Is the situation in the UK really that bad?
Nov 1st 2013, 1:07 am
#1246
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Oct 2010
Location: The sunshine state
Posts: 1,358
Re: Is the situation in the UK really that bad?
The reasons for this vary from petulance, an I'm allright Jack attitude,or more likely, a complete inability to understand the variety of difficult problems facing the UK or, more importantly, the potential consequences of those problems.
......... or in some cases maybe all of the above.
Nov 1st 2013, 2:15 am
#1247
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 800
Re: Is the situation in the UK really that bad?
my comparisons to the US and the UK are relative to me thinking of moving back to the UK from the US after 18 years. No petulance, or I'm alright jack attitude and definitely not a complete inability to understand the difficult problems facing the UK.
Nov 1st 2013, 2:20 am
#1248
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 800
Re: Is the situation in the UK really that bad?
Wasn't meant to help, just posting my opinion. But if you have the answers to help people with the crisis please share them.
Nov 1st 2013, 8:27 am
#1249
Banned
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: The REAL Utopia.
Posts: 9,910
Re: Is the situation in the UK really that bad?
When you live beyond your means, it catches up with you eventually. And that is exactly what almost all western countries have been doing. The real question is not whether there's a cost of living "crisis", but what is being done to make a country more competitive in the face of this situation?
Nov 1st 2013, 8:31 am
#1250
Banned
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: The REAL Utopia.
Posts: 9,910
Re: Is the situation in the UK really that bad?
Indeed, my comparisons are from my experience of the best part of 30 years in Australia. I dont have even the slightest interest in what others think are my reasons for posting.
Nov 1st 2013, 10:30 am
#1251
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: The Charente - still smiling.
Posts: 2,624
Re: Is the situation in the UK really that bad?
I'd appreciate the comparison with other countries if it was relative to those who are thinking of coming back or those who genuinely want to discuss current affairs within the UK, but the majority of the time references to other countries are used simply to deflect from having a serious discussion about some of the problems facing the UK.
The reasons for this vary from petulance, an I'm allright Jack attitude,or more likely, a complete inability to understand the variety of difficult problems facing the UK or, more importantly, the potential consequences of those problems.
......... or in some cases maybe all of the above.
The reasons for this vary from petulance, an I'm allright Jack attitude,or more likely, a complete inability to understand the variety of difficult problems facing the UK or, more importantly, the potential consequences of those problems.
......... or in some cases maybe all of the above.
Any one, or indeed all, of your comments applies equally to those who refuse to hear reference to the fact (and it IS a fact), that the UK is actually making progress in addressing the very real problems that it has.
I believe the reasons that some compare to other countries is generally either because they are considering other countries, or to show that the UK is making more (or less) progress than most.
I myself travel regularly between Spain, France and the UK. Any one of those countries would love to have made the progress that the UK has done. Unemployment across Europe is simply dire. The situation many find themselves in is beyond tragic, and are the direct consequence of not facing reality. Whether Europe can emerge from the individual problems without a disaster is a very moot point. The rise of Golden Dawn and Ms Le Pen are not isolated instances. Thankfully, in the UK, (and I say this with trepidation) the BNP seems to be a busted flush, and the EDL to have imploded too.
Recovery may not be as fast as any of us would prefer, and the situation for many not as comfortable as we would like, but that is a reflection of the very parlous situation in which the UK found itself 3 years ago.
Nobody is trying to suggest that the UK is a land of milk and honey for all who return. But just remember our recent history.
By the end of the boom (2007), the UK was already running a budget deficit of 5.2 percent which had been growing since 2001. By 2010 the EU estimated this to have grown to 12 percent of GDP. In the dying days of the election campaign, this was reduced by the Treasury to 10.6 percent of GDP. Now it is indeed recognised to have been closer to that 12 percent. (In addition the Bank of England embarked on its money printing experiment). In 2011, the deficit was reduced to 7.9 percent, and is now either side of 6.
From the beginning of the Millennium, public spending was raised by six percent per annum (NOT counting for PFI, Network Rail and a host of other fiddles), whilst the economy was growing at just over 2 percent. A child of five could see where that was going. (But not the then Chancellor).
