‘Alarming' drop in UK consumer confidence over last year – Which?
Confidence has tumbled by 31 points over the last year, from an average of minus nine between May and July 2024 to an average of minus 40 between May and July this year, Which?'s Consumer Insight Tracker shows.
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
Daily Mirror
13 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Horse racing goes on strike for the first time in extraordinary move
Four race meetings on September 10 at Lingfield Park, Carlisle, Uttoxeter and Kempton Park will no longer take place that day and will be rescheduled Horse racing will go on strike on September 10 for the first time in the history of the sport. The extraordinary move is in protest at the Government's proposed betting tax increase. Four race meetings on September 10 at Lingfield Park, Carlisle, Uttoxeter and Kempton Park will no longer take place that day and will be rescheduled. The strike is the day before the start of the historic four-day St Leger festival at Doncaster Racecourse. On the same day, the sport will host a major event in Westminster where senior leaders will be joined by owners, trainers and jockeys to highlight the threat of the Treasury's proposal on an industry which is worth £4.1billion to the UK economy. The shock announcement comes as British Racing's 'Axe the Racing Tax' campaign cranked up a gear in advance of the Autumn Budget. The campaign is urging the Government to scrap the Treasury's proposal to bring existing online betting duties into one single rate. Campaigners say it would have devastating consequences for the nation's second-largest spectator sport that supports 85,000 jobs and which is attended by almost five million people each year. Economic analysis commissioned by the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) has shown that aligning the current 15% tax rate paid by bookies on racing with that of online games of chance – currently taxed at 21% – by harmonising all remote gambling duties, could have a destructive impact on the sport with a £330 million revenue hit to the industry in the first five years, and putting 2,752 jobs at risk in the first year alone. Racing's decision not to race on September 10 is unprecedented. Race meetings in Britain take place on 363 days a year, with the exception of certain seasonal holidays. With the exception of meetings being called off due to adverse weather, equine virus outbreak and national crises such as the Covid-19 pandemic, this will be the first time in history that the sport has taken a collective decision not to race in protest at a Government proposal. Brant Dunshea, Chief Executive at the British Horseracing Authority said: 'We have decided to take the unprecedented decision to cancel our planned racing fixtures on 10th September to highlight to Government the serious consequences of the Treasury's tax proposals which threaten the very future of our sport. 'British Racing is already in a precarious financial position and research has shown that a tax rise on racing could be catastrophic for the sport and the thousands of jobs that rely on it in towns and communities across the country. 'This is the first time that British Racing has chosen not to race due to Government proposals. We haven't taken this decision lightly but in doing so we are urging the Government to rethink this tax proposal to protect the future of our sport which is a cherished part of Britain's heritage and culture.'
Telegraph
43 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Why Dutch-style bin ‘smart meters' could solve Britain's waste crisis
Bins have never been more contentious. Strikes in Birmingham have left waste piling high, collection times across the country have been slashed and garden rubbish fees are commonplace. All the while, council tax bills continue to increase year-on-year. Numerous ideas to solve the nation's eternal bin gripe have been floated over the decades, yet both the Government and our councils are no closer to finding a solution. Birmingham's recent transformation into a rats' paradise with black bags stacked two metres high suggests we're further away than ever. But is the answer to Britain's bin misery embedded in a short-lived idea chucked on the rubbish heap 20 years ago? Pay-as-you-throw (PAYT), which was trialled by 50,000 homes in South Norfolk in 2005, involved residents paying a fee based on the amount of waste they put out for collection. Think smart meter, but for rubbish. Bin lorries weigh the contents of a wheelie bin (or bags), and the resident is billed accordingly. In turn, council tax can, in theory, be lowered. The Dutch and South Koreans have made a success of it, with households charged less overall and recycling figures healthily increasing. A research paper by the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) found 'there has been little evidence of discontent with PAYT'. It continued: 'Indeed, studies suggest that populations which have been exposed to PAYT schemes are more likely to support them than counterparts with no experience of the system.' It's a policy which Mark Hall, of waste management firm Business Waste, believes should be revived in Britain. He said: 'Many of the Government's policies, such as landfill tax and low emission zones, are moving towards the polluter pays principle. 