Do you remember what it was like during the 2008 crisis?

[bushproblems]

I’ve seen a few comparisons of today’s economical situation and the 2008 crash. I was in high school at the time so heard a lot about “the credit crunch” but didnt really know what it meant.

Are we in a worse or better position job wise, cost of living etc than my parents were? How were you affected?

Im at risk of redundancy so I’m freaking out about the job market and the astronomical cost of basically being alive!

Going on your chart..... starting at Q1 2023, 18months before the GE, Cons 1.0%, Labour 18months since GE 1.6%

Neither are stella, i agree but 1.6 is more than 1.0..... must be Labours policy decisions 😂especially on Gilts, yields lower now than for most of 2023.... so the markets have some confidence in Reeves.

How many times have Tory posters claimed we are heading for the IMF and Gilts crisis?

I'm quite happy to accept Sunak had high energy prices etc & high inflation... its shame that (not you) some never accept Labour also have issues to deal with: Unfunded spending commitments, Tariffs, Trump, still Ukraine (we have to fund weapons now) USA was providing them for free in 2023.

The Tories, had they won, would have still had to fund all these, they may have raised different taxes but tax rises were baked in...

All the above shows that whatever the issues today, they are nothing compared to the GFC in 2008.

I would have preferred not to see youth unemployment go up as it is. This high and no pandemic as an excuse. I suppose we’re stuck with Labour and their emojis on mn until they’re out.

So the big economic headwinds were:

1. Financial crisis 2008 - although it was global, the Labour Government can carry some blame for example heavy Government borrowing and not clamping down on things like 110% mortgages from Northern Rock or liar loans from Bradford &Bingley. They were warned about this for many year prior.
2. Brexit - this sits firmly with the Conservatives, was done for political reasons as a put up or shut up by Cameron and has undoubtedly caused a reduction in GDP growth.
3. Covid - whilst it cannot be blamed on the Tories, spaffing £500 billion on things like furlough and PPE can and my particular personal irk £600 in eat out to help out by Sunak, although it was incredibly popular with voters at the time! That said I think Labour would have spaffed more money away, but of course impossible to prove.
4. Energy price shock from Ukrainian crisis- not really the Tories fault. Of course they could have done a Hungary and not criticised Russia in return for continued cheap energy but politically this would have been challenging.
5. Employer NI increases, public sector pay rises and increased taxation. Would the Tories have done the same, probably but to a lesser degree. Either way increasing taxation = lower economic growth.

Agree on 2, 3 & 4

On 1, UK borrowing was quite low in 2008 & i think it is hindsight on mortgages, the really damage was from the USA and allowing Lehman's to go bust.

With 5, its a yes and no, the pay rises had already been agreed, just not funded, the Doc's and Train drivers, were between them around 320m, not a really significant amount and did stop some very damaging strikes, one reason Sunak never had the growth he wanted.

The money the Tories or Labour needed was in the 10s of billions, if the Cons didn't raise ENI, they'd have had to have stuck it on income tax that would have wrecked consumer confidence, hit the lower paid very hard and broken their manifesto.
Or years of Austerity and we've all seen what that does to the country's infrastructure.

Given the profitability of UK companies atm, its easy to argue that Reeves took the least worst option.

I was employed (as a junior) by a company owned by Microsoft and was made redundant, it was a dream job straight out of uni and I'd only been there a year, Microsoft slashed 30% of their workforce. Both me and my DH (BF at the time) were made redundant simultaneously with no rights to redundancy pay, we had a month's rent in the bank and had to sign on to afford food, luckily we both found jobs 100 miles away in the same sector and were young enough (with no dependants or commitments) to just up sticks and move and were employed again within a couple of months.

We now have a substantial mortgage and a young child in school in a nice area South of Manchester, if we were made redundant now (which is a possibility as our industry is slightly vulnerable to AI) we would be alot more fucked finding similar work locally as we don't have the same flexibility to up sticks, however we have more savings so our ISAs could keep us a float for a few months and just pray that we could find remote or hybrid WFH positions. 😬

I grew up working class and have worked since I was 14 so not afraid to role up my sleeves and do any "unskilled" job (bs term since all jobs require skill) to pay the bills and stretch our savings if I needed to.

Yes, Labour have had massive problems to deal with but they are not making them better. Tony Blair would not have imposed more costs on business at a time when unemployment is rising.

