With the trade deficit also having grown during q1 it looks like another record year for the UK's current account deficit.
we're sharing the proceeds of growth
Indeed.
The 1% will end up with 99% of the wealth and 1% of the debt.
I think Donald Trump has demonstrated that the easiest way to become a billionaire is to have $15bn of assets, and $14bn of debt.
I think it's fair to say, a lot more of the "1%" are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy (a la Robert Maxwell) than people realise.
I'm sure you're right.
But does that affect their lifestyles much even after they go bankrupt ? Whereas bankruptcy for the average person is probably a much more life changing event.
And that's before we get into issues of fatcats in tax havens.
With the trade deficit also having grown during q1 it looks like another record year for the UK's current account deficit.
Problem is London dwarfs the rest and accounts for half the visitors to the UK, London is the most visited city in the world on some measures, while the UK is only the 8th most visited nation. Britons have few other cities worldwide to compete with London, NY maybe and that is about it. France is the most visited nation by contrast, followed by the US and then Spain. Britons have many more nations they can visit for better weather and often equal cultural attractions, few foreigners come to Briton for the sunshine!
Britain's tourism deficit isn't caused by a lack of tourists from overseas its because we spend endless billions more on overseas tourism than we earn.
That's what happens when government pumps a trillion pounds of borrowed money into the economy in under a decade - it steadily flows out on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat.
Yes and why is that? Most Britons prefer to take their summer holidays in Spain and Mediterranean nations or Florida where they can guarantee sunshine, a beach holiday in Blackpool or Bognor has rather less appeal. Large numbers of French by contrast stay at home in the summer and head to the south coast, while Americans can go to California or Miami. If people spend more they take more foreign holidays, if there is less money in the economy they take no holidays at all, either way it does little to boost British tourism
Dr. Foxinsox, a common European culture? Are you trying to encourage people to mention Hitler?
I will leave that to Leave!
Though when it comes to military conquest, land seizures and imperial colonisation we do demonstrate many similarities to our continental cousins.
Britain's conquests were mostly to enlarge our trade. We did not seek to have political control of our European neighbours unlike Napoleon, Hitler, et al. With Europe we have sought to maintain a balance of power and still do.
We certainly fairly effectively established colonial control of about a quarter of the world, both in population and in area. No other European power even came close. :-)
With the trade deficit also having grown during q1 it looks like another record year for the UK's current account deficit.
Problem is London dwarfs the rest and accounts for half the visitors to the UK, London is the most visited city in the world on some measures, while the UK is only the 8th most visited nation. Britons have few other cities worldwide to compete with London, NY maybe and that is about it. France is the most visited nation by contrast, followed by the US and then Spain. Britons have many more nations they can visit for better weather and often equal cultural attractions, few foreigners come to Briton for the sunshine!
I think that's a fair summary, but I don't think it's 'the problem'. The problem is the same with all our industries, cheap foreign imports/holidays displacing domestic products/holidays, and not enough exports/inbound tourism to make up the shortfall.
Having London is a positive, as we'd rather have those visitors than none at all, and many can be persuaded to visit the hinterlands or even further afield at the same time. Americans in particular are famous for packing in all the major tourist spots in ridiculously short itineraries.
If I knew the solution; I'd know the solution to all our woes. But I think it must lie in thinking big. Big legal and regulatory changes, big projects, big razmataz attractions. That and locking Julian Fellowes in a cell with only bread and water till he writes more Downton.
With the trade deficit also having grown during q1 it looks like another record year for the UK's current account deficit.
Problem is London dwarfs the rest and accounts for half the visitors to the UK, London is the most visited city in the world on some measures, while the UK is only the 8th most visited nation. Britons have few other cities worldwide to compete with London, NY maybe and that is about it. France is the most visited nation by contrast, followed by the US and then Spain. Britons have many more nations they can visit for better weather and often equal cultural attractions, few foreigners come to Briton for the sunshine!
Britain's tourism deficit isn't caused by a lack of tourists from overseas its because we spend endless billions more on overseas tourism than we earn.
That's what happens when government pumps a trillion pounds of borrowed money into the economy in under a decade - it steadily flows out on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat.
Yes and why is that? Most Britons prefer to take their summer holidays in Spain and Mediterranean nations or Florida where they can guarantee sunshine, a beach holiday in Blackpool or Bognor has rather less appeal. Large numbers of French by contrast stay at home in the summer and head to the south coast, while Americans can go to California or Miami. If people spend more they take more foreign holidays, if there is less money in the economy they take no holidays at all, either way it does little to boost British tourism
The British tourism industry keeps the Polish diaspora busy. Its a long time ago that I was checked into a hotel by anyone other than a delightful and helpful Slav. Apart from agriculture it must be one of our most dependent industries on East Europeans.
On this, @SeanT and @Paul_Bedfordshire are right - the significance of the YouGov article is their claim that they have discovered the source of the online/phone discrepancy and that it is the online polls which are more right. If that is correct, it is dynamite, and much more significant than the headline figures of one particular poll.
The difficulty is that it's very hard to know how much weight to give to YouGov's claim.
Company A claims it's product is best shocker.