Public Spending was increased from 36 percent of GDP at the beginning of the Millennium to 46 percent at the START of the crisis. Public sector employment was increased by just under twenty percent in a mere ten years - nearly a million people. It is not just J.M. Keynes, but every economist in the world, and every household that there is, who knows how essential it is to build reserves for a rainy day. We ALL do it. Except the then Chancellor, who seemed to believe that he actually had abolished Boom and Bust.
The highest point I can remember for sterling was at the beginning of the Millennium when it was around 2.10 against the dollar, and nearly 1.50 against the Euro. Trade weighted Sterling was 110 . By 2010 sterling had declined to below 1.50 to the dollar, and parity with the Euro. Now sterling hovers around 1.60 against the dollar, and just below 1.20 to the Euro. Trade weighted in the 70s. So a devaluation of about 25 or 30 percent. And the relevance of that is that the UK is a nett importer. So every single piece of copper and pound of soya-beans etc that Britain uses, has risen in price by some 30 percent, BEFORE allowing for any inherent increases. So of course there is pressure on the cost of living. What else could there be? Britain spent like a drunken sailor for ten years. Now the bill is being paid down and it hurts.
The situation in 2010 was so dire that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury left a note for his incoming replacement stating baldly "Sorry guys, there is no money left". Which was the absolute truth. The previous Government had begged, borrowed and stolen every penny it could find. Tax bills went through the roof, it pillaged the nation’s savings, utterly destroying the private sector pensions schemes in the process but even that was not enough – it had to resort to printing nearly 200 billion of “new money” just to pay the bills. http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...g-bank-england .
The prospect of a gilt strike was not just real, it was certain had the UK not established a credible repayment plan.
Simultaneously, the new government had to allow for the individual hardships that would follow any attempt at fiscal retrenchment. The benefit bill was largely increased by RPI, whilst pensions and other more "income related" entitlements were increased by CPI. Or some not at all. Indeed, realistically why should a family with a household income of over TWICE the national average be in receipt of benefit? Why should a pensioner on above average income have his/her TV license paid?
So far the public sector headcount has been reduced by some 600,000. A further 144,000 or 300, 000 or 400,000 (depending on whose numbers you want to take), are to go over the next five years.
The redundancy costs involved in that are naturally substantial, and are a considerable contribution to the annual deficit. Which is coming down. The total debt, clearly, has to include all those accumulated deficits, as well as what you might call the run-down costs as the structural deficit is eliminated. All the time paying the costs of an economic model that was structured around a constantly expanding national income far higher that it in reality was. And continuing to pay existing benefits and the increases in benefit necessary to tide over those who became workless either because of the recession, or because of job losses, until they again found work.
Net legal immigration over that period has been over 600,000 over that period too. There are also variously either 500,000 (the Economist) 750,000 (LSE) or 1 million (MigrationWatch) illegal immigrants since 2000
Despite the sceptics, private sector job creation employment over the past three years has been in the region of 1.3 million, which is the reason the unemployment stabilised and the number in employment has increased so sharply. UK employment in 2009 (for some reason I cannot find 2010, although unemployment at that time was 8 percent) was 71 percent, and is 71.7 percent now – despite population growth of nearly ¾ of a million people.
Again, no-one is pretending that all those jobs are necessarily the jobs people would want, but they ARE jobs.
Nobody is pretending that the British economy is awash with surplus cash. It is not. (Although the GDP figures are undoubtedly extremely good news).
Nobody is pretending that all is sunshine and light. But there IS light at the end of the tunnel. Even the IMF now accepts that. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/e...d-in-2013.html
Unfortunately, two of the principal architects of the train wreck that was the British economy look likely (if the opinion polls are correct) to be returned at the next election. By which time the annual deficit will with any luck be down to 4 percent. But the accumulated debt will overhang us for generations to come. That really will give the moaners something to moan about. seemingly neither of them has learned a single thing from the disaster they inflicted upon the British people.And those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are indeed doomed to repeat them,. Only THEY won'y be paying the bills. We shall. Again.
Still- it could be worse – for all those who think there was an alternative:-
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/1...0IM0MV20131101
Last edited by bigglesworth; Nov 1st 2013 at 10:34 am.
Nov 1st 2013, 11:03 am
#1252
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: The Charente - still smiling.
Posts: 2,624
Re: Is the situation in the UK really that bad?
