Are we heading into a major recession?

Some countries do similar but our electorate have voted for the opposite. We're just too opposed to using tax in such a way.

@Ozgirl76

You're typical, or rather your response to Labour budget is absolutely typical, every single business I know of is doing the same. Retail, which is largest in terms of number of people employed, is preparing mass redundancies.
What's annoying - this was so predictable even without any economic credentials.

Absolutely agree. Growth can come from govt spending but what actually helps people is having a job NOW, that pays pretty well, and having goods and services that don’t take up that entire pay cheque. This amorphous “growth” that they talk of, coming from “infrastructure projects” at some point in the far future, may create “growth” but who does it actually benefit? Big business, investors etc. Yes some workers but when?

We run a business and the effect of the recent tax changes means that most of our suppliers have increased prices. We will also do this, and we sell B2B so they will then increase their prices to the end customer. We also are looking to cut costs if we can, to pay for the tax rises. We will probably lay off two of our underperforming staff who we have carried for the time being. The business can no longer afford to have any fat.

If we are typical (and I believe we are - apart from the fact that our product is not a discretionary spend business, which I believe will be hit even harder) then we are laying off staff and slightly rising prices.

I also believe that spending cuts are on their way by the govt too, this has been widely reported.

Far, far too sensible @nearlylovemyusername , so it won't happen. I think we should encourage people to have health insurance by making their personal (not employer) premium payments tax deductible, and to issue a voucher worth £x,000 pa per capita for primary and secondary education, which can be spent anywhere deemed adequate by OFSTED, but which crucially can be topped up fairly inexpensively for more specialist provision, of whatever type is required. It wouldn't stop elite schools existing, but it might help reinvigorate the small town independent day schools that used to exist in much larger numbers.

@SerendipityJane
It may be wrong and economically illiterate.
However it is what UK (and indeed US) economies are based on.

Again, wrong. UK - mostly yes. Masses of low productive people and a very high number of economically inactive.

US - they are a power house because they attract (even if smallish) number of ultra productive individuals and business who in turn can feed unproductive masses (to certain extend).

Investing in infra and education - yes absolutely, big time. But for this to happen you need to make it attractive to invest in UK. You can't pay for this all through taxes. And you need to ensure that people who chose to be unproductive are disinsetivised to do so. This is all achieved by reduction of taxes, removal of cliff edges which force high earners to reduce their hours etc etc. Increase individual allowance from 12.5k to something substantially higher and make benefits time limited full stop. Ideally link benefits to previous earnings.
Education - very controversial, but what about giving £3.5k to people who chose to educate privately? instead of applying VAT? if it is believed that private schools deliver educational benefits, why not to make them accessible to more people? of course not everyone can still make it, but you give half of what you spend on state school per pupil per year, you still save money but more people get this presumably better education and you relief pressure on state schools? But no, this would be unfair. Nordics do this by the way.

It may be wrong and economically illiterate.

However it is what UK (and indeed US) economies are based on.

If you wanted more productive people, you would invest in infrastructure to make them so. Housing, transport and critically education.

Exactly. Although I don't think Labour realise this

Growth axiomatically means you need more people. No matter what sleight of hand is used.

No! That's wrong and economically illiterate! You don't need more people, you need people to be more productive. Lower number of more productive people will generate much higher living standard (growth) than more unproductive people. If country A has 100 people working part time, in low skilled jobs or on benefits and country B has 30 people who invent new technologies and develop businesses, which one will have higher growth?
The issue is that Labour made it their mission to get rid of category B.

So in summary - we're all happy and Labour are doing just great.
Yes there will be recession or zero growth, there is already high UK specific inflation which is just about to grow and high unemployment. Yes there will be ancient woodland concreted waiting for 1.5m homes to be build (but no actual builders, sorry).
Life will be shit. But it will be equal shit for everyone who stays on this island. Means it's fair. And we're only happy when it's fair, no matter how bad.

Why do we need more houses? the birth rate is flat at the best measure, not in replacement for many measures

So, hey, what about if we stop so much immigration, we wouldn’t need more houses?

Because the population is still growing due to people living longer. And the old disproportionally own more housing stock than the young.

Growth axiomatically means you need more people. No matter what sleight of hand is used.

It's the one time I paid attention to Nigel Farage. When he pointed that out and then asked why we were so obsessed with "growth".

Obviously he was being disingenuous. But the lack of engagement with that question was illuminting.

