The new "All Quiet on the Western Front" (2022)

I've just now finished watching the new "All quiet on the Western Front". I watched it in German with subtitles.

I've never been a soldier, but it seemed to depict war as it really is. Uncompromisingly dark and brutal. It showed utter unmitigated horror, pain, suffering, despair and terror.

There was nothing redeeming about what they did. Not on either side. No honour, nothing of any merit, nothing of any hope, certainly nothing won. It was just a wretched waste of human life for absolutely no reason.

The stupidity of mankind and the utterly vile things we do to each other will ensure our eventual demise.

Today's Budget

I'm trying to get my head around today's budget.  If my understanding is correct, this will be calamitous for a significant proportion of the UK.

Let's just consider energy costs.

A typical energy bill will be £3000 come April. Compare that price to this financial year where a typical average energy bill is £2,250 (averaging the present cap with the cap from April to October 2022). So that's £3,000 minus £2,250 equals £750 extra we need to find there. But! It is much worse than this since in this financial year we all got £400 help + most of us got £150 help paid by the council. We are not getting this help the next financial year.

So £750 + £400 + £150 = £1,300 worse off per annum for energy alone!

Or am I not understanding something?

Also, I'm hearing a lot of people on social media state that those on means tested benefits have done well out of this budget. Well, they'll "only" be £1,050 worse off rather than £1,300. This financial year, they got the £400 + £150 like most other people. And they also received an additional £650. That equals a total of £1,200 (£400 + £150 + £650). However, next year they're only getting £900. So £300 worse off there (£1200 - £900).

But also next financial year, the energy bill will be £3000 on average. The average energy for this year is £2,250. So that's another £750 they're worse off. £300 + £750 means they're £1,050 worse off. Everyone else are £1,300 worse off. (Edit:  No, it appears that those on benefits will only be getting £600 the next financial year of 2023-24.  So they will be £1,350 worse off.  See below).

And we haven't even begun to consider all the other factors making us poorer e.g. the fact that food appears to have increased by over 30% in the past year.

At the moment in the UK, the news is full of people using food banks, missing meals, not putting their central heating on and so on.  See here.  What do people imagine will happen if they receive a £1,000 less?  Indeed, perhaps £1,500 to £2,000 less once we factor in all the other spiralling costs? (the 6% wage rises or 10% benefit rises scarcely mitigate this calamity).  Significant social unrest is surely the inevitable outcome.
 
Clearly, many poor people (and definitely not just those receiving means tested benefits), simply will not be able to make ends meet. So the Government has to do something else.

Update 4/1/23   Re The help with those on means-tested benefits.

I said above: "next year they're only getting £900. So £300 worse off there (£1200 - £900)".

It has now been revealed that they will only get £600 the next financial year rather than £900, with the final payment of £300, taking it to £900, being made in the Spring of 2024 which I believe will take that payment into the 2024-2025 financial year. Most likely the energy prices will have not gone down by the 2024-25 financial year, so my worry is that this final £300 will also be counted towards the help given in the 2024-25 financial year. In other words, it looks like the Government might try to double-count this £300 and be trying to give the impression that those on benefits are getting £300 more than they actually are.

 

 

 

Give people a second chance?

It's interesting that when members of the public are interviewed about a politician's misdemeanours or whatever, there are loads of them who say that everyone deserves a second chance. Clearly no one is independently coming up with this sentiment, they're all just repeating each other. 

I see no reason why everyone deserves a second chance. Especially not if we're talking about some important job or task. If people screw up, act unethically, or whatever, then there are many other more suitable people that can take their place. Why on earth give people a second chance?

As I predicted back in August, Liz Truss has resigned.

So Liz Truss has announced her resignation as PM.  The shortest serving PM ever -- just 44 days as PM.  And something I predicted before she became PM on the 6th of August.

As I said back then:

"It's possible that Liz Truss might be one of the shortest serving, if not THE shortest serving PM, ever.  You heard it here first".

Why on earth, how on earth, she became PM eludes me.  Why on earth did Tory party members vote for her??  Let's hope that they don't get a say who our next PM is!

22/10/22 Edited to add: I discovered after publishing the above that Matthew Parris (a Tory) has very similar views on Liz Truss to my own.  Here's a clip from Newsnight that was shown the night before last.