And one for Roaring Mouse - although I suspect he wont like the conclusion it draws.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/e...f-Britain.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/e...f-Britain.html
Nov 1st 2013, 11:38 am
#1253
Ping-ponger
Joined: Jul 2002
Location: Dreich Alba
Posts: 12,010
Re: Is the situation in the UK really that bad?
Any one, or indeed all, of your comments applies equally to those who refuse to hear reference to the fact (and it IS a fact), that the UK is actually making progress in addressing the very real problems that it has.
I believe the reasons that some compare to other countries is generally either because they are considering other countries, or to show that the UK is making more (or less) progress than most.
I myself travel regularly between Spain, France and the UK. Any one of those countries would love to have made the progress that the UK has done. Unemployment across Europe is simply dire. The situation many find themselves in is beyond tragic, and are the direct consequence of not facing reality. Whether Europe can emerge from the individual problems without a disaster is a very moot point. The rise of Golden Dawn and Ms Le Pen are not isolated instances. Thankfully, in the UK, (and I say this with trepidation) the BNP seems to be a busted flush, and the EDL to have imploded too.
Recovery may not be as fast as any of us would prefer, and the situation for many not as comfortable as we would like, but that is a reflection of the very parlous situation in which the UK found itself 3 years ago.
Nobody is trying to suggest that the UK is a land of milk and honey for all who return. But just remember our recent history.
By the end of the boom (2007), the UK was already running a budget deficit of 5.2 percent which had been growing since 2001. By 2010 the EU estimated this to have grown to 12 percent of GDP. In the dying days of the election campaign, this was reduced by the Treasury to 10.6 percent of GDP. Now it is indeed recognised to have been closer to that 12 percent. (In addition the Bank of England embarked on its money printing experiment). In 2011, the deficit was reduced to 7.9 percent, and is now either side of 6.
From the beginning of the Millennium, public spending was raised by six percent per annum (NOT counting for PFI, Network Rail and a host of other fiddles), whilst the economy was growing at just over 2 percent. A child of five could see where that was going. (But not the then Chancellor).
Public Spending was increased from 36 percent of GDP at the beginning of the Millennium to 46 percent at the START of the crisis. Public sector employment was increased by just under twenty percent in a mere ten years - nearly a million people. It is not just J.M. Keynes, but every economist in the world, and every household that there is, who knows how essential it is to build reserves for a rainy day. We ALL do it. Except the then Chancellor, who seemed to believe that he actually had abolished Boom and Bust.
The highest point I can remember for sterling was at the beginning of the Millennium when it was around 2.10 against the dollar, and nearly 1.50 against the Euro. Trade weighted Sterling was 110 . By 2010 sterling had declined to below 1.50 to the dollar, and parity with the Euro. Now sterling hovers around 1.60 against the dollar, and just below 1.20 to the Euro. Trade weighted in the 70s. So a devaluation of about 25 or 30 percent. And the relevance of that is that the UK is a nett importer. So every single piece of copper and pound of soya-beans etc that Britain uses, has risen in price by some 30 percent, BEFORE allowing for any inherent increases. So of course there is pressure on the cost of living. What else could there be? Britain spent like a drunken sailor for ten years. Now the bill is being paid down and it hurts.
The situation in 2010 was so dire that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury left a note for his incoming replacement stating baldly "Sorry guys, there is no money left". Which was the absolute truth. The previous Government had begged, borrowed and stolen every penny it could find. Tax bills went through the roof, it pillaged the nation’s savings, utterly destroying the private sector pensions schemes in the process but even that was not enough – it had to resort to printing nearly 200 billion of “new money” just to pay the bills. http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...g-bank-england .
The prospect of a gilt strike was not just real, it was certain had the UK not established a credible repayment plan.
Simultaneously, the new government had to allow for the individual hardships that would follow any attempt at fiscal retrenchment. The benefit bill was largely increased by RPI, whilst pensions and other more "income related" entitlements were increased by CPI. Or some not at all. Indeed, realistically why should a family with a household income of over TWICE the national average be in receipt of benefit? Why should a pensioner on above average income have his/her TV license paid?
So far the public sector headcount has been reduced by some 600,000. A further 144,000 or 300, 000 or 400,000 (depending on whose numbers you want to take), are to go over the next five years.
