UK food shortages/prices/production madness

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, jjb1970 said:

I was in the supermarket yesterday and noticed there was no spring onions or shallots. Which probably means that they are waiting for a ship or trucks from Malaysia to deliver more. It's normal here to notice products drop off the shelves from time to time, people seem much more pragmatic in understanding that there's a supply chain and buy something else if there's a shortage. 

 

I may be cynical, but I get the impression that some of those who complain about shortages think that food just appears and have zero appreciation for just how well supermarkets manage their supply chains and logistics.

 

I still think the supermarkets, transport and agricultural/manufacturing segments did a remarkable job to adapt to the exceptional conditions of the pandemic yet many seemed very reluctant to acknowledge just what an excellent job was done to keep things going.

 

It has been suggested (and I believe it) that supermarkets are part of the problem.

 

Basically because intense competition in the sector to be the cheapest**  they set price limits and won't buy if the prices go beyond a certain point*. Independent grocers on the other hand are more willing to pay higher prices sometimes (and probably get lower prices at others) - which is why many are still fully stocked when supermarkets are claiming shortages.

 

* which is why many UK dairy farmers are very much on the breadline because the supermarkets have held down milk prices such that its almost impossible to make a decent living from it.

 

** I really do despair of the UK sometimes - If you live in a developed nation NOTHING should be 'cheap' - if it is then you are pretty much guaranteed to be driving the importation of stuff from overseas over domestic production. unfortunately thanks to lying politicians over many years the bulk of the UK population baulks at paying the true cost of anything - then whinges like hell when things aren't to their liking...

[Reorte]

9 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

** I really do despair of the UK sometimes - If you live in a developed nation NOTHING should be 'cheap' - if it is then you are pretty much guaranteed to be driving the importation of stuff from overseas over domestic production. unfortunately thanks to lying politicians over many years the bulk of the UK population baulks at paying the true cost of anything - then whinges like hell when things aren't to their liking...

Although claiming things are too cheap right at the moment is likely to go down like a lead balloon.

 

I've often thought in the past that the UK's problem is that food is far too cheap and housing far too expensive.

[OnTheBranchline]

1 hour ago, Reorte said:

Although claiming things are too cheap right at the moment is likely to go down like a lead balloon.

 

I've often thought in the past that the UK's problem is that food is far too cheap and housing far too expensive.

housing is only too expensive for some people because no one wants to live away from the big centres or in the country. 

Edited March 9, 2023 by OnTheBranchline

[Talltim]

4 minutes ago, OnTheBranchline said:

housing is only too expensive for some people because no one wants to live away from the big centres or in the country. 

Living in the country brings its own costs

[jjb1970]

It's not especially accurate to assume houses in the country are cheaper either. At least not in Cumbria where I grew up, or around rural Buckinghamshire.

[spamcan61]

10 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

It's not especially accurate to assume houses in the country are cheaper either. At least not in Cumbria where I grew up, or around rural Buckinghamshire.

Absolutely, round my way try Brockenhurst or Lyndhurst.

[Reorte]

Yeah, I'd challenge anyone to find anywhere that could reasonably be described as "cheap." Cheap relative to more expensive areas, yes, but by any actual measure house prices are at record highs. There are a few graphs showing the increase in house price to wages ratio if you do a quick Google, e.g. found this:https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5568/housing/uk-house-price-affordability/

 

To an extent the high prices have been made to seem not at the worse of affordability for a while due to exceptionally low interest rates allowing people to take on very large debts, but that's hardly ideal (the other scary thing is the projected rise of demand for households, in a country already badly scarred by over-development).

[Andy Hayter]

and yet 98% of the UK land surface is not developed.

[Reorte]

9 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

and yet 98% of the UK land surface is not developed.

 

People like to throw all sorts of numbers for that around (that one sounds like the attempt at claiming everything not actually occupied by buildings doesn't count, so probably even city centres struggle to manage 50% - and is therefore deliberately misleading).

 

But even taking it at face value that just means 2% is a hell of a lot. If 2% of the pixels on this on were faulty you'd be saying it had had it. If 2% of your body was covered in scars I think you'd quite readily agree it was badly scarred.

 

Try flying over most of the country at night. In most of it (England in particular, with only a few exceptions at some of the edges) it's lots of large patches of light, not that far from each other. Your avatar says you're in France. Approximately the same population and approximately twice the land area. Very noticeable difference, in France's favour. How much of the country do you think is, say, more than ten miles away from a city of at least 50 000?

 

 

Edited March 9, 2023 by Reorte

[spamcan61]

17 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

People like to throw all sorts of numbers for that around (that one sounds like the attempt at claiming everything not actually occupied by buildings doesn't count, so probably even city centres struggle to manage 50% - and is therefore deliberately misleading).

 

But even taking it at face value that just means 2% is a hell of a lot. If 2% of the pixels on this on were faulty you'd be saying it had had it. If 2% of your body was covered in scars I think you'd quite readily agree it was badly scarred.

