‘Alarming' drop in UK consumer confidence over last year – Which?
On average between this May and July, 56% of people thought the economy would get worse and just 16% thought it would get better.
Which? said the figures showed a 'significant fall' to some of the lowest levels seen since early 2023, when the cost-of-living crisis was in the headlines and inflation was in double figures.
Confidence in the future economy declined sharply last autumn and was particularly low between February to May, when global events such as the US tariff policy contributed to the pessimism.
Confidence had recovered a little since, but remained considerably lower than 12 months ago.
Pensioners have been the most pessimistic group, with their confidence in the future UK economy falling dramatically from an average of minus five between May and July last year to a current average of minus 63.
Pensioners' confidence dropped dramatically in autumn last year – shortly after the Government's first announcement of scrapping the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners – and has remained low since, in spite of the Government U-turn on fuel payments.
Which?'s figures suggest that financial difficulties from the height of the cost-of-living crisis are yet to return to the pre-crisis levels.
In the month to July 18, an estimated 2.1 million households missed at least one essential payment such as rent or mortgage payments, utility bills, credit card or loan payments.
An estimated 13.9 million households (49%) also made at least one adjustment to cover essential spending such as utility bills, housing costs, groceries, school supplies and medicines in the last month – such as cutting back on essentials, dipping into savings, selling possessions or borrowing.
Rocio Concha, Which? director of policy and advocacy, said: 'Our research shows consumer confidence in the future of the UK economy has dropped alarmingly over the last year.
'The Government has rightly focused on growing the economy and raising living standards but in doing so, it must not overlook the importance of consumer protections in restoring confidence.
'People are sick to the teeth of having to dodge fraudsters when shopping online, watching out for rogue traders when making home improvements and needing to keep an eye out for dodgy pricing practices which mean that offers aren't as good as they first appear.
'The right consumer protections give people the confidence to spend and the Government must place these protections at the heart of its plans to grow the economy.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
a few seconds ago
- Telegraph
Anyone with a brain is jumping off HMS Britain
A piece was recently published about five Oxford graduates. All of them are struggling to find work more than a year after getting good degrees. The article provoked a spate of online mockery about the young people's supposed sense of entitlement. Not for the first time, social media reminded us that we are what GK Chesterton called 'veneered vandals', savages under the thinnest of layers. In fact, the five Oxonians came across as ambitious and determined. They were making ends meet through temping, tutoring and working summer jobs while firing off hundreds of application letters. They were simply finding out, like so many people of their age, that three years of study and tens of thousands of pounds in student debt no longer get you onto the first rung of a career ladder. This discovery shocked them, as well it might. Theirs was the generation that was yanked out of school in March 2020, thinking that they would be back to take their A-levels after three or four weeks of lockdown. In fact, it wasn't just their schools that they never went back to; it was the way of life of pre-pandemic Britain. Before lockdown, the UK budget was on its way to surplus. Now, the Government is borrowing nearly £150 billion a year, two thirds of which must go to pay interest on past borrowing. No one has a plan to undo the supposedly emergency spending of 2020. The only debate is over whether taxes must rise to meet the new commitments, or whether we carry on borrowing. Did we imagine that we could pay people to stay home for the better part of two years without suffering an economic hit? As a matter of fact, I think a lot of us did. The same people who spent lockdown howling down attempts to loosen restrictions as 'putting the economy before lives' are now angry and bewildered because prices, taxes and unemployment have risen. Britain has reached the end of a long run of structurally high employment. For more than 30 years, our jobs market was the envy of Europe. Yes, we could be hit by external events, notably the global financial crisis. But we bounced back quickly, because we understood that the best way to encourage employers to hire people was to make it easy to fire them. A moment's thought reveals why. In a country with light employment regulations, firms take on staff during upswings, knowing that they can always drop them if things go wrong. But in a country with restrictive regulations, every employee is a potential liability, and companies hang back warily. In such countries, unemployment is structurally high, especially among young people. That has been southern Europe's tragedy for decades. British governments used to understand this. Neither Tony Blair nor Gordon Brown tried to undo the labour reforms of the 1980s. Both knew that, if they wanted revenue for public services, they needed a buoyant economy. Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves, by contrast, seem to struggle with the concept of cause and effect. Never mind their tax-and-spend policies. They appear not to grasp that raising the costs of employing people leads to fewer people being employed. Four months ago, they hit businesses with a double tax. Employer National Insurance contributions rose from 13.8 per cent to 15 per cent, and at the same time kicked in on earnings above £5,000 instead of £9,100. What did they think would happen, for heaven's sake? If tobacco taxes reduce smoking and carbon taxes reduce emissions, what did they suppose jobs taxes would do? Sure enough, the number of employees on payroll plunged by 109,000 the following month, and has declined further in every month since. Britain's overall unemployment rate is now at its highest since lockdown. The really striking figure, though, is youth unemployment. Among 16- to 24-year-olds, the jobless rate has reached Mediterranean levels: over 14 per cent in recent months. Why? Again, because of our refusal to acknowledge that actions have consequences. Pushing up the minimum wage (which applies from age 16) and the national living wage (which applies from 21) makes MPs feel righteous. They have voted to raise minimum remuneration for 20-year-olds by 55 per cent since 2020. The trouble is that these repeated hikes end up punishing young people, not helping them, by closing off job opportunities and condemning many to welfare. Around 60,000 students a year go straight from university onto long-term sickness benefits. MPs with a basic knowledge of economics tend to keep quiet, because they are terrified of being asked how they would like to live on £10 an hour. It is an irrelevant question, but it nonetheless terrifies them. I was, I think, the only parliamentarian to speak out against an above-inflation hike in the minimum wage during the pandemic, at a time when wages were falling across the private sector. Everyone else wanted an even bigger rise. Ignorant voters, self-righteous journalists and cowardly politicians make a potent combination. This year, the minimum wage rose by 18 per cent for 16- and 17-year-olds and by 16.3 per cent for 18-, 19- and 20-year olds. Result? Fewer jobs for young people. Openings in the hospitality sector are down by 22,000 since last year, and graduate postings have fallen by an almost unbelievable 33 per cent. To repeat, policies have consequences. I sometimes think that the readiness to acknowledge trade-offs is the real dividing-line in politics. And I don't just mean among politicians. Among voters, too, there are those who look at the costs of policies, and those who go to the polling station humming 'I'm just a soul whose intentions are good'. Hikes in the minimum wage are the least of it. The open-ended extension of equalities laws is an even greater deterrent. When retail workers can be compensated for being paid less than warehouse workers on supposedly sex discrimination grounds, even though the retail workers were refusing to be redeployed to warehouses, employers can hardly be blamed for being reluctant to hire. And that is before we get to Angela Rayner's package of employment laws, the most far-reaching since the mid-1970s. The Employment Rights Bill, currently before the House of Lords, is a regulatory omnibill that covers sick pay, paternity leave, bereavement, privileges for new employees, a right to demand flexible working, new holiday entitlements and extra powers for trade unions. As Tony Blair put it, early in his premiership: 'There is almost always a case that can be made for each specific instrument. The problem is cumulative. All these good intentions can add up to a large expense, with suffocating effects.' Quite so, and it is more than a little scary that we are governed by people who can't see it. Here is a paradox. Labour – the clue is in the name – is meant to be the party of the worker. Yet every single Labour-majority government has left office with unemployment higher than when it began. Every. Single. One. This one, unlike some of its predecessors, has wasted no time. Already we can see where it is going: more and more workers' rights, fewer and fewer workers. We are in a vicious circle. Higher unemployment means fewer people paying taxes into the system and more drawing benefits from it. Since Labour has already proven that it cannot cut spending – not even mildly to slow the rise in benefits claims – that can only mean even higher taxes, prompting more disinvestment, slower growth, higher unemployment and lower revenue. According to a survey by the British Council, 72 per cent of Brits under 30 are thinking of working abroad, and who can blame them? We are pulling off the extraordinary double of simultaneous emigration and immigration crises, exporting our entrepreneurs and replacing them with people who go onto benefits. And, God help us, we have another four years of it to come.