Labour think they can create growth. It’s such a commie attitude

It’s by definition only the private sector that can create growth and unfortunately for us, Rachel from accounts has gone after the horrid richies in the private sector. A recession is pretty inevitable

I wonder what a law to limit home ownership to two a person would look like ? Coupled with one that prevents companies owning domestic properties ?

English property law is the envy of the worlds elites. No other system in history has allowed land to remain in the same families for centuries. No wonder they are beating a path to our schools, they want to learn the secret. After all the food climate and population are hardly attractions.

Why do we need more houses?
the birth rate is flat at the best measure, not in replacement for many measures,

So, hey, what about if we stop so much immigration, we wouldn’t need more houses?

I wish we’d scrap Ed Millibands madcap net zero hell. We will live to regret the billions he is spunking up the wall,

With house prices rising way in front of inflation for a number of years, landlords that make only small profits on their tenancy are still gaining. Lets be fair go back five years, stick £150k into the bank and see the return with ridiculously low interest, or let out the house at £1k a month and still have the asset that is now worth £175k. My heart really isn't bleeding.

Sorry just reread, you are talking about buy to let landlords. Well frankly they can get back in the sea as they are very responsible for price rises stopping working people from buying their own home.

Most towns and cities I visit seem to have massive plots of land which were previously used for industry, not being left to waste with buildings falling down.

We should be re-evaluating what we consider of cultural importance and knock these down to build on. What we do not need is private investors masquerading as housing associations. Government/Council housing with rents proportionate to wages.

I said we need landlords.....because we have no social housing. Its not in isolation

Need ?

Only if you have queered the pitch with laws that prevent you building your own home on a patch of land you appropriate. You know. Like we must have done at some point in the past. Or as still happens in some countries and cultures in the world.

Need is a transitive verb. Your need may be my want. At the moment someones want for a nice view overrides someones need for a home.

This isn't a proto manifesto for abandoning "progress". But it is me point out that I am less fooled by words bandied about than some.

Many landlords are not making vast profits as the cost of borrowing has gone up and the cost of repairs. There is a massive labour shortage in building trades. Everyone knows that. There’s a shortage of building sites with detailed pp and housing associations have no money and borrowing is expensive. So how anyone thinks 1 m homes will be built is beyond most people in the industry. It won’t happen unless the government steps in. I doubt they can find the money either.

We need landlords as we have no social housing. So them selling up is not enough to make a difference to house prices, but it does push rents up.
First, ensure plenty of a VARIETY of social housing, then reduce the profitability of landlords.
Same argument applies to Private Schools. First ensure lots of excellent state education places, then tax Private schools.
They are doing it all backwards.

There is currently a labour shortage in a whole load of industries.

Is that reported by job seekers ?

In well over 30 years of experience, the only time I have seen a "skills shortage" has been when a company wants to pay £10,000 for a job that commands £15,000 (numbers are for illustration only. Ts&Cs apply. The value of your investment may go down as well as up. Your house may be at risk if you cannot maintain payments).

Elsewhere on this very site, there is a furious discussion about WFH. I wonder how much of that labour shortage is "we can't find a candidate to work in office" ?

And just to add a third leg to the stool, even more elsewhere on this site is another thread about there being no jobs for doctors.

It's all very confusing. But generally if you want to make money, then you need to take a raw resource, add value and then sell it on at a higher price to reflect the value added with the implication being in a free economy that the value added then divides into covering the costs of adding the value plus a "little extra" that is profit.

All of which is predicated upon there being a market for <whatever>.

Here you go @BoredZelda

www.cbi.org.uk/media-centre/articles/private-sector-expects-steep-decline-in-activity-into-2025/

Even more people competing for even fewer jobs.

There is currently a labour shortage in a whole load of industries. Unemployment is at 4.4%. An economy is considered to be in "full employment" at between 4 and 5%. There are 812,000 job vacancies in the U.K.

To be fair, 0.1% for three months (which will inevitably be revised down next quarter) is, at best, anaemic growth. The prediction of job losses across is real, and has been in the news, already impacting retail and hospitality. And the actual impact of anti growth policies hasn't even started to bite yet. Let's see what the OBRs assesment (which has already been cut in half) is for growth in it's March release.

On the plus side, interest rates were down a bit :)

Growth stalled and the private sector started decreasing with job losses due to those policies

@EasternStandard todays news would suggest you are incorrect.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1jg4enkr3lo