The increase in the price of food from October 2021 to October 2022

Also see my figures for July 21 to July 22.  And click on food prices label at the bottom to get all relevant blog posts.

According to this article food prices rose by 14.6% in the 12 months to September.

I do not think this figure can possibly be realistic.  According to the chart above, food prices have gone up by around a third compared to this time last year.

I should firstly state that I almost always pay the cheapest price I can pay.  Certain food products continually cycle up and down in price with their price being labelled an "offer" at the low end of the price cycle. I just stock up on the products when they are on "offer" and never buy them when they are not on offer (although I might have screwed up with the walnuts that I bought a year ago and bought them at the high end of the price cycle.  This will explain why the chart says they've gone down 11% in price.  In reality, this seems very unlikely). And I always compare to the current bottom end of the cycle prices, even though these prices might not be what one pays on this specific date.

For nuts and cheese that I've highlighted in yellow, they're now selling the same product in smaller packets, so have adjusted accordingly.

I'm not sure if I should include the price of salt, sugar, sweets, crisps and frozen chips due to various reasons (highlighted in orange at bottom of chart). Salt and sugar will only be rarely bought. Crisps and sweets are luxury foods. Frozen chips is repetitious since I have already included potatoes. So, if we exclude these products, then the average price increase is 33.5%. More than double the 14.6% that they claim.

But could the average be dragged down to 14.6% by incorporating other foods?  This seems very unlikely to me.  Just look at the number of food products that have increased by less than 14.6% compared to those that have increased by more than this figure.

 

An article on near-death experiences

I read the following skeptical article on NDE's:

The Afterlife Is in Our Heads

These so-called scientific explanations of NDEs assume that it is entirely unproblematic that brains produce consciousness, and given this assumption, they advance speculative hypotheses about how the brain creates such experiences.

Incidentally, I wouldn't claim that NDEs give anything like proof of an afterlife. Clearly, one's mind and implicit expectations very much influences what one actually experiences. But this certainly doesn't mean that one isn't encountering some afterlife realm that one's implicit expectations and beliefs are moulding and shaping. Indeed, this to a certain extent even happens with our everyday embodied vision, as demonstrated by perceptual "illusions". Just consider that dress.

Just a few comments on various quoted parts:

The idea that near-death experiences, also known as NDEs, offer proof of an afterlife for the soul has been remarkably persistent, despite an accumulation of scientific evidence to the contrary.

 …

NDEs are … explained by physiological processes, [neuroscientists] said, which have been pieced together over the past 50 years.

I’ve never come across any of this evidence. As I said above, at best, they are speculative hypotheses.

[A] wealth of neuroscience research describes how OBE-like experiences—a loss of the sense of self and disturbed body perception or ownership—can be triggered by brain damage, epilepsy, and migraine,7 as well as by stimulation of the part of the brain where the right temporal and parietal lobes meet.

Which, as I have continually explained on countless occasions e.g here, has no implications either way, since this would be precisely what we would expect regardless of whether NDEs are a glimpse of some external reality or not.

The “dissociative anesthetic ketamine can reproduce all aspects of the near-death experience,” Jansen wrote. That includes a sense of ineffability, timelessness, that what is experienced is “real,” that one is actually dead, a perception of separation from the body, vivid hallucination, rapid movement through a tunnel, and emerging “into the light.”

So this assumes that ketamine induced experiences are produced by the brain rather than modifying the brain to allow access to other realities. So this argument only works for those that draw a distinction between the ultimate origin of NDEs on the one hand, and psychedelic experiences on the other.

The article reports Anil Seth as saying:

“If somebody with no brain activity were able to experience something and remember it later, then pretty much everything we know about the brain, about science, about physics is wrong.”

This is just nonsense on stilts. Obviously, since the physical sciences wholly leave out consciousness in their description of reality, then necessarily they can have nothing to say about the abilities of consciousness.

Average per day I spend on food.

In my previous post I calculated that the price of food has increased very roughly by 26% over the previous 12 months (and contradicting the claimed 10.6%).  I decided to calculate the average daily cost of food for myself. Chart is below. It ends in mid-August as the average is calculated over a rolling 100 day average and mid-August is now 50 days ago.