They may be right. They may be wrong. We'll find out in about 33 days time.
They are making two claims as far as I can tell. Firstly, the sampling by the Populus phone polls includes too many voters educated to at least degree level.
Secondly, they point out that they took time to do their own phone poll and were persistent in contacting everyone randomly selected to be called. I'm guessing regular phone pollsters don't publish their success rates - i.e. how many people did they give up on? If they did, that could be very telling.
Interestingly, the BES takes that approach. When they fail to talk to someone on a number, they keep trying until they get a response. Their phone poll shows only a very narrow Remain lead.
There is a black lining to this silver cloud, however. When the BES survey asked "I know you Don't Know, but if we said you have to make a choice, what would it be?", then the DKs broke very heavily for Remain.
DK's will likely win it for Remain but depends on how many turnout, either way what is clear is Remain are not likely to get the 60%+ they need to settle the issue and Leave and UKIP will call for EUref2 almost as soon as the result is known if it is close
Part of UKIP may call for EUREF2 but not most of LEAVE. What the referendum will do is set in stone the positions of all folk who have publicly stated their view on why we should REMAIN. 1. Adding more countries to the EU will become virtually impossible whilst UK is in the EU. 2. Any encroachment of power becomes subject to legal action to require another referendum so the UK Govt will be forced to oppose any and disuade the EU from trying it. Having a UK inside the EU hamstrung by the positions REMAIN have taken might be worse for the EU than if we had left. Ironic?
A Conservative party in office with a small majority is just going to have to avoid these things for the rest of its time in power.
Well UKIP will be the main beneficiaries so what they say is the most important. I don't think too many Tories will be complaining about a hamstrung EU
With the trade deficit also having grown during q1 it looks like another record year for the UK's current account deficit.
Problem is London dwarfs the rest and accounts for half the visitors to the UK, London is the most visited city in the world on some measures, while the UK is only the 8th most visited nation. Britons have few other cities worldwide to compete with London, NY maybe and that is about it. France is the most visited nation by contrast, followed by the US and then Spain. Britons have many more nations they can visit for better weather and often equal cultural attractions, few foreigners come to Briton for the sunshine!
Britain's tourism deficit isn't caused by a lack of tourists from overseas its because we spend endless billions more on overseas tourism than we earn.
That's what happens when government pumps a trillion pounds of borrowed money into the economy in under a decade - it steadily flows out on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat.
Yes and why is that? Most Britons prefer to take their summer holidays in Spain and Mediterranean nations or Florida where they can guarantee sunshine, a beach holiday in Blackpool or Bognor has rather less appeal. Large numbers of French by contrast stay at home in the summer and head to the south coast, while Americans can go to California or Miami. If people spend more they take more foreign holidays, if there is less money in the economy they take no holidays at all, either way it does little to boost British tourism
With the trade deficit also having grown during q1 it looks like another record year for the UK's current account deficit.
we're sharing the proceeds of growth
Indeed.
The 1% will end up with 99% of the wealth and 1% of the debt.
I think Donald Trump has demonstrated that the easiest way to become a billionaire is to have $15bn of assets, and $14bn of debt.
I think it's fair to say, a lot more of the "1%" are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy (a la Robert Maxwell) than people realise.
I'm sure you're right.
But does that affect their lifestyles much even after they go bankrupt ? Whereas bankruptcy for the average person is probably a much more life changing event.
And that's before we get into issues of fatcats in tax havens.
I've known a couple of people that have gone from "worth $600m" (or so) to bankrupt. (They were Irish, one of whom took his software company private with borrowed money, then levered up again to buy another big company, and then had a refinance in 2009. When there was no refinancing.) His change of life was pretty severe, and he now manages a hotel.
Sadly, stories like his all too rare. When Donald Trump went bankrupt a while back, the bank insisted he restricted personal expenses to $200,000/month. Something I'm sure we can all relate to.
With the trade deficit also having grown during q1 it looks like another record year for the UK's current account deficit.
Problem is London dwarfs the rest and accounts for half the visitors to the UK, London is the most visited city in the world on some measures, while the UK is only the 8th most visited nation. Britons have few other cities worldwide to compete with London, NY maybe and that is about it. France is the most visited nation by contrast, followed by the US and then Spain. Britons have many more nations they can visit for better weather and often equal cultural attractions, few foreigners come to Briton for the sunshine!
Britain's tourism deficit isn't caused by a lack of tourists from overseas its because we spend endless billions more on overseas tourism than we earn.
That's what happens when government pumps a trillion pounds of borrowed money into the economy in under a decade - it steadily flows out on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat.
Yes and why is that? Most Britons prefer to take their summer holidays in Spain and Mediterranean nations or Florida where they can guarantee sunshine, a beach holiday in Blackpool or Bognor has rather less appeal. Large numbers of French by contrast stay at home in the summer and head to the south coast, while Americans can go to California or Miami. If people spend more they take more foreign holidays, if there is less money in the economy they take no holidays at all, either way it does little to boost British tourism
Certainly and that shows the fallacy that pumping endless borrowed money (ie wealth stolen from the future) into the economy. The wealth will flow out on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat.
