economic situation is dire

[tonyh29]

It's more the cost of having to stop the production , clean everything down and start again , not to mention changing the packing each time. .. Would be too expensive unless you built a local factory in each area as well

My fav distribution type issue is Birds eye having fishermen catching the fish , bringing it into Grimsby where it is frozen and shipped to Thailand where it is then filleted and packed and then sent back to Grimsby in another transporter to be boxed up ready to sell

It was on some tv show that was criticising them on their carbon footprint for doing this ..not the fact that they weren't supporting the local economy etc. ...

[peterms]

It's more the cost of having to stop the production , clean everything down and start again , not to mention changing the packing each time. .. Would be too expensive unless you built a local factory in each area as well

My fav distribution type issue is Birds eye having fishermen catching the fish , bringing it into Grimsby where it is frozen and shipped to Thailand where it is then filleted and packed and then sent back to Grimsby in another transporter to be boxed up ready to sell

It was on some tv show that was criticising them on their carbon footprint for doing this ..not the fact that they weren't supporting the local economy etc. ...

The Birds Eye thing is clearly utterly insane, but let that pass.

Did you look at the economics of local food production on something other than what sounds like a massively industrialised scale? Producing things made with locally sourced ingredients, artisan rather than factory food?

[tonyh29]

The Birds Eye thing is clearly utterly insane, but let that pass.

Did you look at the economics of local food production on something other than what sounds like a massively industrialised scale? Producing things made with locally sourced ingredients, artisan rather than factory food?

My brief is only the product and how it goes down with the public ,thankfully the other decisions and logistics down to the client .

It could well be they still go ahead with the "local " project , it's usually 6-8 months after my involvement these things make it to market (if at all)

[leviramsey]

This would be some sort of processed food product. I can see why that wouldn't work.

In France however all the supermarkets seem to stock local fresh produce, that is definitely something we should do here wherever possible but the Supermarkets with their centralised transport hubs would rather cart food from Newcastle to a distribution hub in Birmingham only to then take it back to Sunderland to sell it, its utter madness.

Waitrose actually do have a small "local produce" section in the shop, which is a start, ours sells a few beers it wouldn't normally stock, eccles cakes, Bury black pudding etc

Anecdata:

Both of the big supermarket chains in town (viz. Stop & Shop (part of the multinational Royal Ahold NV) and the regionally owned Big Y) have reasonably extensive local produce (in season) and packaged foods selections, integrated with the national products. That's saying nothing of the smaller local family-owned supermarket and the co-op.

[TheDon]

It's more the cost of having to stop the production , clean everything down and start again

I watched a "how it's made" that had a segment on lollipops a while back. They have a single machine that runs all the flavours, and to save money they don't shut it down to clean it between switching flavour, they just run one batch straight into the next, and sell the overlap as "mystery" flavours.

It's crazy how many ways people find to avoid having to shut down production.

[tonyh29]

Funny enough I did a lot of work on mystery flavours for someone ... Hadn't realised how they'd come up with the idea :-)

[peterms]

Good piece by John Kay on rentseeking, here.

First link on that page, to get round the firewall.

[drat01]

More screw ups on the economy come out today with the Grud announcing that

UK government monthly borrowing rises more than expected to £8.6bn

Fall in corporation tax receipts hits George Osborne's chances of meeting his deficit reduction targets for this year

George Osborne's chances of meeting his deficit reduction targets this year took another blow on Wednesday when it emerged that the government had borrowed much more than expected last month.

Corporation tax receipts fell by almost 10% in October, which normally sees a heavy inflow, while day-to-day departmental spending increased. Central government spending surged from £4.9bn last October to £8.3bn this year.

This meant government borrowing excluding the effects of banking bailouts came in at £8.6bn in October, compared with £5.9bn a year ago. City economists had expected a shortfall of £6bn.

A Treasury spokesman said: "The economy is healing, but it still faces many challenges. These numbers illustrate that, but also show the government's plans to bring spending under control are on track for the year." He said while corporation tax receipts had been affected by an outage in the North Sea, payroll taxes and national insurance payments were holding up well.

The figures, released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), are the last before the chancellor presents his autumn statement on 5 December. Osborne's goal is to reduce government borrowing to £120bn this financial year from last year's revised £121.4bn.

In the financial year so far, borrowing excluding the one-off effects from the transfer of Royal Mail pension assets came in at £73.3bn, £5bn higher than at this stage last year.

Vicky Redwood, chief UK economist at Capital Economics, said: "If the Office for Budget Responsibility assumes that this trend continues, it will have to revise up its forecast for this year from £120bn to £130bn. Even if the OBR assumes that the trend improves a bit, it will still be pretty touch and go whether the chancellor will be expected to meet his fiscal rules without increasing his austerity measures further."

Chris Williamson, chief economist at Markit, said the main problem the government is facing is the weaker-than-expected pace of economic growth seen so far this year. The OBR was expecting the economy to grow by 0.8% in 2012, and expand by 2% in 2013. "Zero growth now looks a more likely outcome for this year, and a return to robust growth next year is starting to look overly optimistic," he said.