'A PAYT system would not be out of place in this new strategy. If it's proven to reduce council tax costs, it's hard to see how it wouldn't receive public backing in the current cost of living crisis.' One problem, however, is that there is no specific allocation for refuse collection in our council tax bills. It means it is hard to quantify whether a PAYT system would be more cost-effective for the individual. Residents mistakenly tend to think their council tax bills are predominantly for bin collection, when in reality, a much larger share of the tax bill is spent on social care provision. The Communities and Local Government Committee stressed in 2007 that the 'introduction of a financial link between the bin being taken and the householder's bank balance may be welcome', yet such clarity has never materialised. 'The technology just didn't work' A key hurdle to introducing PAYT in Britain is the fact the South Norfolk trial did not produce promising results. This was due to technological issues which caused inaccurate readings, missed collections and general confusion. Microchips in wheelie bins were supposed to monitor the weight of rubbish, and the billing information for each household was then downloaded to a database each week. At the time of the failed trial – which sparked a 250pc rise in fly-tipping – the former leader of the council, John Fuller, said: 'The technology just didn't work. If you want to base a tax system on it, it has to work in every bin, in every street on every day of the year. Otherwise the figures are nonsense.' There was also slightly less incentive for households to embrace the PAYT system two decades ago when council tax bills swallowed up a smaller share of household income. In 2002-03, the lowest income households in Britain spent just 2.4pc of their earnings on council tax. By 2020-21, this figure had risen to 4.6pc, according to the Resolution Foundation. Frustration with waste management services is also at an all-time high today after many councils introduced 'add-on' fees for disposing of residents' garden waste. Last month, the actor James Buckley, who starred in The Inbetweeners, vented his anger on a podcast after his council introduced an annual fee for emptying his garden waste bin. 'Has my council tax come down? No, is the answer to that question. Has it gone up? Yes, is the answer to that question. Everyone up and down the country is saying the exact same f-----g thing – what the f--- is going on?' A solution, it seems, is far more pressing today than it was in 2005. Netherlands and South Korea leading the way Other countries, however, have made a success of PAYT. In South Korea, smart bins are used for food waste – with residents using high-tech systems to weigh the waste and pay accordingly. For general waste, residents pay for local government-issued bags to dispose of rubbish. Recycling, however, carries no charge, encouraging residents to divert as much waste as possible to this stream. The countrywide benefits are there to see with South Korea boasting an 86pc recycling rate, compared to around 44pc in the UK. Weight-based fees are also utilised in the Netherlands – a country keen on using weight as a barometer for costs (car tax is calculated based on how heavy a vehicle is). Half of Dutch municipalities use PAYT for rubbish collections – equating to around 41pc of the population. Councils use various methods, yet the municipalities charging fees based on weight have seen the best results. 'Weight-based schemes appear to give the greatest reduction in overall waste quantity... but the vehicles used in such schemes are more expensive with on-board weighing equipment,' the IEEP said in 2016. The cost of retro-fitting, or buying brand new bin lorries with weight-monitoring technology is likely a fantasy that our cash-strapped councils this side of the Channel can ill afford. That's not to say, however, that simpler forms of PAYT could be considered. The World Economic Forum (WEF) found that 'once households begin paying directly for waste services, they tend to rapidly reduce how much they throw away'. More than 7,000 towns and cities in the US – including Seattle, Austin and Portland – have PAYT policies, yet they aren't based on weight. Instead, it is a simpler process. Residents are often required to purchase special trash bags or stickers so that they pay separately for every bag. Or, they may have to sign up for a certain level of waste collection service, which limits how much garbage they can set out on the kerb. In Seattle, residents are charged $45 (£33) per month for their waste to be collected from the kerbside.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
How can England possibly be running out of water?