Why is Labour making unforced errors? Why did they not plan for government better than they did? Why, for example, has it taken Bridget Phillipson, over 18 months to announce her SEND plans? This is not just my criticism, there has been widespread criticism that Labour were not prepared for office.

Yes, the latter years of the Tories were shit, but why are people defending poor decisions made by this government?

How can a party in opposition, without the access to ALL the info on SENDs etc come up with a plan on day 1? or even within 6 months?

Its a huge issue for families, rush & get it wrong (as they did with Farms IHT & WFA) and they get flamed.

I would suggest a fairer criticism of Labour is on Social Care and NHS Dentistry, both kicked into the long grass.

What no one can come up with, is another way Reeves could have raised £30bn plus to fund all of the unfunded commitments they have had to deal with....

Tony Blair was in power when debt to GDP was around 40%, even in 2010, it was still only 65%, the Cons took that to 100% along with decimated public services.

In answer to your question because Blair had a fundamentally different underpinning and approach. It was to show Labour didn’t have to drag people down. There was a good piece on this recently.

Starmer and co lack basic understanding of business, they don’t get why unemployment is hit by a jobs tax and they prefer to hold people back.

Most can see that hence the polling, focus groups and votes.

Come on, we're not looking for anything on day 1. But in answer to your question, both Blair and Cameron governments were prepared and had legislation drafted before winning elections and hit the ground running.

Blair's government had developed detailed policy programmes on health, education and welfare and they had spent years preparing policy in anticipation of office. Gordon Brown had a clear economic strategy before entering government which included a commitment to stick to Conservative spending limits initially, and granting operational independence to the Bank of England in 1997 (done almost immediately).

Michael Gove came into office as education secretary with legislation ready to go. That's not to say he was popular, but he was prepared.

In contrast, Starmer was focused on winning and just not being a Tory. We can see with our own eyes the fallout from that.

I watched the 2008 crisis play out helplessly as we were travelling for six months and on the other side of the world. Alistair Darling did very well to mitigate the damage IMO but it was a car crash and we are still seeing the downside of a decade-plus of quantitative easing and ridiculously low interest rates.

The comments since yesterday have all been making valid points. We may be reaching the point where political polemic is set aside a bit in favour of some sensible ideas. I do hope so.

Let me correct your figures:
1997 when Labour won the election debt to GDP ratio was 36.4%
2010 when the Conservatives won the election the ratio was 70% (a 92% increase under Labour).
In 2024 when Labour won the election the ratio was 93.5% (a 33% increase under the Conservatives)
Since 2024 under the ratio has increased to 95.5 (a 2% increase under Labour).

The 64% figure you refer to was for April 2009 to March 2010 and the election was in May 2010, so 2010/2011 figures apply.

Mmmm not quite so forth coming in correcting your own figures on GDP growth were you?

Debt to GDP in July 2024 was 99.4% .... in year end 2010 (April) it was 65%

Why should Labour be responsible for borrowing done up to 18months of the predominately Tory Govt?

Would you apply the growth figures for 2024/25 to the Tories too?

Borrowing increased, as well you know but ignored because of the Global Financial Crash, or should we not have saved retail banking? no ATM's wages not paid, savings gone.........

Well, by tying to Tory spending plans, Labour gave themselves 2 years to formulate plans.

Cameron's plan was Austerity....hardly a "plan".... Gove wrecked education.

Labours problem is they didn't understand the level of unfunded commitments the Tories left them, coupled with Trump Tariffs, Increased spending required on Defence, Prisons, Funding the weapons for Ukraine... now Maternity...

& when do try and enact their plans, such as reducing Jury trials, we are all up in arms but no alternative ideas to reduce court back logs.

I would also suggest that Reeves increases in ENI was a plan they formulated in opposition, as was VAT on fee's.... pre school clubs, DV units, numerous law changes.

Is everything perfect? of course not, v disappointing on Dentistry and Social Care, as i said.

We had just purchased a house, our first home and stretched ourselves. 50% or more of my department was made redundant. It was very scary. But I was lucky and kept my job.

Haven't read the whole thread (sorry!) but in 2008 I was only just on the start of adult working life. I remember paying a few quid a month into a private pension and the value dropped each month. I was going to stop payments but some very good advice was to consistently add each month and slowly it did improve. So if I can suggest anything to someone young today small amount - some months it was £10 in a pension/investment today may feel pointless but the power of compounding, you may be glad you did it. My first pension payments started at £30 per month as that was all I could afford.