 

The average per day I have spent on food over the previous 538 days is £4.88.  Incidentally, this is just food and exclusively bought from supermarkets -- namely Asda, Sainsbury's, Morrisons and Tesco. It doesn't include any non-food products such as cleaning products and whatever.

Looking at the chart, the steep decline in the price I pay from the end of 2021 to the beginning of 2022 is accounted for by my decision to try to decrease the amount I spend on food in the face of the humongous increase in the price of energy.  But, since near the beginning of this year, despite continuing to buy cheaper food, the price I'm paying has steadily increased. This will be purely down to the fact that the price of food has steadily increased since that time. Indeed, I believe that most of the 26% inflation increase in the price of food has occurred since the beginning of this year (2022).

So, anyway, at the present time, it seems I'm spending about an average £5 per day on food. That will only continue to increase whilst food prices keep steeply increasing. 

 

Food Inflation in the UK: Why is an incorrect figure being quoted?

I talked about the increase in the price of food a few weeks ago. I found that the price of food for the products I buy if I were to continue buying those precise same products had roughly increased by 15% from July 2021 to July 2022.  

I was astonished to read a few days ago this article claiming that food prices have only increased by 10.6% in the past year.  Astonished, since the price of food has only been accelerating in the 2 months since I wrote that other blog post in late July.  So it seemed to me that the price inflation of food would be even higher than it was in July i.e higher even than 15%. So I decided to check the prices out by comparing some of the food prices I bought back in September and October 2021 from Morrisons and Sainsburys, and comparing to what the current prices are now on the 30th September 2022.  In the below table I’ve mainly included the more common foods that many people frequently buy e.g. bread, potatoes, milk, cheese etc.

Obviously, a lot of food cycles up and down in price all the time, with the low end of the cycle being labelled "offers". I always use prices at the low end of the cycle.

Weight (kg) Product 2021 2022 % Increase 4 pints Fresh Milk £1.09 £1.55 42% 0.4 Cheddar Cheese £2.00 £2.75 38% 0.2 Pecans £2.50 £2.83 13% 0.2 Walnuts £2.00 £2.22 11% 0.4 Warbs Wholemeal Bread £0.85 £0.90 6% 0.2 Morrisons Plain Yogurt £0.50 £0.75 50% 0.15 Walkers Crisps 6x25g £1.25 £1.50 20% 0.4 Jacob's Cream Crackers 2x200g £1.60 £1.80 13% 0.095 Nescafé Gold Blend Espresso Instant Coffee £3.00 £3.50 17% 850ml Ribena Squash £1.50 £1.50 0% 1 Fresh Chicken Drumsticks £1.35 £2.25 67% 1.35 Fresh Whole Chicken £3.00 £3.50 17% 0.3 Morrisons 10 Haddock Fish Fingers £1.75 £1.99 14% 0.5 Morrisons Chunky Battered Haddock £2.99 £5.25 76% 0.4 Bassetts Jelly Babies Sweets Carton £2.00 £2.00 0% 0.2 Morrisons Fruit Jellies £0.90 £1.25 39% 2.5 King Edward Potatoes £1.50 £1.75 17% 2.5 Morrisons Baking Potatoes £1.25 £1.85 48% All Products £31.03 £39.14 26%
There are 18 food products, and as an average they've increased by 26% (highlighted in yellow). Out of the 18 food products listed, only 3 of them have increased by less than 10.6%. It seems to me to be unrealistic to see how that figure could be dragged down to 10.6% by considering more foods. So how on earth is this 10.6% figure being derived? Incidentally, note how much cheaper the haddock fish fingers are to the chunky battered haddock.  And yet they have a very similar percentage of haddock fillet per unit weight (64% and 65% respectively). Fish fingers are significantly the cheapest way to eat fish, more so if one just buys pollock fish fingers (they don't label them as pollock, of course, since they want customers to assume they're cod.  They use names like omega 3 fish fillet etc, even though the omega 3 content is only a small fraction of fish like mackerel and salmon). Original screenshot of spreadsheet below (I couldn't put it in the middle without messing up all the formatting).

More on the Truss Government.