The redundancy costs involved in that are naturally substantial, and are a considerable contribution to the annual deficit. Which is coming down. The total debt, clearly, has to include all those accumulated deficits, as well as what you might call the run-down costs as the structural deficit is eliminated. All the time paying the costs of an economic model that was structured around a constantly expanding national income far higher that it in reality was. And continuing to pay existing benefits and the increases in benefit necessary to tide over those who became workless either because of the recession, or because of job losses, until they again found work.
Net legal immigration over that period has been over 600,000 over that period too. There are also variously either 500,000 (the Economist) 750,000 (LSE) or 1 million (MigrationWatch) illegal immigrants since 2000
Despite the sceptics, private sector job creation employment over the past three years has been in the region of 1.3 million, which is the reason the unemployment stabilised and the number in employment has increased so sharply. UK employment in 2009 (for some reason I cannot find 2010, although unemployment at that time was 8 percent) was 71 percent, and is 71.7 percent now – despite population growth of nearly ¾ of a million people.
Again, no-one is pretending that all those jobs are necessarily the jobs people would want, but they ARE jobs.
Nobody is pretending that the British economy is awash with surplus cash. It is not. (Although the GDP figures are undoubtedly extremely good news).
Nobody is pretending that all is sunshine and light. But there IS light at the end of the tunnel. Even the IMF now accepts that. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/e...d-in-2013.html
Unfortunately, two of the principal architects of the train wreck that was the British economy look likely (if the opinion polls are correct) to be returned at the next election. By which time the annual deficit will with any luck be down to 4 percent. But the accumulated debt will overhang us for generations to come. That really will give the moaners something to moan about. seemingly neither of them has learned a single thing from the disaster they inflicted upon the British people.And those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are indeed doomed to repeat them,. Only THEY won'y be paying the bills. We shall. Again.
Still- it could be worse – for all those who think there was an alternative:-
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/1...0IM0MV20131101
I believe the reasons that some compare to other countries is generally either because they are considering other countries, or to show that the UK is making more (or less) progress than most.
I myself travel regularly between Spain, France and the UK. Any one of those countries would love to have made the progress that the UK has done. Unemployment across Europe is simply dire. The situation many find themselves in is beyond tragic, and are the direct consequence of not facing reality. Whether Europe can emerge from the individual problems without a disaster is a very moot point. The rise of Golden Dawn and Ms Le Pen are not isolated instances. Thankfully, in the UK, (and I say this with trepidation) the BNP seems to be a busted flush, and the EDL to have imploded too.
Recovery may not be as fast as any of us would prefer, and the situation for many not as comfortable as we would like, but that is a reflection of the very parlous situation in which the UK found itself 3 years ago.
Nobody is trying to suggest that the UK is a land of milk and honey for all who return. But just remember our recent history.
By the end of the boom (2007), the UK was already running a budget deficit of 5.2 percent which had been growing since 2001. By 2010 the EU estimated this to have grown to 12 percent of GDP. In the dying days of the election campaign, this was reduced by the Treasury to 10.6 percent of GDP. Now it is indeed recognised to have been closer to that 12 percent. (In addition the Bank of England embarked on its money printing experiment). In 2011, the deficit was reduced to 7.9 percent, and is now either side of 6.
From the beginning of the Millennium, public spending was raised by six percent per annum (NOT counting for PFI, Network Rail and a host of other fiddles), whilst the economy was growing at just over 2 percent. A child of five could see where that was going. (But not the then Chancellor).
Public Spending was increased from 36 percent of GDP at the beginning of the Millennium to 46 percent at the START of the crisis. Public sector employment was increased by just under twenty percent in a mere ten years - nearly a million people. It is not just J.M. Keynes, but every economist in the world, and every household that there is, who knows how essential it is to build reserves for a rainy day. We ALL do it. Except the then Chancellor, who seemed to believe that he actually had abolished Boom and Bust.