During the drought of 2022, London came perilously close to running out of water. Water companies and the government prayed desperately for rain as reservoirs ran low and the groundwater was slowly drained off. Contingency plans were drafted to ban businesses from using water; hotel swimming pools would have been drained, ponds allowed to dry up, offices to go uncleaned. If the lack of rainfall had continued for another year, it was possible that taps could have run dry. That, however, was just a taster of what could come down the line. On Tuesday, the government announced a 'nationally significant' water shortage in England, which means the whole country is at risk of running out if the dry weather continues. People across England are already banned from using hosepipes, with more restrictions probable over coming months. The UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (UKCEH), an independent research institute, has warned of exceptionally low river flows. Reservoirs are also at extremely low levels and groundwater is dwindling. Droughts are generally two-year events. A year of dry weather means water supplies are running out – that is what is happening now. Things really come to a head if the following year does not bring above average rainfall. That is when the shortages start to bite, with farmers unable to irrigate and households and businesses hit with sweeping restrictions. With reservoirs at record lows and stream flows exceptionally low, England is desperate for rain. Forecasts indicate that by 2055 England's public water supply could be short by 5bn litres a day without urgent action to future-proof resources, the equivalent to more than a third of the supplies available today. The effect on the economy will be profoundly negative. The thinktank Public First has estimated that the economic cost of water scarcity could be £8.5bn over this parliament. So how on earth did famously rainswept England, notorious the world over for being green and wet with our national symbol pretty much a furled umbrella, come to this? Britain's geology and climate means there should be plenty of water. Underground in the south of England the rock is made of chalk, which is very soft and porous. These layers of rock filter rainwater into some of the cleanest water in the world, collecting in huge aquifers that have been tapped by local residents for centuries. Water companies now use those aquifers to provide the majority of the drinking water in some parts of the south. Further north, the rock underfoot is harder; sandstone and limestone, so lacking the benefits of the chalk aquifer. But it tends to receive more rainfall than the south, so there has generally been plentiful water from the skies to fill the reservoirs on which the northern water companies rely. There are also the rivers that crisscross the country, which (when clean) include gin-clear chalk streams buzzing with mayflies and thronging with salmon and other fish. The UK is one of the rainier places in Europe. Some areas are wetter than others. In England, the Lake District generally receives an average of 2,000mm of rainfall a year, while in parts of the south-east it is as low as 700mm. Perhaps it is because the country has always had such rich resources, that they have been taken for granted. Running out of water has never really been in question. But with population growth and climate breakdown, this is starting to look like folly. It was in the 17th century that the New River Company began piping water into London's homes from the springs in nearby Hertfordshire for the very rich. Slowly the technology began to spread and grow in popularity. Over the next decades, England's population would rise dramatically and the water systems of its rapidly growing cities would come under increasing stress. When the Great Stink hit London in 1858 during a heatwave, the civil engineer Joseph Bazalgette had already been commissioned to draw up plans to urgently update the city's sewage system. Known for his tirelessness, Bazalgette checked every connection himself, making thousands upon thousands of notes, and saved many lives as the system diverted sewage away from the city and into the Thames estuary. Later, treatment centres were added to purify the water. Today, consumers are used to having water coming out of a tap and they want to use a lot of it. Future generations, who will be dealing with long, dry summers, would probably be shocked at the profligate way clean tap water was used to flush toilets, water gardens and run washing machines. UK households use more water, mostly on showering and bathing, than other comparable European countries, at about 150 litres a day per capita. For France the average is 128, Germany 122 and Spain 120 (although in Italy its 243 litres a day). And the waste starts long before it gets to people's taps. Water companies in England and Wales lose about 1tn litres of water through leaky pipes each year. The industry has said that about 20% of all treated water is lost to leaks. The water firms have pledged to halve leakages by 2050. Meanwhile, the annual pipe replacement rate is 0.05% a year across all water companies: much of the sewage system in London, for example, has not been significantly updated since Bazalgette and his colleagues installed it in the 19th century. No new reservoir has been built in 30 years despite significant population growth and climate breakdown meaning longer, drier summers during which the country desperately needs to store water. The reservoirs England does have are at their lowest levels in at least a decade, just 67.7% full on average. According to Dr Wilson Chan, a hydroclimatologist at UKCEH, 'above average rainfall over several months is needed to ease pressures on water resources'. Was it the privatisation of the water and sewerage industry in 1989 that has led to this situation? England's water system has been widely criticised, and privatisation has been blamed for a lack of investment in infrastructure. Some say this is owing to the water companies paying out dividends rather than using the money raised by customer bills solely for investment in infrastructure; others blame a privatised regulated monopoly system that has prioritised low customer bills over investment. Experts have also pointed to the regulatory system. Water company drought plans compel firms to follow a series of steps before they can increase abstraction, taking more water from reservoirs, rivers and the ground to supply customers, beginning with reducing consumption (a hosepipe ban). 