pongo

Increased taxation is anti-inflationary driver. It reduces the money supply. Taxation one of the basic controls which governments have re money supply and therefore inflation. On the IOM, increasing taxation is (more or less) the only instrument which govt can use to reduce the money supply and therefore inflation. As I said, a vicious circle. Increasing the money supply drives inflation. That's certainly a big part of the problem - the unreasonable expectation of an annual pay increase not linked to improved productivity drives wage inflation. There are other structural problems typical of public sectors too. For example pay grades - where people get paid the same according to their grade but irrespective of how well they perform. And, for example, pay grade inflation - where people effectively move up those grades over time, often for no good reason. Inflation which is partly fuelled by public sector wage expectations. In the private sector people are paid in proportion to the demand for their skills. That seems mostly fair. Obviously there should be space for adjustment where a small number of people are not able to compete.

do they?

Wage increases are part of the problem unless tied to increased productivity. Wage increases drive inflation in a vicious circle. Periodic wage increases as an expectation is very much a problem of the public sector today. Seldom an expectation in the private sector where demand for skills drives wages. We are coming out of a period of spectacularly low oil and gas prices.

@quilp Western culture has a long tradition of dying for God and the country. The whole nonsense blood and soil tradition is very much a variation on the same theme. Gods and the imaginary lines which men draw on maps. Look at Ireland for example.

One of things I find reassuring is that despite the culture wars, we can all still agree on just how awful The ELO was.

I've seen a few petrol cars on fire. Surprising difficult to put out without a fire engine. The most spectacular I saw was parked on a street. At first the fire was almost nothing. But it spread I think via the wiring harness. It probably started there too. In the end it was an absolute inferno and also set fire to the cars parked around it and a shop. Imagine that on a car deck. The anti electric brigade often exaggerate the fire risk from electric vehicles. Masses of petrol cars go on fire every day but it's electric fires which make the news - because that's a story about something new.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that anyone should (or could normally) borrow at 8x a joint salary. The average UK property however is at appx 8x average salary in many parts of the UK. That is my reference point.

@asitis - on the IOM one can buy a good purpose built apartment, suitable for first time buyers on low wages for under £130K. That seems fairly affordable. I know that people always like to hate on developers - but is it not thanks to the developers that there is so much relatively affordable property?

So how much do you believe a basic first property should cost? An apartment suitable for a couple on minimum wage and not yet earning enough to afford children. You said that you thought £250k is too much.

Access to lending would be a different question. But I do not believe that price is the issue.

When looking at property prices (and mortgage costs) it is very typical to use salary as a comparison. In the UK the average property price is appx 8x average wage (or more) now. The joint wage of a couple on minimum wage is appx £32K on the IOM (if they are only working 37.5 hours per week). 8x £32K = £256K. Or more than "a quarter million" *. So how much should a starter home cost here? Perhaps a purpose built one bedroom apartment for a couple who are not planning to have children at least until their income increases. In reality a property like that still costs rather less than that. * it sounds a lot when expressed in millions.

Not forgetting the magic long wave transmitter.

What is the point of electing a government if do not trust the government to make policy decisions?

You said that she has no mandate and that neither does Tynwald. But she does and so does Tynwald. That's how representative democracy works. Fortunately we do not elect delegates

She has every right and responsibility to express an opinion. Her mandate comes from the electorate. And yes it is for Tynwald to decide.

Did you even bother to read what you linked to?

Ours used to taste of chlorine (it no longer does). But chlorine quickly evaporates. The smart thing is to chill it (open) in the refrigerator.

If this youtuber has monetization enabled (there is no way to know) then so far today that video will likely have earned him somewhere between $5000 and $10,000 (content creators are not all on the same rate).

Firstly - I have looked at this with an open mind. He talks specifically about the potential for a cancer risk. The research he quotes does not seem to - from what I can see. He seems to have extrapolated that. That does not necessarily mean that he is wrong. But equally - because he talks about cancer that means that his channel, his business, gets more traffic. That one word.

It should be much simpler to bring over a car from the UK without having to deal with a whole bunch of bureaucratic red tape. It's not just about testing. The separate system of registration seems entirely pointless too - almost as if it has been designed to make it difficult. It works against the motorist.

MOTs, provided they were reciprocal, would potentially make it less bureaucratic and costly to bring in used cars. Bringing the whole process in line with the UK's would likely reduce the cost of motoring for most people.

Today's consumers would quite rightly reject any political attempt to introduce import restrictions. It would be completely unacceptable. And it certainly is not only about price. Quality, variety and choice are also important considerations. I can see a strong case from a variety of perspectives for ending live exports. I can also see a strong case for subsidising the abattoir in support of Manx farming. However I have a hunch that many some farmers would like an import ban AND to be allowed to continue live exports AND to continue to be subsidised. Personally I believe that the island should not be trying to produce competitively priced food. It should only be a a premium product.

I never understand why people are opposed to MOTs.

If they are doing a good job then they will be earning decent money and will not be driving a knackered old rust bucket.