By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
“Prices are still rising in the shops, with the average weekly shop £110 more than it was before the last general election, and the average family set to be £1,200 worse off under Rishi Sunak’s tax plan."
This has obviously just been debunked on More or Less because her figure would imply the average weekly shop is around £550. In fact it is only £75.
So not only is she a plagiarist, she's not very good at maths, and her main strength when it comes to economics is being economical with the truth.
Rachel Reeves maths is not as far out as yours for me? The current food inflation rate it is 8% and makes someone on £110 per week shop £550 a year worse off by my maths . RR figures work out as £110 per week = £5720, food inflation is currently running at 8%, food bill up to £6217. £6217 - £5720 = £497.
My estimated food shopping bill for 3 adults is around £200 to £250 per week. This is based on around £150 on regular weekly food shop plus meat from butchers, top up food during the week plus other items not purchased in a supermarket. On £225 per week (my estimated average) this makes current bill £11700 + 8% food inflation = £12717. Making £1,017 extra per annum.
On my upper spend of £250 per week it is £1130 per annum.
Add another child or teenager and I can see the bill could rise to her figure of £1200 worse off, I suppose it depends if you use the headline inflation figure or food inflation figure, food is something we all have to spend on, we all need to eat, so that is why I used 8%.
If she said that it was £110 more than before the last election why would that imply the average weekly shop is now £550? It would only imply that if the average weekly shop was £440 previously.
If she said that it was £110 more than before the last election why would that imply the average weekly shop is now £550? It would only imply that if the average weekly shop was £440 previously.
Wouldn't it? Or am I missing something?
The point is she wrongly attributed the 110 to weekly shop when the figure actually applies to a 'shopping basket' of all household expenses and also ignores wage rises (though that makes limited difference for public sector folk).
When called on that, they doubled down rather than acknowleding the statement was wrong. Troubling. They must not fall into the same patterns of dishonesty as the government.
Rachel Reeves maths is not as far out as yours for me? The current food inflation rate it is 8% and makes someone on £110 per week shop £550 a year worse off by my maths . RR figures work out as £110 per week = £5720, food inflation is currently running at 8%, food bill up to £6217. £6217 - £5720 = £497.
My estimated food shopping bill for 3 adults is around £200 to £250 per week. This is based on around £150 on regular weekly food shop plus meat from butchers, top up food during the week plus other items not purchased in a supermarket. On £225 per week (my estimated average) this makes current bill £11700 + 8% food inflation = £12717. Making £1,017 extra per annum.
On my upper spend of £250 per week it is £1130 per annum.
Add another child or teenager and I can see the bill could rise to her figure of £1200 worse off, I suppose it depends if you use the headline inflation figure or food inflation figure, food is something we all have to spend on, we all need to eat, so that is why I used 8%.
[Post edited 24 Jan 2024 10:03]
My figures were taken from More or Less (although listening back the figure was £508 not £550). And if you want to double-check, listen to today's programme. It was arrived by working backwards by reference to inflation since the last general election.
The problem is, as redrickstuart points out, that she wrongly attributed the £120 to weekly shop when the figure actually applies to a 'shopping basket' of all household expenses, which include things like furniture repairs and rent.
And her second point relates to tax effects.
But maybe for a Waitrose shopper like her the weekly shopping basket has increased by £110.
"£110, more than it was at the last general election" and "£110 more than it was at the last general election" are very different.
I can believe the 1st statement.
But there is no comma so it can't be read thus.
As it is, More or Less said that the average weekly shop is £75 which is probably lower than one might think, but is understandable because many households comprise only one or two people.
Whatever the statistics, the increase in prices is noticeable, as is producer size reduction in products to mask it. It’s not a factor for me, but it is for people on low incomes, for example people existing on State Pension.
Whether Reeves is talking cobblers or not, it’s clear that lightweight Sunak and the wrecking crew won’t be campaigning on inflation and the economy.
Whatever the statistics, the increase in prices is noticeable, as is producer size reduction in products to mask it. It’s not a factor for me, but it is for people on low incomes, for example people existing on State Pension.
Whether Reeves is talking cobblers or not, it’s clear that lightweight Sunak and the wrecking crew won’t be campaigning on inflation and the economy.
Not sure why I got a downvote, but this is Politico's take.
STATS DEBUNK: Labour’s Rachel Reeves got the More or Less treatment this morning over her claims a week’s shop is up £110 — based on prices being up 20 percent since 2019. The show pointed out that Labour was conflating the ONS “basket of goods,” which includes food products but also fuel, holidays, TV subscriptions and more, with the weekly supermarket shop. In reality, the weekly shop is on average £75, according to the ONS. The show concluded Labour would have been fine to argue the overall cost of living is up £110 on average since 2019, but to cast that as the “weekly shop” is misleading. And Labour could also have pointed out that average wages are up by the same amount. More or Less will be vital listening in election year (and all other years.)
Not sure why I got a downvote, but this is Politico's take.
STATS DEBUNK: Labour’s Rachel Reeves got the More or Less treatment this morning over her claims a week’s shop is up £110 — based on prices being up 20 percent since 2019. The show pointed out that Labour was conflating the ONS “basket of goods,” which includes food products but also fuel, holidays, TV subscriptions and more, with the weekly supermarket shop. In reality, the weekly shop is on average £75, according to the ONS. The show concluded Labour would have been fine to argue the overall cost of living is up £110 on average since 2019, but to cast that as the “weekly shop” is misleading. And Labour could also have pointed out that average wages are up by the same amount. More or Less will be vital listening in election year (and all other years.)
Perhaps worse than telling porkies is both parties not being frank with the public about the challenges ahead, something which ought to be the case in a sane world, given the following article, but won't be.
Not sure why I got a downvote, but this is Politico's take.
STATS DEBUNK: Labour’s Rachel Reeves got the More or Less treatment this morning over her claims a week’s shop is up £110 — based on prices being up 20 percent since 2019. The show pointed out that Labour was conflating the ONS “basket of goods,” which includes food products but also fuel, holidays, TV subscriptions and more, with the weekly supermarket shop. In reality, the weekly shop is on average £75, according to the ONS. The show concluded Labour would have been fine to argue the overall cost of living is up £110 on average since 2019, but to cast that as the “weekly shop” is misleading. And Labour could also have pointed out that average wages are up by the same amount. More or Less will be vital listening in election year (and all other years.)
I thought she may be using the ONS' 'basket of goods' when I saw this yesterday, but couldn't be arsed to post. Who doesn't buy a holiday very day? (Seriously though, most of those items are regular purchases).
Food inflation is horrendous - the current 8% figure is a best case scenarios as well from the cheapest places. We rely a lot on our local village shop to fill in the gaps and that's increased it's prices by an eye-watering amount over the last couple of years.
None of this would be an issue if pay overall had kept pace with inflation of course...
Perhaps worse than telling porkies is both parties not being frank with the public about the challenges ahead, something which ought to be the case in a sane world, given the following article, but won't be.
Poor old Labour get's it in the neck for not being ambitious or 'left' enough and then another blow for not coming clean about the challenges ahead. Personally, i think the horrible tax/spend situation is a large part of why Labour isn't promising the earth now. Meanwhile, the Tories cut taxes to deliberately scupper the next govt - if something weird does happen and they somehow retain power, the silver lining will be watching them explain away their own mess. .
Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