'Water companies must now take action to follow their drought plans – I will hold them to account if they delay,' says the water minister, Emma Hardy. 'We face a growing water shortage in the next decade.' But water companies believe that people hate being told to reduce their water consumption, so avoid hosepipe bans as much as possible. It does not help that bans may also lead to customers giving low satisfaction marks for their company, which are then taken into account by the regulator. The end result of these incentives; unsustainably high levels of abstraction from the natural environment, most of which will not be replaced by rain on the same timescale. Stores of water such as fossil aquifers and chalk streams recharge over centuries. The Environment Agency (EA) assess that 15% of surface water bodies and 27% of groundwater bodies in England have unsustainable levels of abstraction. 'We are calling on everyone to play their part and help reduce the pressure on our water environment,' says Helen Wakeham, the EA's director of water and chair of the National Drought Group. 'Water companies must continue to quickly fix leaks and lead the way in saving water.' This is not just a management problem. As climate breakdown accelerates, rainfall patterns are changing fast, and water will increasingly become less available at certain times of year. As Sir David King, a former UK chief scientific adviser who chairs the Climate Crisis Advisory Group, says: 'Drought in England is no longer a warning. It is a clear signal that climate collapse is unravelling our water, food and natural systems right now. 'This crisis demands a fundamental shift that places real value on our planet and environment, invests in nature, restores water cycles and transforms how we use every drop. If we rise to this moment we can turn crisis into opportunity, delivering economic resilience, ecological renewal and climate leadership.' The UK is not the only country that is already struggling to deal with changing weather patterns. Almost half of Europe is in drought, with wildfires tearing across the continent and farmers struggling to grow crops. Many of the economies of Southern Europe are dependent on sunny weather that has historically made the region the perfect place to grow vegetables for export. Scientists are concerned that farming in certain southern European countries will become less and less viable. More than 90 million people in eastern and southern Africa are facing extreme hunger after record-breaking drought across many areas has led to widespread crop failures and the death of livestock. As the impacts of the climate crisis unfurl around the world, is the UK government awake to the scale of the problem? Nine new reservoirs are in the pipeline to be built before 2050, while there are consultations on reducing demand for water. But this may be too little, too late; many housing developments are on pause because of water scarcity. The first new reservoir planned for Abingdon in Oxfordshire is sited in the same place as the government's new datacentre zone, leading to fears the water will be used to cool servers rather than serve customers in one of the most water-stressed areas of the UK. Green homes experts have said government building codes for new housing should include rainwater harvesting for internal use such as in lavatories and washing machines. People with gardens could use a water butt in summer, so that clean tap water is not being pumped through a hose into garden plants. Reducing time in the shower by a minute can save water, says Waterwise, while green building groups recommend the use of water-saving shower heads. A recent government commissioned report recommends smart water meters ate installed nationally, so households who use sprinklers and fill swimming pools are charged more than those who are more frugal with their use. More broadly, farmers could build reservoirs on their land to reduce the need for irrigation. Nature-based solutions could be used too, such as releasing beavers that create dams and hold water in the system, or restoring wetlands. 'We need to build more resilience into our rivers and their catchment areas with nature-based solutions at scale, such as healthy soils that allow water to filter into the ground and not rush off taking the soil with it; riverside tree planting to provide shade and further slow the flow of water; wetlands to store and slowly release water, and rewiggling streams to raise the water table and purify pollutants,' says Mark Lloyd, the chief executive of the Rivers Trust. 'We also need to finally implement the use of rainwater rather than drinking water where we can, such as car washing, gardening, washing pets, filling paddling pools and flushing the loo. Other water-stressed countries have used this approach for decades and we need to join that party.'