Of course people enjoy spending money they've been given on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat. And happy people equal voters who re-elect governments.
With the trade deficit also having grown during q1 it looks like another record year for the UK's current account deficit.
Problem is London dwarfs the rest and accounts for half the visitors to the UK, London is the most visited city in the world on some measures, while the UK is only the 8th most visited nation. Britons have few other cities worldwide to compete with London, NY maybe and that is about it. France is the most visited nation by contrast, followed by the US and then Spain. Britons have many more nations they can visit for better weather and often equal cultural attractions, few foreigners come to Briton for the sunshine!
Britain's tourism deficit isn't caused by a lack of tourists from overseas its because we spend endless billions more on overseas tourism than we earn.
That's what happens when government pumps a trillion pounds of borrowed money into the economy in under a decade - it steadily flows out on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat.
Yes and why is that? Most Britons prefer to take their summer holidays in Spain and Mediterranean nations or Florida where they can guarantee sunshine, a beach holiday in Blackpool or Bognor has rather less appeal. Large numbers of French by contrast stay at home in the summer and head to the south coast, while Americans can go to California or Miami. If people spend more they take more foreign holidays, if there is less money in the economy they take no holidays at all, either way it does little to boost British tourism
A foreign holiday is often cheaper too.
Certainly a package holiday to the Med is often cheaper than a break at an upmarket hotel in the UK
With the trade deficit also having grown during q1 it looks like another record year for the UK's current account deficit.
Problem is London dwarfs the rest and accounts for half the visitors to the UK, London is the most visited city in the world on some measures, while the UK is only the 8th most visited nation. Britons have few other cities worldwide to compete with London, NY maybe and that is about it. France is the most visited nation by contrast, followed by the US and then Spain. Britons have many more nations they can visit for better weather and often equal cultural attractions, few foreigners come to Briton for the sunshine!
I think that's a fair summary, but I don't think it's 'the problem'. The problem is the same with all our industries, cheap foreign imports/holidays displacing domestic products/holidays, and not enough exports/inbound tourism to make up the shortfall.
Having London is a positive, as we'd rather have those visitors than none at all, and many can be persuaded to visit the hinterlands or even further afield at the same time. Americans in particular are famous for packing in all the major tourist spots in ridiculously short itineraries.
If I knew the solution; I'd know the solution to all our woes. But I think it must lie in thinking big. Big legal and regulatory changes, big projects, big razmataz attractions. That and locking Julian Fellowes in a cell with only bread and water till he writes more Downton.
Yes, the itinerary often goes London, then maybe Oxford, Bath, Stratford On Avon, Durham, Edinburgh and onto the next European nation or home. Certainly outside of London most visitors want to see traditional Britain, castles, cathedrals, stately homes, heritage and picturesque villages
Dr. Foxinsox, a common European culture? Are you trying to encourage people to mention Hitler?
I will leave that to Leave!
Though when it comes to military conquest, land seizures and imperial colonisation we do demonstrate many similarities to our continental cousins.
Britain's conquests were mostly to enlarge our trade. We did not seek to have political control of our European neighbours unlike Napoleon, Hitler, et al. With Europe we have sought to maintain a balance of power and still do.
We certainly fairly effectively established colonial control of about a quarter of the world, both in population and in area. No other European power even came close. :-)
That is something to be proud of. Are you proud of that?
With the trade deficit also having grown during q1 it looks like another record year for the UK's current account deficit.
Problem is London dwarfs the rest and accounts for half the visitors to the UK, London is the most visited city in the world on some measures, while the UK is only the 8th most visited nation. Britons have few other cities worldwide to compete with London, NY maybe and that is about it. France is the most visited nation by contrast, followed by the US and then Spain. Britons have many more nations they can visit for better weather and often equal cultural attractions, few foreigners come to Briton for the sunshine!
Britain's tourism deficit isn't caused by a lack of tourists from overseas its because we spend endless billions more on overseas tourism than we earn.
That's what happens when government pumps a trillion pounds of borrowed money into the economy in under a decade - it steadily flows out on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat.
Yes and why is that? Most Britons prefer to take their summer holidays in Spain and Mediterranean nations or Florida where they can guarantee sunshine, a beach holiday in Blackpool or Bognor has rather less appeal. Large numbers of French by contrast stay at home in the summer and head to the south coast, while Americans can go to California or Miami. If people spend more they take more foreign holidays, if there is less money in the economy they take no holidays at all, either way it does little to boost British tourism
The British tourism industry keeps the Polish diaspora busy. Its a long time ago that I was checked into a hotel by anyone other than a delightful and helpful Slav. Apart from agriculture it must be one of our most dependent industries on East Europeans.
Yes, ironic that excellent British hospitality now depends on Poles!
No doubt someone will make the tedious point regarding the percentage of Americans with passports, ignoring the fact that they are given and take far less holiday than other developed countries, they can experience any climate within their own nation and transcontinental travel is both expensive and necessary to go beyond Mexico, Canada or the Caribbean.
If I were American I would not be desperate to spends thousands of dollars to travel to Europe, where everything is costlier, smaller and many people will resent you for nothing more than your nationality.
