It could be a long, hard winter...

I've now been home for nearly seven months - hard to believe, sometimes - and I've spent most of that time as part of the HMRC team staffing the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme helpline. Given my day job, that's been something of a switch, especially as I haven't been in frontline customer service since 2012 (and it was very different then, I can assure you).

Going from perhaps receiving one or two telephone calls to receiving them all day does require a shift in attitude too. As an investigator, people don't tend to want to talk to you whereas, when there's the prospect of a grant, they're rather more enthusiastic. And often with good cause, given the state of household financial resilience - more people live on the financial edge than some would suspect. The grant received can be vital to having a roof over your head, or food on the table, and we talk to people whose ability to earn a living has been utterly wrecked.

It is amazing how people have adapted in order to keep the show on the road and a mark of how innovative they can be when pushed. But that isn't always possible. Anything that is usually done indoors but can be done outdoors has found a way, and with the summer easing of infection rates, even jobs that are wholly indoors (our chimney sweep, for example) have picked up through necessity. But there are plenty of self-employed people, delivering a variety of household services, who have suffered financial loss.

The first round of the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme paid out 80% of average earnings for a three month period. What that meant was that, if your income was down even quite a lot, you were probably still better off than you might otherwise have been and, even if you had no income at all, you weren't losing too much. Admittedly, that might be critical if your income wasn't great to begin with, and you were living on the financial margins, but it was pretty generous.

The second round pays out 70% (it's still live until 19 October), and so for those whose losses are marginal, it's actually profitable, as there is no minimum threshold for qualifying as adversely affected. However, for those whose income is a small fraction of what it might ordinarily be, it's becoming increasingly marginal. Also, for those with ongoing expenses that can't be dropped or mitigated - premises or equipment leases, for example - the scheme doesn't entirely help.

And, with autumn now upon us, and no sign that the pandemic is easing - quite the reverse, sadly - many of those people who have found a way to operate outside, from fitness instructors to mobile hairdressers, cleaners to childminders, will find that their options become increasingly limited, with the inevitable drop in earning potential that that means.

There has been a good deal of unhappiness about ongoing support, with the attention mostly on those being furloughed. They'll get, theoretically, 67% of their usual pay, and for those on or near the minimum wage, it will obviously be difficult. For the self-employed, the grant for the third scheme will be 20% of average earnings. That's really going to hurt some, who will doubtless be directed towards Universal Credit to help fill the gap.

You might expect me to criticise Rishi Sunak under such circumstances, demanding that he be more generous. In truth, I don't know what advice he's receiving, or what other plans he has. And, in any case, trying to predict what might happen next is a bit like crystal ball reading. The emergence of a vaccine sooner rather than later would be a huge help, but we really can't count on that.

All we can do is support each other and, if you know someone who is self-employed and needs support, do point them towards the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme* if they aren't already aware of it.

* there are exceptions to eligibilty, however, and this guide from the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales is clear and concise.

The end of the "cost of living crisis"?

For those of us who have been around for a few years, the news that UK inflation has fallen to 0.5% is almost unbelievable, given what inflation rates were when we were younger. In the 1970's, the inflation rate surpassed 20% at times, and was ranged between 3 and 8% through the eighties. You did kind of get used to it. Since then, inflation has seldom tested 5% at its upper limit, and even then not for very long.

The expectation is that inflation may fall further still, and even if real wages are going up by less than 2%, that means that many people will be, for the first time in a few years, slightly better off. You might suggest that this is handy as a General Election draws closer, although I couldn't possibly comment.

It does also explain why Labour have stopped talking about a 'cost of living crisis'. And how could they, given the circumstances? David Cameron and George Osborne would love the political debate to focus on the economy, and so would Liberal Democrats, even if we do it with the slightly queasy sense that the Conservatives will glean all of the credit somehow.

As a strategy, it was always an odd one for Labour to choose in any event. Unemployment has been falling for some time, and despite Labour activists claiming that most of the jobs were on zero-hour contracts or were part-time, most of the newly employed were full-time. And yes, the salaries might not have been much to write home about, but at least people were back in work and social security benefits were in less demand.

Inflation has been low for most of the Coalition's period in office, at least, in historic terms, and low inflation rates have allowed many who would otherwise struggle to service their debts to do so and, if means permit, to pay off some of those debts - I'm not sure that everyone who could do so, has, but that's a different story.

Worse yet, Labour haven't really offered any suggestions as to how they would improve matters. What do they think is an appropriate target for inflation, and how do they propose to create jobs that pay sufficiently to negate the need for social security payments? How would they deal with the pressure on household budgets that would ensue if interest rates started to rise, given that compulsion isn't really an option?

It is at this point that the shallowness of Labour's approach to the economy and public finances starts to hit home - the "we don't agree with these cuts, you're evil for making them, but we won't overturn them" argument. I'm not optimistic that they're going to do much better in the months ahead...