The highest point I can remember for sterling was at the beginning of the Millennium when it was around 2.10 against the dollar, and nearly 1.50 against the Euro. Trade weighted Sterling was 110 . By 2010 sterling had declined to below 1.50 to the dollar, and parity with the Euro. Now sterling hovers around 1.60 against the dollar, and just below 1.20 to the Euro. Trade weighted in the 70s. So a devaluation of about 25 or 30 percent. And the relevance of that is that the UK is a nett importer. So every single piece of copper and pound of soya-beans etc that Britain uses, has risen in price by some 30 percent, BEFORE allowing for any inherent increases. So of course there is pressure on the cost of living. What else could there be? Britain spent like a drunken sailor for ten years. Now the bill is being paid down and it hurts.
The situation in 2010 was so dire that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury left a note for his incoming replacement stating baldly "Sorry guys, there is no money left". Which was the absolute truth. The previous Government had begged, borrowed and stolen every penny it could find. Tax bills went through the roof, it pillaged the nation’s savings, utterly destroying the private sector pensions schemes in the process but even that was not enough – it had to resort to printing nearly 200 billion of “new money” just to pay the bills. http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...g-bank-england .
The prospect of a gilt strike was not just real, it was certain had the UK not established a credible repayment plan.
Simultaneously, the new government had to allow for the individual hardships that would follow any attempt at fiscal retrenchment. The benefit bill was largely increased by RPI, whilst pensions and other more "income related" entitlements were increased by CPI. Or some not at all. Indeed, realistically why should a family with a household income of over TWICE the national average be in receipt of benefit? Why should a pensioner on above average income have his/her TV license paid?
So far the public sector headcount has been reduced by some 600,000. A further 144,000 or 300, 000 or 400,000 (depending on whose numbers you want to take), are to go over the next five years.
The redundancy costs involved in that are naturally substantial, and are a considerable contribution to the annual deficit. Which is coming down. The total debt, clearly, has to include all those accumulated deficits, as well as what you might call the run-down costs as the structural deficit is eliminated. All the time paying the costs of an economic model that was structured around a constantly expanding national income far higher that it in reality was. And continuing to pay existing benefits and the increases in benefit necessary to tide over those who became workless either because of the recession, or because of job losses, until they again found work.
Net legal immigration over that period has been over 600,000 over that period too. There are also variously either 500,000 (the Economist) 750,000 (LSE) or 1 million (MigrationWatch) illegal immigrants since 2000
Despite the sceptics, private sector job creation employment over the past three years has been in the region of 1.3 million, which is the reason the unemployment stabilised and the number in employment has increased so sharply. UK employment in 2009 (for some reason I cannot find 2010, although unemployment at that time was 8 percent) was 71 percent, and is 71.7 percent now – despite population growth of nearly ¾ of a million people.
Again, no-one is pretending that all those jobs are necessarily the jobs people would want, but they ARE jobs.
Nobody is pretending that the British economy is awash with surplus cash. It is not. (Although the GDP figures are undoubtedly extremely good news).
Nobody is pretending that all is sunshine and light. But there IS light at the end of the tunnel. Even the IMF now accepts that. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/e...d-in-2013.html
Unfortunately, two of the principal architects of the train wreck that was the British economy look likely (if the opinion polls are correct) to be returned at the next election. By which time the annual deficit will with any luck be down to 4 percent. But the accumulated debt will overhang us for generations to come. That really will give the moaners something to moan about. seemingly neither of them has learned a single thing from the disaster they inflicted upon the British people.And those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are indeed doomed to repeat them,. Only THEY won'y be paying the bills. We shall. Again.
Still- it could be worse – for all those who think there was an alternative:-
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/1...0IM0MV20131101
Nov 1st 2013, 12:13 pm
#1254
Banned
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: The REAL Utopia.
Posts: 9,910
Re: Is the situation in the UK really that bad?
Any one, or indeed all, of your comments applies equally to those who refuse to hear reference to the fact (and it IS a fact), that the UK is actually making progress in addressing the very real problems that it has.
I believe the reasons that some compare to other countries is generally either because they are considering other countries, or to show that the UK is making more (or less) progress than most.
I myself travel regularly between Spain, France and the UK. Any one of those countries would love to have made the progress that the UK has done. Unemployment across Europe is simply dire. The situation many find themselves in is beyond tragic, and are the direct consequence of not facing reality. Whether Europe can emerge from the individual problems without a disaster is a very moot point. The rise of Golden Dawn and Ms Le Pen are not isolated instances. Thankfully, in the UK, (and I say this with trepidation) the BNP seems to be a busted flush, and the EDL to have imploded too.