No doubt someone will make the tedious point regarding the percentage of Americans with passports, ignoring the fact that they are given and take far less holiday than other developed countries, they can experience any climate within their own nation and transcontinental travel is both expensive and necessary to go beyond Mexico, Canada or the Caribbean.
If I were American I would not be desperate to spends thousands of dollars to travel to Europe, where everything is costlier, smaller and many people will resent you for nothing more than your nationality.
If you're going to get on your high horse about someone's remarks, you should probably wait till they make them.
Dr. Foxinsox, a common European culture? Are you trying to encourage people to mention Hitler?
I will leave that to Leave!
Though when it comes to military conquest, land seizures and imperial colonisation we do demonstrate many similarities to our continental cousins.
Britain's conquests were mostly to enlarge our trade. We did not seek to have political control of our European neighbours unlike Napoleon, Hitler, et al. With Europe we have sought to maintain a balance of power and still do.
We certainly fairly effectively established colonial control of about a quarter of the world, both in population and in area. No other European power even came close. :-)
That is something to be proud of. Are you proud of that?
The British Empire was a curates egg. Some of it was excellent some less so. Some of my ancestors were enthusiastic Presbyterian ministers in the colonies.
Colonialism was something that many European countries shared as a cultural value.
With the trade deficit also having grown during q1 it looks like another record year for the UK's current account deficit.
we're sharing the proceeds of growth
Indeed.
The 1% will end up with 99% of the wealth and 1% of the debt.
I think Donald Trump has demonstrated that the easiest way to become a billionaire is to have $15bn of assets, and $14bn of debt.
I think it's fair to say, a lot more of the "1%" are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy (a la Robert Maxwell) than people realise.
I'm sure you're right.
But does that affect their lifestyles much even after they go bankrupt ? Whereas bankruptcy for the average person is probably a much more life changing event.
And that's before we get into issues of fatcats in tax havens.
I've known a couple of people that have gone from "worth $600m" (or so) to bankrupt. (They were Irish, one of whom took his software company private with borrowed money, then levered up again to buy another big company, and then had a refinance in 2009. When there was no refinancing.) His change of life was pretty severe, and he now manages a hotel.
Sadly, stories like his all too rare. When Donald Trump went bankrupt a while back, the bank insisted he restricted personal expenses to $200,000/month. Something I'm sure we can all relate to.
With the trade deficit also having grown during q1 it looks like another record year for the UK's current account deficit.
Problem is London dwarfs the rest and accounts for half the visitors to the UK, London is the most visited city in the world on some measures, while the UK is only the 8th most visited nation. Britons have few other cities worldwide to compete with London, NY maybe and that is about it. France is the most visited nation by contrast, followed by the US and then Spain. Britons have many more nations they can visit for better weather and often equal cultural attractions, few foreigners come to Briton for the sunshine!
Britain's tourism deficit isn't caused by a lack of tourists from overseas its because we spend endless billions more on overseas tourism than we earn.
That's what happens when government pumps a trillion pounds of borrowed money into the economy in under a decade - it steadily flows out on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat.
Yes and why is that? Most Britons prefer to take their summer holidays in Spain and Mediterranean nations or Florida where they can guarantee sunshine, a beach holiday in Blackpool or Bognor has rather less appeal. Large numbers of French by contrast stay at home in the summer and head to the south coast, while Americans can go to California or Miami. If people spend more they take more foreign holidays, if there is less money in the economy they take no holidays at all, either way it does little to boost British tourism
Certainly and that shows the fallacy that pumping endless borrowed money (ie wealth stolen from the future) into the economy. The wealth will flow out on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat.
Of course people enjoy spending money they've been given on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat. And happy people equal voters who re-elect governments.
But British stuff is always more expensive, and British holidays are usually more expensive too when all is added up. I agree with your basic principle about debt and the false perception of wealth, but reducing the money supply would simply slow the flow of it overseas rather than reverse it surely.
With the trade deficit also having grown during q1 it looks like another record year for the UK's current account deficit.
Problem is London dwarfs the rest and accounts for half the visitors to the UK, London is the most visited city in the world on some measures, while the UK is only the 8th most visited nation. Britons have few other cities worldwide to compete with London, NY maybe and that is about it. France is the most visited nation by contrast, followed by the US and then Spain. Britons have many more nations they can visit for better weather and often equal cultural attractions, few foreigners come to Briton for the sunshine!
Britain's tourism deficit isn't caused by a lack of tourists from overseas its because we spend endless billions more on overseas tourism than we earn.
That's what happens when government pumps a trillion pounds of borrowed money into the economy in under a decade - it steadily flows out on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat.
Yes and why is that? Most Britons prefer to take their summer holidays in Spain and Mediterranean nations or Florida where they can guarantee sunshine, a beach holiday in Blackpool or Bognor has rather less appeal. Large numbers of French by contrast stay at home in the summer and head to the south coast, while Americans can go to California or Miami. If people spend more they take more foreign holidays, if there is less money in the economy they take no holidays at all, either way it does little to boost British tourism
Certainly and that shows the fallacy that pumping endless borrowed money (ie wealth stolen from the future) into the economy. The wealth will flow out on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat.
