992...

Possibly the most lucrative thing you will ever do.

...even after losing out on the endowment mortgage...

rick_chasey

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1316333444654301184?s=21

Eek

pblakeney

I maintain that any referendum about fundamental change should require a minimum 60/40 vote in favour of change. Anything less isn't conclusive enough.