Recovery may not be as fast as any of us would prefer, and the situation for many not as comfortable as we would like, but that is a reflection of the very parlous situation in which the UK found itself 3 years ago.
Nobody is trying to suggest that the UK is a land of milk and honey for all who return. But just remember our recent history.
By the end of the boom (2007), the UK was already running a budget deficit of 5.2 percent which had been growing since 2001. By 2010 the EU estimated this to have grown to 12 percent of GDP. In the dying days of the election campaign, this was reduced by the Treasury to 10.6 percent of GDP. Now it is indeed recognised to have been closer to that 12 percent. (In addition the Bank of England embarked on its money printing experiment). In 2011, the deficit was reduced to 7.9 percent, and is now either side of 6.
From the beginning of the Millennium, public spending was raised by six percent per annum (NOT counting for PFI, Network Rail and a host of other fiddles), whilst the economy was growing at just over 2 percent. A child of five could see where that was going. (But not the then Chancellor).
Public Spending was increased from 36 percent of GDP at the beginning of the Millennium to 46 percent at the START of the crisis. Public sector employment was increased by just under twenty percent in a mere ten years - nearly a million people. It is not just J.M. Keynes, but every economist in the world, and every household that there is, who knows how essential it is to build reserves for a rainy day. We ALL do it. Except the then Chancellor, who seemed to believe that he actually had abolished Boom and Bust.
The highest point I can remember for sterling was at the beginning of the Millennium when it was around 2.10 against the dollar, and nearly 1.50 against the Euro. Trade weighted Sterling was 110 . By 2010 sterling had declined to below 1.50 to the dollar, and parity with the Euro. Now sterling hovers around 1.60 against the dollar, and just below 1.20 to the Euro. Trade weighted in the 70s. So a devaluation of about 25 or 30 percent. And the relevance of that is that the UK is a nett importer. So every single piece of copper and pound of soya-beans etc that Britain uses, has risen in price by some 30 percent, BEFORE allowing for any inherent increases. So of course there is pressure on the cost of living. What else could there be? Britain spent like a drunken sailor for ten years. Now the bill is being paid down and it hurts.
The situation in 2010 was so dire that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury left a note for his incoming replacement stating baldly "Sorry guys, there is no money left". Which was the absolute truth. The previous Government had begged, borrowed and stolen every penny it could find. Tax bills went through the roof, it pillaged the nation’s savings, utterly destroying the private sector pensions schemes in the process but even that was not enough – it had to resort to printing nearly 200 billion of “new money” just to pay the bills. http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...g-bank-england .
The prospect of a gilt strike was not just real, it was certain had the UK not established a credible repayment plan.
Simultaneously, the new government had to allow for the individual hardships that would follow any attempt at fiscal retrenchment. The benefit bill was largely increased by RPI, whilst pensions and other more "income related" entitlements were increased by CPI. Or some not at all. Indeed, realistically why should a family with a household income of over TWICE the national average be in receipt of benefit? Why should a pensioner on above average income have his/her TV license paid?
So far the public sector headcount has been reduced by some 600,000. A further 144,000 or 300, 000 or 400,000 (depending on whose numbers you want to take), are to go over the next five years.
The redundancy costs involved in that are naturally substantial, and are a considerable contribution to the annual deficit. Which is coming down. The total debt, clearly, has to include all those accumulated deficits, as well as what you might call the run-down costs as the structural deficit is eliminated. All the time paying the costs of an economic model that was structured around a constantly expanding national income far higher that it in reality was. And continuing to pay existing benefits and the increases in benefit necessary to tide over those who became workless either because of the recession, or because of job losses, until they again found work.
Net legal immigration over that period has been over 600,000 over that period too. There are also variously either 500,000 (the Economist) 750,000 (LSE) or 1 million (MigrationWatch) illegal immigrants since 2000
Despite the sceptics, private sector job creation employment over the past three years has been in the region of 1.3 million, which is the reason the unemployment stabilised and the number in employment has increased so sharply. UK employment in 2009 (for some reason I cannot find 2010, although unemployment at that time was 8 percent) was 71 percent, and is 71.7 percent now – despite population growth of nearly ¾ of a million people.