Of course people enjoy spending money they've been given on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat. And happy people equal voters who re-elect governments.
You rather ignore the reasons people go abroad on holiday. It's not, and has never been, something to do with the evil that is borrowing. It's to do with choice. When people were given the choice between Blackpool and Benidorm at similar prices there was only one winner.
No doubt someone will make the tedious point regarding the percentage of Americans with passports, ignoring the fact that they are given and take far less holiday than other developed countries, they can experience any climate within their own nation and transcontinental travel is both expensive and necessary to go beyond Mexico, Canada or the Caribbean.
If I were American I would not be desperate to spends thousands of dollars to travel to Europe, where everything is costlier, smaller and many people will resent you for nothing more than your nationality.
Well exactly and America is the second most visited nation on earth and few travel abroad regularly beyond the elite, except maybe on a 'once in a lifetime' European tour or a Caribbean cruise. France is not that much different either, many French stay home in summer as it also has a better climate than we do, certainly in the south
With the trade deficit also having grown during q1 it looks like another record year for the UK's current account deficit.
Problem is London dwarfs the rest and accounts for half the visitors to the UK, London is the most visited city in the world on some measures, while the UK is only the 8th most visited nation. Britons have few other cities worldwide to compete with London, NY maybe and that is about it. France is the most visited nation by contrast, followed by the US and then Spain. Britons have many more nations they can visit for better weather and often equal cultural attractions, few foreigners come to Briton for the sunshine!
Britain's tourism deficit isn't caused by a lack of tourists from overseas its because we spend endless billions more on overseas tourism than we earn.
That's what happens when government pumps a trillion pounds of borrowed money into the economy in under a decade - it steadily flows out on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat.
Yes and why is that? Most Britons prefer to take their summer holidays in Spain and Mediterranean nations or Florida where they can guarantee sunshine, a beach holiday in Blackpool or Bognor has rather less appeal. Large numbers of French by contrast stay at home in the summer and head to the south coast, while Americans can go to California or Miami. If people spend more they take more foreign holidays, if there is less money in the economy they take no holidays at all, either way it does little to boost British tourism
Certainly and that shows the fallacy that pumping endless borrowed money (ie wealth stolen from the future) into the economy. The wealth will flow out on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat.
Of course people enjoy spending money they've been given on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat. And happy people equal voters who re-elect governments.
Well rather that than people having no money at all, spending nothing and the economy going further into decline
If leave did win it would be the biggest Foxtrot Oscar to the establishment and the luvies... Ever ever.....
I'm now quite tempted to vote leave as I'm moving to a firm where the compensation package's base currency is Euro. A sterling crash would be quite useful.
With the trade deficit also having grown during q1 it looks like another record year for the UK's current account deficit.
Problem is London dwarfs the rest and accounts for half the visitors to the UK, London is the most visited city in the world on some measures, while the UK is only the 8th most visited nation. Britons have few other cities worldwide to compete with London, NY maybe and that is about it. France is the most visited nation by contrast, followed by the US and then Spain. Britons have many more nations they can visit for better weather and often equal cultural attractions, few foreigners come to Briton for the sunshine!
Britain's tourism deficit isn't caused by a lack of tourists from overseas its because we spend endless billions more on overseas tourism than we earn.
That's what happens when government pumps a trillion pounds of borrowed money into the economy in under a decade - it steadily flows out on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat.
Yes and why is that? Most Britons prefer to take their summer holidays in Spain and Mediterranean nations or Florida where they can guarantee sunshine, a beach holiday in Blackpool or Bognor has rather less appeal. Large numbers of French by contrast stay at home in the summer and head to the south coast, while Americans can go to California or Miami. If people spend more they take more foreign holidays, if there is less money in the economy they take no holidays at all, either way it does little to boost British tourism
Certainly and that shows the fallacy that pumping endless borrowed money (ie wealth stolen from the future) into the economy. The wealth will flow out on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat.
Of course people enjoy spending money they've been given on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat. And happy people equal voters who re-elect governments.
You rather ignore the reasons people go abroad on holiday. It's not, and has never been, something to do with the evil that is borrowing. It's to do with choice. When people were given the choice between Blackpool and Benidorm at similar prices there was only one winner.
With the trade deficit also having grown during q1 it looks like another record year for the UK's current account deficit.
Problem is London dwarfs the rest and accounts for half the visitors to the UK, London is the most visited city in the world on some measures, while the UK is only the 8th most visited nation. Britons have few other cities worldwide to compete with London, NY maybe and that is about it. France is the most visited nation by contrast, followed by the US and then Spain. Britons have many more nations they can visit for better weather and often equal cultural attractions, few foreigners come to Briton for the sunshine!
Britain's tourism deficit isn't caused by a lack of tourists from overseas its because we spend endless billions more on overseas tourism than we earn.
That's what happens when government pumps a trillion pounds of borrowed money into the economy in under a decade - it steadily flows out on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat.