 

Try flying over most of the country at night. In most of it (England in particular, with only a few exceptions at some of the edges) it's lots of large patches of light, not that far from each other. Your avatar says you're in France. Approximately the same population and approximately twice the land area. Very noticeable difference, in France's favour. How much of the country do you think is, say, more than ten miles away from a city of at least 50 000?

 

 

I beg to differ, if one 'flies' over the country using Google maps satellite view or equivalent, there are large tracts of land with very little development; and I'm not just talking about the likes of Exmoor.  Last summer I drove from Shaftesbury to Bournemouth, outside those two towns I passed almost no settlements of any consequence, and I wasn't using cart tracks to navigate. Similarly the year before I drove from Bourton on the Water to Bournemouth via Thame and down the A34, again  there were stretches of several miles with no settlements of any size.

 

To me this country / island only appears overcrowded because new developments are tacked on to or within existing ones, rather than starting with literal 'green field' sites. I guess that's due a mixture of a dislike of social engineering, and profitability.

Edited March 9, 2023 by spamcan61

[Derekl]

11 minutes ago, Reorte said:

People like to throw all sorts of numbers for that around (that one sounds like the attempt at claiming everything not actually occupied by buildings doesn't count, so probably even city centres struggle to manage 50% - and is therefore deliberately misleading).

Looking at the ONS figures, it is 2% of the land in England that is built on, which would be buildings only. The figure for the UK is 1.4%. The Gov.UK figure for developed land use in England is 8.7%.

While flying over southern England certainly gives the impression of a fairly occupied area, there are quite a lot of gaps (consider, for instance, the South Downs, running just inside the coast a few miles south of here). There are large areas of open land in northern England, in Scotland (particularly the Highlands) and in mid Wales. 

So there are plenty of empty spaces, although one doesn't, of course, know how usable they are.

I should mention that your comparison with 2% failed pixels or body scarring really has nothing much to do with it - ridiculous comparison.

[Nick C]

9 minutes ago, Derekl said:

Looking at the ONS figures, it is 2% of the land in England that is built on, which would be buildings only. The figure for the UK is 1.4%. The Gov.UK figure for developed land use in England is 8.7%.

While flying over southern England certainly gives the impression of a fairly occupied area, there are quite a lot of gaps (consider, for instance, the South Downs, running just inside the coast a few miles south of here). There are large areas of open land in northern England, in Scotland (particularly the Highlands) and in mid Wales. 

So there are plenty of empty spaces, although one doesn't, of course, know how usable they are.

I should mention that your comparison with 2% failed pixels or body scarring really has nothing much to do with it - ridiculous comparison.

But it's not 'empty space' though is it - just because it's not covered in concrete! Keeping green space is vital for the ecosystem, food and oxygen production, and for our own health.

[friscopete]

According to Russian commentators /propagandista /spivs we are resorting to eating squirrells.I prefer hedgehog  personally .

[fulton]

2 minutes ago, Nick C said:

But it's not 'empty space' though is it - just because it's not covered in concrete! Keeping green space is vital for the ecosystem, food and oxygen production, and for our own health.

To add my bit, a Brown Field site next to me has stood for 25 years, an original scheme was for around 200 houses and flats, good location next to a station and town centre, I used to work in the house building industry and there are plots of land like this all over the place, without the need to build in the countryside.

[Reorte]

2 hours ago, Derekl said:

Looking at the ONS figures, it is 2% of the land in England that is built on, which would be buildings only. The figure for the UK is 1.4%. The Gov.UK figure for developed land use in England is 8.7%.

While flying over southern England certainly gives the impression of a fairly occupied area, there are quite a lot of gaps (consider, for instance, the South Downs, running just inside the coast a few miles south of here). There are large areas of open land in northern England, in Scotland (particularly the Highlands) and in mid Wales. 

So there are plenty of empty spaces, although one doesn't, of course, know how usable they are.

I should mention that your comparison with 2% failed pixels or body scarring really has nothing much to do with it - ridiculous comparison.

 

Why is the pixels comparison "ludicrous"? It nicely illustrates that "well that's a small number" alone isn't a very meaningful argument. Take a given measurement - at what point does that number become "a lot"? The number itself doesn't define that.

 

There's plenty of "empty" space if your only definition is "places that aren't actually occupied by buildings." But if that's your only definition you'll end up finding that even you find it very, very heavily developed long before you even get to half. That definition will probably come out at less than half even for continuous urban areas, when you take in to account gardens, parks, road verges etc.. Not all built on but 100% developed.

 

I'm not really talking even about southern England, that's not a part of the country I know that well. I live on the edge of the Peak District, an area where the presence of numerous nearby large cities (principally Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds) is pretty obvious. There's little sense of remoteness. Those odd spots you pick like the South Downs - you're selecting them as the odd exception, rather than being more representative of the norm! That's why we're overdeveloped! (in England anyway, Scotland definitely isn't outside the central belt).