Telegraph
30 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Spiralling building costs are wrecking Britain's prospects
It will provide the water for tens of thousands of homes, allow supply to catch up with a huge rise in the population, and it might even allow resource-hungry data centres to finally get built in the South East of England where they are most needed. There are lots of reasons to welcome the planned new Abingdon Reservoir in Oxfordshire. There is just one catch. The cost has tripled from the initial estimates, and will now come in at £7.5bn. In reality, from nuclear power stations, to rail lines, to runways, this is happening time and time again. Everything costs far more to build in Britain than it does in comparable countries. And until we work out how to fix that, there is no hope of the economy ever recovering. When, or rather if, it is finally opened in 2040, the Abingdon reservoir will be the first major new piece of water infrastructure the UK has built in more than 30 years. Even though we have added 11m people to the total population since 1995, and total output has almost doubled, at least in nominal terms, we have been squeezing every last drop of water out of a largely Victorian water system. The locals may not like it, but we desperately need some new reservoirs, and Abingdon is as good a place as any to start. The problem is the cost. From initial estimates of around £2bn, Thames Water said this week the bill was likely to rise to £7.5bn, and perhaps even more. We can add it to the list of escalating infrastructure costs. Last month, Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, in a rare example of a sensible decision, gave the go-ahead for the Sizewell C nuclear power station. Again, however, the price was shocking. It will come in at £38bn, almost double the £20bn that was estimated when it was first discussed five years ago. If anyone believes that will be the final figure, if I have a pre-loved windmill I would like to sell them. The estimated cost of a third runaway at Heathrow has risen from £14bn to close on £50bn; the cost of the HS2 rail link has already gone up to close on £100bn, and that is after we have halved its length; the cost of the Lower Thames Crossing connecting London and Kent has risen to £10bn, and work hasn't even started yet. The list goes on and on. It makes no difference whether a project is large or small. In my corner of south-west London, Hammersmith Bridge has been closed for years, clogging up traffic for miles, but now that the cost of fixing it has doubled to £250m, the money is not available to start work. Our rivals are far better at keeping costs under control. France is not a cheap country to do business in, but nuclear plants cost less than £10bn each. According to Britain Remade, nuclear power plants cost an estimated £9.4bn per megawatt in the UK compared with £4.4bn in France and £2.2bn in South Korea. Reservoirs are hard to compare precisely because the size and the value of the land varies so much. But the huge new Bassin d'Austerlitz built to clean up the Seine for the Paris Olympics cost only €1.4bn (£1.2bn), far less than Abingdon. As for high-speed rail lines, everyone else builds them for a fraction of the cost in the UK. The trouble is, the soaring cost of building anything is turning into a catastrophe for the economy. There are three big problems. First, hardly any new infrastructure projects get started because the costs are so horrendous. Thames Water was already in dire financial trouble, and adding billions to the cost of new reservoirs is not going to help fix that. Meanwhile, the Government is already so deeply in debt and so strapped for cash, it can't afford to fund them either. Next, the huge bills and the endless escalation of prices deter investors. After all, why bother with infrastructure investments in the UK when you can build the same kit somewhere else for half the price, and earn far better profits? Finally, it means the prices that have to be charged soar out of control. Energy from Sizewell C will cost a lot more than it would have done if it had been built more efficiently. Presumably, anyone planning to travel on HS2, if it ever gets finished, will have to take out a second mortgage to pay for the cost of the ticket to Birmingham. Expensive infrastructure pushes up the price of everything else. The Labour Government was meant to be cutting the costs of building projects. But so far it has failed dismally. We can see that from the way estimates for projects such as Abingdon and Sizewell C keep going up when they should be coming down. We could fix the crisis if the political will were there. Like how? The UK needs to streamline its planning rules so that a single minister could give the green light for a project, without local consultation, without endless reports, and most of all, without any right to judicial review. Likewise, we need to scrap the environmental rules that prioritise wildlife over people and the economy. And we need to train more engineers and skilled construction workers so the labour is available once a project is approved and the finance has been secured. The cost of building anything in Britain is an issue that has been growing for years, but it is now reaching crisis proportions. In the 19th century, Britain was a world leader in creating infrastructure. Until we can build again, at reasonable cost, there is no hope of the economy recovering – and eventually the water, and the power, will just run out.