Yes and why is that? Most Britons prefer to take their summer holidays in Spain and Mediterranean nations or Florida where they can guarantee sunshine, a beach holiday in Blackpool or Bognor has rather less appeal. Large numbers of French by contrast stay at home in the summer and head to the south coast, while Americans can go to California or Miami. If people spend more they take more foreign holidays, if there is less money in the economy they take no holidays at all, either way it does little to boost British tourism
Certainly and that shows the fallacy that pumping endless borrowed money (ie wealth stolen from the future) into the economy. The wealth will flow out on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat.
Of course people enjoy spending money they've been given on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat. And happy people equal voters who re-elect governments.
Well rather that than people having no money at all, spending nothing and the economy going further into decline
Alternatively people could get some money by creating wealth themselves.
I know that's a shocking idea when the accepted view is that we should steal wealth from the future but if we can't think shocking ideas at PB where else can we do so.
Dr. Foxinsox, a common European culture? Are you trying to encourage people to mention Hitler?
I will leave that to Leave!
Though when it comes to military conquest, land seizures and imperial colonisation we do demonstrate many similarities to our continental cousins.
Britain's conquests were mostly to enlarge our trade. We did not seek to have political control of our European neighbours unlike Napoleon, Hitler, et al. With Europe we have sought to maintain a balance of power and still do.
We certainly fairly effectively established colonial control of about a quarter of the world, both in population and in area. No other European power even came close. :-)
That is something to be proud of. Are you proud of that?
The British Empire was a curates egg. Some of it was excellent some less so. Some of my ancestors were enthusiastic Presbyterian ministers in the colonies.
Colonialism was something that many European countries shared as a cultural value.
Thank you. I am not surprised at your tepid pride in our history.
With the trade deficit also having grown during q1 it looks like another record year for the UK's current account deficit.
Problem is London dwarfs the rest and accounts for half the visitors to the UK, London is the most visited city in the world on some measures, while the UK is only the 8th most visited nation. Britons have few other cities worldwide to compete with London, NY maybe and that is about it. France is the most visited nation by contrast, followed by the US and then Spain. Britons have many more nations they can visit for better weather and often equal cultural attractions, few foreigners come to Briton for the sunshine!
Britain's tourism deficit isn't caused by a lack of tourists from overseas its because we spend endless billions more on overseas tourism than we earn.
That's what happens when government pumps a trillion pounds of borrowed money into the economy in under a decade - it steadily flows out on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat.
Yes and why is that? Most Britons prefer to take their summer holidays in Spain and Mediterranean nations or Florida where they can guarantee sunshine, a beach holiday in Blackpool or Bognor has rather less appeal. Large numbers of French by contrast stay at home in the summer and head to the south coast, while Americans can go to California or Miami. If people spend more they take more foreign holidays, if there is less money in the economy they take no holidays at all, either way it does little to boost British tourism
Certainly and that shows the fallacy that pumping endless borrowed money (ie wealth stolen from the future) into the economy. The wealth will flow out on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat.
Of course people enjoy spending money they've been given on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat. And happy people equal voters who re-elect governments.
But British stuff is always more expensive, and British holidays are usually more expensive too when all is added up. I agree with your basic principle about debt and the false perception of wealth, but reducing the money supply would simply slow the flow of it overseas rather than reverse it surely.
Slowing the flow would be good. Instead its increasing.
With the trade deficit also having grown during q1 it looks like another record year for the UK's current account deficit.
Problem is London dwarfs the rest and accounts for half the visitors to the UK, London is the most visited city in the world on some measures, while the UK is only the 8th most visited nation. Britons have few other cities worldwide to compete with London, NY maybe and that is about it. France is the most visited nation by contrast, followed by the US and then Spain. Britons have many more nations they can visit for better weather and often equal cultural attractions, few foreigners come to Briton for the sunshine!
Britain's tourism deficit isn't caused by a lack of tourists from overseas its because we spend endless billions more on overseas tourism than we earn.
That's what happens when government pumps a trillion pounds of borrowed money into the economy in under a decade - it steadily flows out on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat.
Yes and why is that? Most Britons prefer to take their summer holidays in Spain and Mediterranean nations or Florida where they can guarantee sunshine, a beach holiday in Blackpool or
Of course people enjoy spending money they've been given on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat. And happy people equal voters who re-elect governments.
Well rather that than people having no money at all, spending nothing and the economy going further into decline
Alternatively people could get some money by creating wealth themselves.
I know that's a shocking idea when the accepted view is that we should steal wealth from the future but if we can't think shocking ideas at PB where else can we do so.
Even if their productivity did increase it is still not going to make any difference to the amount they spend on holidays at home compared to holidays abroad
If leave did win it would be the biggest Foxtrot Oscar to the establishment and the luvies... Ever ever.....
I'm now quite tempted to vote leave as I'm moving to a firm where the compensation package's base currency is Euro. A sterling crash would be quite useful.
Would be good for those of us who earn dollars and pay a mortgage in Sterling too.
Britain's tourism deficit isn't caused by a lack of tourists from overseas its because we spend endless billions more on overseas tourism than we earn.
That's what happens when government pumps a trillion pounds of borrowed money into the economy in under a decade - it steadily flows out on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat.