 

Re: another post's comment about driving - well, whenever I drive somewhere the signs of quite a large amount of development overall are everywhere. There aren't many places that are just fields and the odd village for mile after mile. And main roads generally avoid built-up places, so arguably give an under-estimate of how overall developed it is.

 

Also see my earlier comment about France, and just how obvious the difference in how densely populated both countries are is.

 

I do sometimes wonder if a largely urbanised population results in a lot of people just growing up with the sense that spending most of your time surrounded by buildings and people is a norm, and as long as there are a few gaps in that here and there that's OK. That feels like having very stunted horizons to me though!

Edited March 9, 2023 by Reorte

[MarkC]

1 hour ago, fulton said:

To add my bit, a Brown Field site next to me has stood for 25 years, an original scheme was for around 200 houses and flats, good location next to a station and town centre, I used to work in the house building industry and there are plots of land like this all over the place, without the need to build in the countryside.

There is a plot at the end of my garden that had planning permission for 35 houses, but there have been no takers. Why? Because there's at least half a metre thickness of concrete plus hardcore to remove first - it was originally part of the local colliery, then a plant hire business. That business still owns it, & has started to use it for storage again. I'm not complaining - any new houses would look into my house & garden.

 

Local developers, though, have been busy, covering surrounding open fields with houses. No extra shops or facilities for residents though - and as for upgraded infrastructure? Don't be silly...

 

Mark

[MarkC]

2 hours ago, friscopete said:

According to Russian commentators /propagandista /spivs we are resorting to eating squirrells.I prefer hedgehog  personally .

Well...

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/08/woman-cut-ate-mr-nibbles-pet-hamster/

[Derekl]

3 hours ago, Nick C said:

But it's not 'empty space' though is it - just because it's not covered in concrete! Keeping green space is vital for the ecosystem, food and oxygen production, and for our own health.

I was commenting on the statistics, not on potential use of green space. A fair amount of the unused space is not "green". I would agree that it is important to keep green space for many reasons.

[Derekl]

1 hour ago, Reorte said:

There's plenty of "empty" space if your only definition is "places that aren't actually occupied by buildings."

No - the figure for developed space in England is 8.7%. I have lived in Manchester, York and Birmingham and have travelled around a lot, so am reasonably familiar with what it looks like, and I don't recognize your description.

That said, I can see that you are not open to argument, so feel free to believe what you like.

[tomparryharry]

6 hours ago, friscopete said:

According to Russian commentators /propagandista /spivs we are resorting to eating squirrells.I prefer hedgehog  personally .

 

Aah! Whoops Apocalypse! "Squirrels? Ve hav' dozens ov squirrels!"

[Reorte]

2 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

 

Aah! Whoops Apocalypse! "Squirrels? Ve hav' dozens ov squirrels!"

Sounds like a good idea, if we limit it to the greys to give a chance for the reds to recover!

 

(and that's not just because there's some red in my hair that's showing signs of grey at the edges!)

[alastairq]

I believe Tesco have stopped selling skinned squirrel?

 

Or has something been lost in the translation?

[Michael Hodgson]

21 hours ago, spamcan61 said:

Absolutely, round my way try Brockenhurst or Lyndhurst.

MY father worked for the Forestry Commission* when I was born in the latter and lived in the former until I was three.  My parents had always planned to move back to the New Forest on retirement, but they couldn't buy anything suitable with what their house in rural Monmouthshire was worth, so they stayed put.

 

* Kings House in Lyndhurst became Queen's House on the death of George VI, and my dad said it will need to be changed back on the death of Her Majesty - but I don't think it has been.    I'll have to go in and tell them when I'm next in the area

[Michael Hodgson]

14 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

 

Aah! Whoops Apocalypse! "Squirrels? Ve hav' dozens ov squirrels!"

 

12 hours ago, Reorte said:

Sounds like a good idea, if we limit it to the greys to give a chance for the reds to recover!

 

(and that's not just because there's some red in my hair that's showing signs of grey at the edges!)

When I was very little there was a scheme in the New Forest to try and reduce the problem of damage to newly planted trees caused by squirrels so they introduced a scheme called "Bob a nob" under which you would be paid a shilling for every squirrel you provided evidence of having killed.  This had to be auditable, but they didn't want to have to keep a pile of rotting corpses - so you had to hand in just the tail.  One chap who would never harm a little furry creature had a squirrel run across the road in front of his car.  When he stopped, he found the he had severed and flattened its tail so he could claim his shilling with a clear conscience as the squirrel had run off without its tail!

 

Round here, we don't have red squirrels, we have black ones (and greys).

[Michael Hodgson]

20 hours ago, friscopete said:

According to Russian commentators /propagandista /spivs we are resorting to eating squirrells.I prefer hedgehog  personally .