The public finances will benefit, however, from the interest payments the Bank of England has received on the £375bn of gilts bought since the start of its quantitative easing programme in early 2009. They will be used to pay down the national debt by £35bn over the next 18 months.

JP Morgan Chase economist Allan Monks believes this will enable the chancellor to claim his borrowing target for this fiscal year will now be met – even though the ONS has yet to decide whether it is appropriate for the interest payments to be included in the deficit measure.

Rachel Reeves, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said: "George Osborne is borrowing billions more simply to pay for the cost of his economic failure. Most of all we need urgent action from this government to create the jobs and growth that are vital to get the deficit down.

Expect more cuts to those that cannot afford them while protecting those that are failing to pay their way

[Risso]

Hmmm. Link to a report about government spending increasing, then moan about cuts.

[Ads]

Hmmm. Link to a report about government spending increasing, then moan about cuts.

Stop deflecting you big Tory.

[bickster]

Hmmm. Link to a report about government spending increasing, then moan about cuts.

Except that isn't what was said at all was it. Really is it any wonder why things get so heated and personal in this topic when peoples views are misrepresented to such an extreme point, just to score a point.

Its rather silly and childish

[chrisp65]

There was a fascinating insight into the world of political economics on the radio earlier. They had some tea party new batch tory MP explaining that borrowing had gone up in large part due to benefits claims having risen and taxable profits having dropped. His remedy? Well we'll clearly need to make more cuts to programmes and budgets or lose our international credibility.

Yep, that'll fix the rise in benefits claims and drop in corporation tax every time.

[peterms]

There was a fascinating insight into the world of political economics on the radio earlier. They had some tea party new batch tory MP explaining that borrowing had gone up in large part due to benefits claims having risen and taxable profits having dropped. His remedy? Well we'll clearly need to make more cuts to programmes and budgets or lose our international credibility.

Yep, that'll fix the rise in benefits claims and drop in corporation tax every time.

They do keep on about this "credibility" thing, almost as if they believe it.

There was an exchange at a committee recently, where Jonathan Portes explained that low interest rates are nothing to do with the international community finding Osborne's policies "credible". The main Tory speaker was astonished, and tried to impugn his impartiality, saying he must be making a political point, and that he was a "rogue economist". Astonishing, and demonstrates the depth of his own ignorance.

Described here.

(but links to videos probably won't work any longer - time-limited)

[Risso]

Except that isn't what was said at all was it. Really is it any wonder why things get so heated and personal in this topic when peoples views are misrepresented to such an extreme point, just to score a point.

Its rather silly and childish

Which bit was factually incorrect? The link about an increase in government spending or the moan about cuts? I think you'll find both are there, all present and correct.

[bickster]

Which bit was factually incorrect? The link about an increase in government spending or the moan about cuts? I think you'll find both are there, all present and correct.

Where does Ian moan about cuts per se? He actually moans that cuts are affecting the wrong people not moaning about cuts existing which is what your response to his post rather disingenuously suggests.

And I do suspect you know this perfectly well

[peterms]

Which bit was factually incorrect? The link about an increase in government spending or the moan about cuts? I think you'll find both are there, all present and correct.

They have cut spending where they can, and plan to cut it more. They thought this would help the economy - "expansionary fiscal contraction", as confused as it sounds.

Osborne doesn't seem to understand that cutting spending at a time of economic stagnation or contraction reduces overall income, which reduces the tax take and leads to more spending on things like benefits.

So more spending than planned on things they didn't want to spend on, cuts in things which would help the economy, and a general further spiral down to a worse place than we could be in.

Drat's comment addresses the bigger point; yours, by confusing involuntary additional spending on non-discretionary consequences of economic failure with actual planned increased spending on things which stimulate the economy, appears to miss the larger issue in order to point out an apparent, but not real, contradiction.

Bicks has a fair point.

[Risso]

They have cut spending where they can, and plan to cut it more. They thought this would help the economy - "expansionary fiscal contraction", as confused as it sounds.

Osborne doesn't seem to understand that cutting spending at a time of economic stagnation or contraction reduces overall income, which reduces the tax take and leads to more spending on things like benefits.

So more spending than planned on things they didn't want to spend on, cuts in things which would help the economy, and a general further spiral down to a worse place than we could be in.

Drat's comment addresses the bigger point; yours, by confusing involuntary additional spending on non-discretionary consequences of economic failure with actual planned increased spending on things which stimulate the economy, appears to miss the larger issue in order to point out an apparent, but not real, contradiction.

Bicks has a fair point.

I can't be sure but I think you may have mentioned this theory once or twice before.

[peterms]

I can't be sure but I think you may have mentioned this theory once or twice before.

Excellent!

Recognition is the first step.

Next, we'll work on understanding.

[Risso]

Excellent!

Recognition is the first step.

Next, we'll work on understanding.

Oh I understand it perfectly well thanks.

[snowychap]

(but links to videos probably won't work any longer - time-limited)

The video on the parliament website still works.

I've watched about 3/4 of it so far. Main conclusion as yet is that David Ruffley is a prize wazzock.

Edit: Having watched the rest, Thurso does his best to uphold the pre ConDem take on Lib Dems (i.e. he mostly leaves out the party stuff, tries to ask pertinent questions and further the discussion/understanding).