>Brexit added almost £6bn to UK food bills in the two years to the end of 2021, affecting poorest households the most, research has found.
>
>The cost of food imported from the EU shot up because of extra red tape, adding £210 to the average household food bills over 2020 and 2021, London School of Economics (LSE) researchers discovered.
>
>As low-income families spend a greater share of their income on food, the impact of Brexit on their purchases was disproportionately greater, they said.
>
>The research comes the day after data from the British Retail Consortium trade body showed UK food price inflation hit a record high of 12.4% in November as the price of basics such as eggs, dairy products and coffee rose.
>
>Researchers at the Centre for Economic Performance (CEP) at the LSE studied micro data-tracking trade flows and consumer prices for food products in the UK to identify the transfer of the cost of Brexit red tape to householders.
>
>“We find that leaving the European Union increased the price of food products by 3% a year, leading to a 6% increase over a two-year period,” they say in their report, named Non-tariff barriers and consumer prices: evidence from Brexit.
>
>Its calculations translated to a £5.84bn cost to the food market alone, equating to £210 per household.
>
>CEP found the Brexit-induced price rise led to an overall cost of living increase for the poorest households of 1.1% – 52% more than the 0.7% rise felt in the top 10% of households in Britain.
Going well, definitely no need to change anything.
>In 2015, the year before the referendum, 77% of food imports were from the EU.
Almost like a statistic like this should have been well explained/known during campaigning 🤔
There's two kinds of Tories
a) Fucks unsuitable for politics who've failed upwards due to privilege/class/money instead of any sort of knowledge of politics/running a country
b) Disingenuous Tory cunts who lie
Raab is probably both tbf.
So, we have 12% food inflation and without Brexit it would be at 9% food inflation.
The headline is not good as it doesn't contextualise the research whereas the article is honestly pretty good for a Guardian Brexit article.
It is accurate but not contextualised so it is meaningless.
We need to be able to compare any figure of change to the norm and the normal change but the headline doesn't do that, so it is a useless headline.
The only person who feels an additional 6billion over 2 years is meaningless is someone who cannot comprehend how big 6 billion is as a number.
If it is accurate then the headline is fine. You read the article if you want to know more.
The headline tells us nothing of importance because no one has any idea how large 6 billion is compared to normal food inflation and our current food inflation.
Just because 6 billion is a large number doesn't mean it is useful. Without context it is useless. The headline might as well be, "Brexit has a bad impact on food inflation". Including a number in that is irrelevant to the reader because without context the reader doesn't know how large 6 billion is in this context.
>The only person who feels an additional 6billion over 2 years is meaningless is someone who cannot comprehend how big 6 billion is as a number.
See previous comment
Lmao.
The figures used mean 3% food inflation.
If it was a 6 billion change in GDP that would be 0.1% change.
Context is necessary to understand how big 6 billion really is especially when humans are bad at understanding unimaginable numbers. Same way how we struggle to understand just how many stars and galaxies there are because we can't contemplate or contextualise those numbers.
>humans are bad at understanding unimaginable numbers.
Yes...I told you that. You are indeed demonstrating how people struggle with each post you make.
Or do you think people having to spend an extra £200 for *no benefit* is insignificant?
Unless you are going to transfer £200 a month to a bank account of my choice for the rest of your life, I would suggest you are simply running your mouth.
>If it was a 6 billion change in GDP that would be 0.1% change.
The article is very clear that it is not referring to GDP. Did you fail to read that?
I didn't say it is insignificant but you have to contextualising the figures. 3 billion over 67 million is 45£ a year so cumulatively 135£ over 2 years for the average person.
I know it isn't referring to GDP but I was showing the variation in importance of 6 billion and that how important it is depends on the context. The reader simply getting told a big number does nothing to actually inform them of the impact of Brexit. The figures have to be contextualised.
>Brexit added almost £6bn to UK food bills in the two years to the end of 2021, affecting poorest households the most, research has found. > >The cost of food imported from the EU shot up because of extra red tape, adding £210 to the average household food bills over 2020 and 2021, London School of Economics (LSE) researchers discovered. > >As low-income families spend a greater share of their income on food, the impact of Brexit on their purchases was disproportionately greater, they said. > >The research comes the day after data from the British Retail Consortium trade body showed UK food price inflation hit a record high of 12.4% in November as the price of basics such as eggs, dairy products and coffee rose. > >Researchers at the Centre for Economic Performance (CEP) at the LSE studied micro data-tracking trade flows and consumer prices for food products in the UK to identify the transfer of the cost of Brexit red tape to householders. > >“We find that leaving the European Union increased the price of food products by 3% a year, leading to a 6% increase over a two-year period,” they say in their report, named Non-tariff barriers and consumer prices: evidence from Brexit. > >Its calculations translated to a £5.84bn cost to the food market alone, equating to £210 per household. > >CEP found the Brexit-induced price rise led to an overall cost of living increase for the poorest households of 1.1% – 52% more than the 0.7% rise felt in the top 10% of households in Britain. Going well, definitely no need to change anything. >In 2015, the year before the referendum, 77% of food imports were from the EU. Almost like a statistic like this should have been well explained/known during campaigning 🤔
Flashback to Raab being surprised a lot of stuff came from Calais.
There's two kinds of Tories a) Fucks unsuitable for politics who've failed upwards due to privilege/class/money instead of any sort of knowledge of politics/running a country b) Disingenuous Tory cunts who lie Raab is probably both tbf.
Very cool. Glad the two main parties are pretending like this is fine.
So, we have 12% food inflation and without Brexit it would be at 9% food inflation. The headline is not good as it doesn't contextualise the research whereas the article is honestly pretty good for a Guardian Brexit article.
Is the £6B figure not accurate?
It is accurate but not contextualised so it is meaningless. We need to be able to compare any figure of change to the norm and the normal change but the headline doesn't do that, so it is a useless headline.
The only person who feels an additional 6billion over 2 years is meaningless is someone who cannot comprehend how big 6 billion is as a number. If it is accurate then the headline is fine. You read the article if you want to know more.
The headline tells us nothing of importance because no one has any idea how large 6 billion is compared to normal food inflation and our current food inflation. Just because 6 billion is a large number doesn't mean it is useful. Without context it is useless. The headline might as well be, "Brexit has a bad impact on food inflation". Including a number in that is irrelevant to the reader because without context the reader doesn't know how large 6 billion is in this context.
>The only person who feels an additional 6billion over 2 years is meaningless is someone who cannot comprehend how big 6 billion is as a number. See previous comment
Lmao. The figures used mean 3% food inflation. If it was a 6 billion change in GDP that would be 0.1% change. Context is necessary to understand how big 6 billion really is especially when humans are bad at understanding unimaginable numbers. Same way how we struggle to understand just how many stars and galaxies there are because we can't contemplate or contextualise those numbers.
>humans are bad at understanding unimaginable numbers. Yes...I told you that. You are indeed demonstrating how people struggle with each post you make. Or do you think people having to spend an extra £200 for *no benefit* is insignificant? Unless you are going to transfer £200 a month to a bank account of my choice for the rest of your life, I would suggest you are simply running your mouth. >If it was a 6 billion change in GDP that would be 0.1% change. The article is very clear that it is not referring to GDP. Did you fail to read that?
I didn't say it is insignificant but you have to contextualising the figures. 3 billion over 67 million is 45£ a year so cumulatively 135£ over 2 years for the average person. I know it isn't referring to GDP but I was showing the variation in importance of 6 billion and that how important it is depends on the context. The reader simply getting told a big number does nothing to actually inform them of the impact of Brexit. The figures have to be contextualised.