Sir Ralph

Agree - Stoke are a good team and to be fair we have contained them well. There is just a lack of options up top and Armstrong has made it easy to defend against.

Need a physical presence up top - Armstrong isnt occupying their centre backs.

Fair enough. The only difference is that in my opinion this should be a more absolute position. However that’s a more complex discussion I suspect. Have a good afternoon.

It will depend on the location and the cost of living in that location. Some locations (more likely down south, including 10 million in Greater London) it would apply and others, maybe up north it wouldn’t. I said as much that this was the case. Two points: 1. I responded to a post which said the example provided (based on London) before was incorrect. I corrected it and you have helpfully confirmed that I was indeed correct. 2. This should never be the case. Somebody working should never be worse off or have the same income as somebody in the same situation (eg same location, family size, etc) not working. I’ve asked this question a couple of times but do you agree with that statement? If so the welfare system should be changed so that this doesn’t occur. Would you agree as I think this is the point?

Like you said we could discuss these matters more widely. I suspect we will have some areas of agreement and disagreement but maybe another day. Have a good afternoon.

Thats fine - I wasn’t getting into a wider discussion. In fact I was trying to focus on the specific example which was being deviated from. Glad we agree successive governments are the issue. I made my comment on landlords because you said the below but if you agree they aren’t the issue then we agree on that also. Rental costs are the killer, but that's what happens when you sell off your social housing and encourage every man and has dog to buy a buy to let or two.

The example that was disputed was based in London. It was challenged and I have corrected it. Southampton maybe a different case, as may other locations, but it depends on the context. The point is that in some scenarios (not all) it pays not to work. That should never be the case - unless you disagree? We don’t live in the 1980s anymore. The way in which people live is changing, hence why you have new rental products on the market. What you will actually find is private landlords often help to provide housing to people that can’t afford to put down a deposit and buy as they provide rented accommodation that would otherwise be in private ownership. With the new requirements for landlords that the government has brought in, you will find that some landlords are now selling their rented properties to private home owners, as the government is forcing them out of the market. This means those renting (often HMOs) will or have been moved out of those properties, there are less rental properties, and therefore prices for renters will go up (hence the jump in rental costs). It’s another example of this Government meddling where they don’t understand the market consequences of what they are doing. They will in fact harm the people they intend to help. The blame isn’t on landlords, in my opinion, but numerous governments over many years for not creating an environment for the delivery of sufficient housing. That should be your beef

Respectfully I think your missing the key point. The example in front of us that you commented on relates to London. We aren’t talking about the locations you are referring to. You need to consider the London location in the context of the example that was disputed. The cost of any housing in London for a four person family is nowhere near £800 pcm, even in rubbish areas. This is why the example provided does add up. There is a massive shortage of housing which has elevated prices for everyone, including Councils. In many cases local authorities pay more than the private rented sector for housing. If Councils could rent housing in London at 800pcm for a 4 person family they wouldn’t all be in the financial position they are in because of their extortionate housing bills. A number have, or are due to, face bankruptcy with this being a factor.

This is based on London prices with two kids (again this is context of the point being made). Good luck getting childcare for £12k a year - the figures are accurate. You would be looking at £4k- £5k a month minimum for childcare and rent. That doesn’t include additional costs incurred from working, such as travel costs. Even if the figures were slightly out (which I don’t think they are) there is a bigger point being made. The welfare system doesn’t encourage people to work in some instances - not something anyone should be supporting. Also, even accepting your calculations, if they had £31k spare in “change” or I would call it other living costs having worked. Thats the same as the £30k that a couple of benefits would have having not worked. So you confirmed the point. In this scenario it pays not to work.

Yes France’s 0.9% forms part of the overall 2% within the eurozone. Its specific figure was just highlighted

I’m just a WUM/pound shop economist who isn’t worth the effort though.

It’s just bad luck mate - I think it’s the weather. If you start quoting stats to demonstrate there is no link between the two, always be thorough. Sort of debunks the argument. Anyway I’m not worth the effort so I suspect he won’t reply.

UK inflation was 3.8% in July 2025. UK inflation was 2.2% in July 2024. An increase of 1.4% since July 2024. EU inflation was 2.4% in July 2025. EU inflation was 2.8% in July 2024 (higher than the UK when the government took charge). A decrease of 0.4% since July 2024.

Please stop messaging me - remember I’m not worth the effort.

Thats nice for you. Don’t comment on posts related to me if I’m not worth your effort then.

As you have probably seen, I have done my best to provide considered responses. I have tried not to given rude or sarcastic responses. On the contrary the response you have given just there speaks volumes.

Which I responded to and explained. So I haven’t ignored it You ignore the FT article on inflation when it suits you but pay attention when it (non Dom’s) when it helps your case (even though you only read the headline and not the detailed context). Ironically it seems you are doing the same thing that you have just accused me of!