Following on from my last post.  As I mentioned there, I've made numerous Facebook posts in the past 2 months voicing my fears should Truss become PM. Any other Tory leader candidate would have been infinitely better. Why the hell did Tory party members vote for her? We could have had Rishi Sunak for God's sake! Yeah, he’s fairly clueless in certain respects, e.g. understanding the plight of the poor. But at least he's competent, level-headed and knows what he's doing. So at least the economy would have been in capable hands.

What the hell were Tory party members thinking of? I was watching Tory party members being interviewed before she became PM. They all seemed to prefer her to Sunak. I was just groaning, thinking, 'Oh my Gawd, she's going to become PM, and we're all screwed!' But I was screaming in the wilderness, a forlorn Cassandra figure.

Catastrophic times ahead for the UK

This "mini" budget is extraordinarily bad on all levels.

1. It seems likely to screw up the economy.

2. They're providing help to the richest, and scarcely any help for the poorest, but the latter are precisely the one's that won't be able to make ends meet with this cost of living crisis.

3. They don't appear to care about climate change and renewable energy. 

4. Truss is being belligerent to Russia, making it more likely that we in the UK will be the first target to be nuked.

Well done Tory party members for voting for this incompetent crazy silly women to be our PM...

I've been dreading the possibility of Liz Truss becoming PM ever since Boris Johnson resigned. And it started from April.

For just some facebook posts where I mention her, go here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

As I said on the 22nd July:

Liz Truss keeps asserting that putting up taxes will be deleterious for economic growth (OK, she doesn't use the word deleterious, she's probably never heard of it). Presumably the idea is that people will work less hard the more they're taxed. But where is she getting this idea from? Where is the evidence for this? Or is she just pulling this from her ass? I suspect the latter.

A quick google to try and verify her unsubstantiated assertion. This is the very first link, I wasn't deliberately sifting through trying to find evidence that contradicts her. The link says:

economic growth is largely unaffected by how much tax the wealthy pay. Growth is more likely to spur if lower income earners get a tax cut.

But the more wealthy one is, the more benefits one receives from tax cuts. Even in the best of times, this is the precise converse of what we should be trying to achieve, given the already disgraceful inequality. But Governments (or at least Tory ones) are hell-bent in making this even worse!

And it's especially pernicious given the cost of living crisis. God knows what's going to happen to the bottom 20% of people of the income or wealth scale this coming winter. It's especially bad given that Truss is going to become PM. Why is the UK obligated to have complete incompetents as PMs??

And on the 9th August

Liz Truss’s emergency tax and spending pledges could cost upwards of £50bn a year, with experts warning they will fail to help the worst-off deal with the rising cost of living.

And even leaving the worst off aside, cancelling the national insurance rise helps those on a higher income vastly more than those on the lowest incomes that still pay national insurance. I think it's something like 7 times as much money.

Let's say there's a certain sum of money to help people, say £30 billion. So, as it stands, the worst off will receive no help. And the poorest that nevertheless pay national insurance might only get something like 5 billion, of that 30 billion. Those with greater incomes get the rest. How utterly insane and stupid can she be??

I keep saying that the help needs to be largely targetted to those who are the poorest, and this money needs to come from the wealthiest. She's proposing the precise opposite. It will be disastrous if she's being serious.

And, from what I read, it is generally believed that such tax cuts will fail to facilitate economic growth.

And on the 23rd August

Well, it's certainly going to be dire with Liz Truss as PM. I really am stumped in envisaging what will happen. She's only interested in helping the wealthy, and if she doesn't provide very substantial help for the poor, I'm afraid that could be very dangerous indeed.

26/9/22 Edited to add:   3 days later after the weekend. The pound is plummeting, reaching almost parity with the dollar.  Why on earth was this not anticipated?? 

18/10/22 A further edit:  Well, this mini budget has proved to be an unmitigated disaster.  The chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng has been sacked, and a new chancellor Jeremy Hunt has been appointed in his place.  The new chancellor has U-turned on almost all the policies in the mini-budget, and it is anticipated that Liz Truss will soon be ousted as PM.

Why on earth was she ever appointed as PM in the first place?  I said back on the 6th of August that she might well be the shortest serving PM ever.