Yes and why is that? Most Britons prefer to take their summer holidays in Spain and Mediterranean nations or Florida where they can guarantee sunshine, a beach holiday in Blackpool or Bognor has rather less appeal. Large numbers of French by contrast stay at home in the summer and head to the south coast, while Americans can go to California or Miami. If people spend more they take more foreign holidays, if there is less money in the economy they take no holidays at all, either way it does little to boost British tourism
Certainly and that shows the fallacy that pumping endless borrowed money (ie wealth stolen from the future) into the economy. The wealth will flow out on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat.
Of course people enjoy spending money they've been given on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat. And happy people equal voters who re-elect governments.
You rather ignore the reasons people go abroad on holiday. It's not, and has never been, something to do with the evil that is borrowing. It's to do with choice. When people were given the choice between Blackpool and Benidorm at similar prices there was only one winner.
Certainly.
But the more money you have to spend on holidays leads consequently to the size of the tourism deficit.
And one of the sources of that holiday money has been the trillion pound which government has pumped into the economy.
The more the government pumps in, the more which will flow out of the country on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat.
No doubt someone will make the tedious point regarding the percentage of Americans with passports, ignoring the fact that they are given and take far less holiday than other developed countries, they can experience any climate within their own nation and transcontinental travel is both expensive and necessary to go beyond Mexico, Canada or the Caribbean.
If I were American I would not be desperate to spends thousands of dollars to travel to Europe, where everything is costlier, smaller and many people will resent you for nothing more than your nationality.
Well exactly and America is the second most visited nation on earth and few travel abroad regularly beyond the elite, except maybe on a 'once in a lifetime' European tour or a Caribbean cruise. France is not that much different either, many French stay home in summer as it also has a better climate than we do, certainly in the south
I think "few travel abroad regularly except the elite" might be pushing it. In a single year (2014), more than 25m Americans visited Mexico, and 12m visited Canada. In 2014, 68m Americans ventured abroad. Sure, proportion-wise that's less than the UK, but they're not quite as insular as you think.
With the trade deficit also having grown during q1 it looks like another record year for the UK's current account deficit.
we're sharing the proceeds of growth
Indeed.
The 1% will end up with 99% of the wealth and 1% of the debt.
I think Donald Trump has demonstrated that the easiest way to become a billionaire is to have $15bn of assets, and $14bn of debt.
I think it's fair to say, a lot more of the "1%" are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy (a la Robert Maxwell) than people realise.
I'm sure you're right.
But does that affect their lifestyles much even after they go bankrupt ? Whereas bankruptcy for the average person is probably a much more life changing event.
And that's before we get into issues of fatcats in tax havens.
I've known a couple of people that have gone from "worth $600m" (or so) to bankrupt. (They were Irish, one of whom took his software company private with borrowed money, then levered up again to buy another big company, and then had a refinance in 2009. When there was no refinancing.) His change of life was pretty severe, and he now manages a hotel.
Sadly, stories like his all too rare. When Donald Trump went bankrupt a while back, the bank insisted he restricted personal expenses to $200,000/month. Something I'm sure we can all relate to.
Was it Sean Quinn ?
It was not. A small amount of Googling would probably reveal who I'm talking about, and I'm happy to tell you (or confirm) off-line if you'd like.
Britain's tourism deficit isn't caused by a lack of tourists from overseas its because we spend endless billions more on overseas tourism than we earn.
That's what happens when government pumps a trillion pounds of borrowed money into the economy in under a decade - it steadily flows out on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat.
Yes and why is that? Most Britons prefer to take their summer holidays in Spain and Mediterranean nations or Florida where they can guarantee sunshine, a beach holiday in Blackpool or
Of course people enjoy spending money they've been given on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat. And happy people equal voters who re-elect governments.
Well rather that than people having no money at all, spending nothing and the economy going further into decline
Alternatively people could get some money by creating wealth themselves.
I know that's a shocking idea when the accepted view is that we should steal wealth from the future but if we can't think shocking ideas at PB where else can we do so.
Even if their productivity did increase it is still not going to make any difference to the amount they spend on holidays at home compared to holidays
But it would be money they had earned from wealth they had created.
I have a friend in America who rails regularly against "the 1%".
I pointed out to him that he and his wife earn probably $150,000 between them, and live in a large house in a very nice suburb of Washington DC, and their kids go to a great local school. They travel to great places on holiday, have the latest iPhones, and have two cars.
They think of themselves as - relatively - poor. Yet, in the general scheme of things, they are in the 1%. Maybe not in the US, but certainly globally. 99% of the world population would see them as the elite.
And when I hear about people talking about "the elite", I'm reminded that - to most of the world's population - these people railing are the elite.
No doubt someone will make the tedious point regarding the percentage of Americans with passports, ignoring the fact that they are given and take far less holiday than other developed countries, they can experience any climate within their own nation and transcontinental travel is both expensive and necessary to go beyond Mexico, Canada or the Caribbean.
If I were American I would not be desperate to spends thousands of dollars to travel to Europe, where everything is costlier, smaller and many people will resent you for nothing more than your nationality.