Again, no-one is pretending that all those jobs are necessarily the jobs people would want, but they ARE jobs.
Nobody is pretending that the British economy is awash with surplus cash. It is not. (Although the GDP figures are undoubtedly extremely good news).
Nobody is pretending that all is sunshine and light. But there IS light at the end of the tunnel. Even the IMF now accepts that. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/e...d-in-2013.html
Unfortunately, two of the principal architects of the train wreck that was the British economy look likely (if the opinion polls are correct) to be returned at the next election. By which time the annual deficit will with any luck be down to 4 percent. But the accumulated debt will overhang us for generations to come. That really will give the moaners something to moan about. seemingly neither of them has learned a single thing from the disaster they inflicted upon the British people.And those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are indeed doomed to repeat them,. Only THEY won'y be paying the bills. We shall. Again.
Still- it could be worse – for all those who think there was an alternative:-
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/1...0IM0MV20131101
I believe the reasons that some compare to other countries is generally either because they are considering other countries, or to show that the UK is making more (or less) progress than most.
I myself travel regularly between Spain, France and the UK. Any one of those countries would love to have made the progress that the UK has done. Unemployment across Europe is simply dire. The situation many find themselves in is beyond tragic, and are the direct consequence of not facing reality. Whether Europe can emerge from the individual problems without a disaster is a very moot point. The rise of Golden Dawn and Ms Le Pen are not isolated instances. Thankfully, in the UK, (and I say this with trepidation) the BNP seems to be a busted flush, and the EDL to have imploded too.
Recovery may not be as fast as any of us would prefer, and the situation for many not as comfortable as we would like, but that is a reflection of the very parlous situation in which the UK found itself 3 years ago.
Nobody is trying to suggest that the UK is a land of milk and honey for all who return. But just remember our recent history.
By the end of the boom (2007), the UK was already running a budget deficit of 5.2 percent which had been growing since 2001. By 2010 the EU estimated this to have grown to 12 percent of GDP. In the dying days of the election campaign, this was reduced by the Treasury to 10.6 percent of GDP. Now it is indeed recognised to have been closer to that 12 percent. (In addition the Bank of England embarked on its money printing experiment). In 2011, the deficit was reduced to 7.9 percent, and is now either side of 6.
From the beginning of the Millennium, public spending was raised by six percent per annum (NOT counting for PFI, Network Rail and a host of other fiddles), whilst the economy was growing at just over 2 percent. A child of five could see where that was going. (But not the then Chancellor).
Public Spending was increased from 36 percent of GDP at the beginning of the Millennium to 46 percent at the START of the crisis. Public sector employment was increased by just under twenty percent in a mere ten years - nearly a million people. It is not just J.M. Keynes, but every economist in the world, and every household that there is, who knows how essential it is to build reserves for a rainy day. We ALL do it. Except the then Chancellor, who seemed to believe that he actually had abolished Boom and Bust.
The highest point I can remember for sterling was at the beginning of the Millennium when it was around 2.10 against the dollar, and nearly 1.50 against the Euro. Trade weighted Sterling was 110 . By 2010 sterling had declined to below 1.50 to the dollar, and parity with the Euro. Now sterling hovers around 1.60 against the dollar, and just below 1.20 to the Euro. Trade weighted in the 70s. So a devaluation of about 25 or 30 percent. And the relevance of that is that the UK is a nett importer. So every single piece of copper and pound of soya-beans etc that Britain uses, has risen in price by some 30 percent, BEFORE allowing for any inherent increases. So of course there is pressure on the cost of living. What else could there be? Britain spent like a drunken sailor for ten years. Now the bill is being paid down and it hurts.
The situation in 2010 was so dire that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury left a note for his incoming replacement stating baldly "Sorry guys, there is no money left". Which was the absolute truth. The previous Government had begged, borrowed and stolen every penny it could find. Tax bills went through the roof, it pillaged the nation’s savings, utterly destroying the private sector pensions schemes in the process but even that was not enough – it had to resort to printing nearly 200 billion of “new money” just to pay the bills. http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...g-bank-england .
The prospect of a gilt strike was not just real, it was certain had the UK not established a credible repayment plan.