To be fair the Tories also allowed this happen but the issues of Labour not being able to get through their welfare reforms because of their backbenchers are one of the reasons for the budget shortfall. They allegedly now are going to come after people’s property value, despite those people having invested in their homes and been responsible (eg the couple mentioned in the graph). It’s the feeding of the net taker mentality, not encouraging net givers who are productive. Being a cynic the more net takers you can create, the more voters you have but ultimately it kills economic growth.

I didn’t ever say external factors couldn’t impact inflation. Inflation is impacted by both external and domestic factors. It would be irrational to suggest otherwise. You may have commented on food prices but the point was made by posters generally (that you align with) that domestic policy doesn’t really impact inflation. This isn’t a reasonable point in my opinion. To contextualise this, the point I made is the difference between the European countries inflation rates and our inflation rate (which is x2, x3 or x4 ours) has been widely commented upon as being linked to domestic government policy. European countries experience similar external factors to us so rationally many people have identified the significant inflation rates difference as being linked to recent government policy. It also suggests that domestic policies are having a notable impact on inflation, hence the difference between our inflation rates and that of other European countries. I think you are saying that Government policy has had a detrimental impact on inflation at least to some degree so we have common ground in principle at least. The increased minimum wage will also have had a notable impact, in my opinion.

I responded to the point about the FT article above. You are focusing on food inflation only - whilst this is one main factor, the Government's policies have impacted inflation overall. I genuinely struggle to understand how somebody can make the case that our closest comparables (european countries) have external forces that our so different to ours, other than national policies, which mean our inflation rate is double theirs (or x 4 in the case of France). Even the article you have found suggests its a factor, albeit attributes less weight than most other commentators. As I mentioned above, I commented because another poster was rubbished for making a legitimate point. I think we will agree to disagree.

The point was made on here that hypochondriac was incorrect to blame the current jump in inflation on Government policy and various people told him he wasn't correct. I responded to address that point, with evidence, to which nobody has given a rationale argument against. To be fair, I think you're latest response agrees that Government policy has had a detrimental impact on the current inflation rate but to a lesser degree. The topic has now shifted to borrowing. Its good that net borrowing reduced (not borrowing overall). My concern around this is that the reduced net borrowing has been driven by increases in tax rises which is having other negative impacts on the economy (e.g. inflation). You will note that the article states that overall borrowing is up £6 billion compared to this time last year. So essentially the Government is borrowing more but covering it by taxing people more. In my opinion that isn't the best approach and isn't sustainable in the longer run. On the FT Article about the flight of wealth, you need to read the article in full, rather than just the headline. Factually I also never “rubbished” it. In fact I didn’t respond to it. I know a number of people that have left (including another friend who is leaving this week). I was previously asked why I took this view and to give examples. I explained the people I know who have left and some people didn't believe me. Frankly I don't care if some of those on here do or don't, it doesn't change the facts. I'm relatively rationale so obviously not going to dispute the figures in that article. However, the article says that those leaving is in line with projections (e.g. 25% of non-doms with trusts and 10% of those without trusts would leave). It basically says it isn't worse than expected (I hasten to add, yet) but doesn't say that people haven't left. I don't think we ever discussed whether the number of people leaving would be worse than projections. The article also says that the Government is awaiting further data to decide whether it rows back on its non-dom policies. So you need to read the context and also see what other data comes out over the next year or so. To clarify I wasn't a Brexiteer just because my views are more conservative in nature. I tend to gravitate towards pro-economic policies and frankly don't care which party comes up with them. If I thought Labour's policies were genuinely pro-growth, I would vote for them, but I don't think they are.

1. We are at 3.8% inflation. Eurozone at 2%, France at 0.9% 2. Inflation likely to rise to 4% in the next few month. Economic growth poor 3. Inflation linked to increases in food due to NI increases, wage inflation from minimum wage change and regulation introduced around packaging 4. Due to increased inflation, interest rates will be limited by BoE. So in summary, everyone else's inflation is less than ours and the difference is mainly linked to Government policies. You may struggle to link the two but whether you like it or not, that's what it says. I trust the FT and they are clearly saying this significant difference is based on Government policies. This is contrary to the opinions of various posters here.

https://www.ft.com/content/25d080e1-ca2b-4c4f-8d9e-b36ba42ce7f9 Eurozone countries are running at 2% inflation nearly half the UK. Direct quote attributing the key reasons for the difference to domestic policies by this “government”: Wage growth is proving stickier in the UK than in the euro area, analysts said, with chancellor Rachel Reeves’ increases in employer national insurance contributions and a boost to the living wage contributing to more persistent price rises.

Overall a good performance. I thought tactically a tight unit second half. Stopped the gap between centre backs and wing backs that happened first half. What did you think? I also thought we have shown good character in both games - do you agree?

Fair enough. Good point on that basis. I liked the way we have dug in in both games