The Herald Scotland
3 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Scottish Government urged to back RAAC homeowners' campaign
Now, Ms McAllan has agreed to meet with representatives of the UK RAAC Campaign Group. Dozens of affected properties have been identified in Clackmannanshire. (Image: Scott Barron) In a letter to the group's chair, Wilson Chowdhry, she wrote: 'I am planning to meet directly with affected homeowners, in areas with the highest number of privately owned RAAC-affected properties; to listen to their concerns and explore potential solutions. It is my intention that invitations to attend these meetings will be issued to residents, local campaign groups and elected representatives. 'My officials will shortly take forward work making the relevant arrangements - which will include arranging meetings with affected homeowners in Clackmannanshire and West Lothian Council areas. 'Noting your reference to these areas, I will ask my officials to inform you when dates for these respective meetings have been agreed and to liaise with you on a separate meeting with you, as representative of the UK RAAC Campaign Group, as part of a wider engagement process.' Speaking to The Herald, Mr Chowdhry said he was 'relieved' to finally receive a response from the Secretary, although he expressed "frustration" at the lengthy delay. He said: 'Families have been living in financial and emotional freefall for months, and every day of delay has deepened their hardship. I can only hope that the legislative changes I have submitted—including restoring first-time buyer status, ensuring capital-only repayments without interest for any outstanding mortgages on homes lost through no-fault safety concerns, and reforming the Homebuyer Report framework—will be seriously considered when delivered to the UK Government. Mr Chowdhry's daughter Hannah saw her Aberdeen home plunge in value, after she was informed that contained the crumbing concrete. This spurred the veteran campaigner to meet the crisis head on. Aberdeen City Council has announced plans to demolish the homes. (Image: Getty) He added: 'Legal reforms could also prevent future crises by placing a legal burden on developers and contractors to rectify safety defects in buildings they profited from, rather than leaving ordinary people to carry the cost.' 'I welcome the recognition of the work of the UK RAAC Campaign Group, and while the Housing Minister has offered us a private meeting, the First Minister must also attend. We will not simply be discussing the human impact of this debacle—which the Government should already be acutely aware of—but will be delving deep into concrete solutions. 'The First Minister has already expressed openness to such an engagement, and the reality is that these decisions must be taken at the very top of government.' Ms McAllan was criticised in July after the Press and Journal revealed she had yet to respond to a letter sent by Aberdeen City Council appealing for urgent aid from the Scottish Government, a month after it had been sent. Commenting at the time, North East MSP Liam Kerr said: 'Getting a fair deal for the people of Balnagask should be top of the agenda for the new housing minister. "It took a massive effort to get the SNP to focus on the plight of Scotland's RAAC victims. "In Aberdeen there is a golden opportunity to use a pot of money that is more than likely going to disappear, very soon.' A decade-long City Region Deal reached in 2016 is set to expire next year, with £20m yet to be spent. Campaigners have urged the government to release the funding before it expires. The RAAC campaign has also received support from Scottish Labour. Alloa and Grangemouth MP Brian Leishman plans to lodge a formal written petition to Parliament in September, calling on the government to provide support for affected communties. Read more: 'We hold the cards': residents hit out at 'measly' council RAAC payments Aberdeen City Council recommends demolition and rebuild of dangerous RAAC homes Aberdeen RAAC residents take their case direct to First Minister John Swinney A Scottish Government spokesperson confirmed Ms McAllan's plans to meet with campaigners. They said: 'We recognise this is a worrying time for homeowners affected by RAAC. The Scottish Government takes RAAC very seriously and we have established regular meetings with public and private sector bodies to ensure best practice is shared across sectors impacted by RAAC. The Cabinet Secretary looks forward to meeting with campaigners, including homeowners, to discuss their concerns. 'We have repeatedly called on the UK Government to make available a dedicated RAAC remediation fund but they have failed to do so. 'We are continuing to work with local authorities across Scotland as they respond to the impact of RAAC in their areas and we expect all social landlords to be engaging with their tenants and developing plans to remediate RAAC in their homes. The Scottish Government remains closely engaged in this work.'