Simultaneously, the new government had to allow for the individual hardships that would follow any attempt at fiscal retrenchment. The benefit bill was largely increased by RPI, whilst pensions and other more "income related" entitlements were increased by CPI. Or some not at all. Indeed, realistically why should a family with a household income of over TWICE the national average be in receipt of benefit? Why should a pensioner on above average income have his/her TV license paid?
So far the public sector headcount has been reduced by some 600,000. A further 144,000 or 300, 000 or 400,000 (depending on whose numbers you want to take), are to go over the next five years.
The redundancy costs involved in that are naturally substantial, and are a considerable contribution to the annual deficit. Which is coming down. The total debt, clearly, has to include all those accumulated deficits, as well as what you might call the run-down costs as the structural deficit is eliminated. All the time paying the costs of an economic model that was structured around a constantly expanding national income far higher that it in reality was. And continuing to pay existing benefits and the increases in benefit necessary to tide over those who became workless either because of the recession, or because of job losses, until they again found work.
Net legal immigration over that period has been over 600,000 over that period too. There are also variously either 500,000 (the Economist) 750,000 (LSE) or 1 million (MigrationWatch) illegal immigrants since 2000
Despite the sceptics, private sector job creation employment over the past three years has been in the region of 1.3 million, which is the reason the unemployment stabilised and the number in employment has increased so sharply. UK employment in 2009 (for some reason I cannot find 2010, although unemployment at that time was 8 percent) was 71 percent, and is 71.7 percent now – despite population growth of nearly ¾ of a million people.
Again, no-one is pretending that all those jobs are necessarily the jobs people would want, but they ARE jobs.
Nobody is pretending that the British economy is awash with surplus cash. It is not. (Although the GDP figures are undoubtedly extremely good news).
Nobody is pretending that all is sunshine and light. But there IS light at the end of the tunnel. Even the IMF now accepts that. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/e...d-in-2013.html
Unfortunately, two of the principal architects of the train wreck that was the British economy look likely (if the opinion polls are correct) to be returned at the next election. By which time the annual deficit will with any luck be down to 4 percent. But the accumulated debt will overhang us for generations to come. That really will give the moaners something to moan about. seemingly neither of them has learned a single thing from the disaster they inflicted upon the British people.And those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are indeed doomed to repeat them,. Only THEY won'y be paying the bills. We shall. Again.
Still- it could be worse – for all those who think there was an alternative:-
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/1...0IM0MV20131101
actually I will say it twice 
Nov 1st 2013, 12:18 pm
#1255
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Oct 2010
Location: The sunshine state
Posts: 1,358
Re: Is the situation in the UK really that bad?
Excellent breakdown of how the UK got into this mess Bigglesworth. Can't argue with that. The unknown is how long the tunnel is and whether you're looking in the right direction when you're in there.
A good read - thanks.
A good read - thanks.
Nov 1st 2013, 1:02 pm
#1256
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: The Charente - still smiling.
Posts: 2,624
Re: Is the situation in the UK really that bad?
Thank you all.
I was a bit worried about the light at the end of the tunnel.
Always a possibility that it is a train coming the other way!
I was a bit worried about the light at the end of the tunnel.
Always a possibility that it is a train coming the other way!
Nov 1st 2013, 3:13 pm
#1258
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,396
Re: Is the situation in the UK really that bad?
The employment figure also hides the amount of underemployed people, something that has increased quite significantly since 2009.
Nov 1st 2013, 3:26 pm
#1259
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,396
Re: Is the situation in the UK really that bad?
Firstly, not sure why the need for so many exclamation marks. One is normally sufficient [it is Friday, so for the SultanOfSwing it is Pedant Day - this was for him].
So based on it being relative to your thoughts of returning to the UK. Do you currently think the "cost of living crisis" would be worse for you in the USA or the UK? I'm not sure if anyone has expressed their thoughts on your reason for posting in this thread, well I haven't anyway. Not sure why you feel the need to state that.
Nov 1st 2013, 3:32 pm
#1260
I have a comma problem
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: Fox Lake, IL (from Carrickfergus NI)
Posts: 49,598
Re: Is the situation in the UK really that bad?
Joining in now, I think comparisons can be useful to put various situations in context. It doesn't dilute the argument from either side for me. Possibly because I can see valid points on either side.