Well exactly and America is the second most visited nation on earth and few travel abroad regularly beyond the elite, except maybe on a 'once in a lifetime' European tour or a Caribbean cruise. France is not that much different either, many French stay home in summer as it also has a better climate than we do, certainly in the south
I think "few travel abroad regularly except the elite" might be pushing it. In a single year (2014), more than 25m Americans visited Mexico, and 12m visited Canada. In 2014, 68m Americans ventured abroad. Sure, proportion-wise that's less than the UK, but they're not quite as insular as you think.
68 million out of a population of 320 million is not exactly a large proportion. As yougov identified 48% of Americans have never been abroad compared to only 8% of Britons. Even excluding Brits travelling to the continent, 44% of Britons have been to America compared to 28% of Americans who have been to Europe. It is for understandable reasons that few Americans regularly travel abroad but the fact is they don't https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/11/21/british-people-far-more-well-travelled-americans/
I have a friend in America who rails regularly against "the 1%".
I pointed out to him that he and his wife earn probably $150,000 between them, and live in a large house in a very nice suburb of Washington DC, and their kids go to a great local school. They travel to great places on holiday, have the latest iPhones, and have two cars.
They think of themselves as - relatively - poor. Yet, in the general scheme of things, they are in the 1%. Maybe not in the US, but certainly globally. 99% of the world population would see them as the elite.
And when I hear about people talking about "the elite", I'm reminded that - to most of the world's population - these people railing are the elite.
People tend to see the person in front of them and the person behind them.
I have a friend in America who rails regularly against "the 1%".
I pointed out to him that he and his wife earn probably $150,000 between them, and live in a large house in a very nice suburb of Washington DC, and their kids go to a great local school. They travel to great places on holiday, have the latest iPhones, and have two cars.
They think of themselves as - relatively - poor. Yet, in the general scheme of things, they are in the 1%. Maybe not in the US, but certainly globally. 99% of the world population would see them as the elite.
And when I hear about people talking about "the elite", I'm reminded that - to most of the world's population - these people railing are the elite.
People tend to see the person in front of them and the person behind them.
Everything is relative.
A full time job on the new living wage in the UK places you easily in the global top 1%. There's 75m people in that top 1%.
I have a friend in America who rails regularly against "the 1%".
I pointed out to him that he and his wife earn probably $150,000 between them, and live in a large house in a very nice suburb of Washington DC, and their kids go to a great local school. They travel to great places on holiday, have the latest iPhones, and have two cars.
They think of themselves as - relatively - poor. Yet, in the general scheme of things, they are in the 1%. Maybe not in the US, but certainly globally. 99% of the world population would see them as the elite.
And when I hear about people talking about "the elite", I'm reminded that - to most of the world's population - these people railing are the elite.
People tend to see the person in front of them and the person behind them.
Everything is relative.
A full time job on the new living wage in the UK places you easily in the global top 1%. There's 75m people in that top 1%.
Really? As you say, the global top 1% will be the top 75m. A 35 hr/wk job on the UK living wage will pay a little over £14k. There must be way over 75m across the 1bn+ in the OECD countries earning that much, even before adding in developing countries and commodity exporters.
I have a friend in America who rails regularly against "the 1%".
I pointed out to him that he and his wife earn probably $150,000 between them, and live in a large house in a very nice suburb of Washington DC, and their kids go to a great local school. They travel to great places on holiday, have the latest iPhones, and have two cars.
They think of themselves as - relatively - poor. Yet, in the general scheme of things, they are in the 1%. Maybe not in the US, but certainly globally. 99% of the world population would see them as the elite.
And when I hear about people talking about "the elite", I'm reminded that - to most of the world's population - these people railing are the elite.
People tend to see the person in front of them and the person behind them.
Everything is relative.
A full time job on the new living wage in the UK places you easily in the global top 1%. There's 75m people in that top 1%.
I see about 10 countries with more than 10 million people that are as rich as the UK. There are over 750million people in them, so the global 1 per cent are the top 10 per cent (at most) of earners in rich countries; probably less than 10, in fact.
I have a friend in America who rails regularly against "the 1%".
I pointed out to him that he and his wife earn probably $150,000 between them, and live in a large house in a very nice suburb of Washington DC, and their kids go to a great local school. They travel to great places on holiday, have the latest iPhones, and have two cars.
They think of themselves as - relatively - poor. Yet, in the general scheme of things, they are in the 1%. Maybe not in the US, but certainly globally. 99% of the world population would see them as the elite.
And when I hear about people talking about "the elite", I'm reminded that - to most of the world's population - these people railing are the elite.
People tend to see the person in front of them and the person behind them.
Everything is relative.
A full time job on the new living wage in the UK places you easily in the global top 1%. There's 75m people in that top 1%.
I see about 10 countries with more than 10 million people that are as rich as the UK. There are over 750million people in them, so the global 1 per cent are the top 10 per cent (at most) of earners in rich countries; probably less than 10, in fact.
That makes me and a good proportion of posters here one of the 1% ers.
According to HMRC anyone earning more than £40k is in the top 10% of UK personal incomes.
You rather ignore the reasons people go abroad on holiday. It's not, and has never been, something to do with the evil that is borrowing. It's to do with choice. When people were given the choice between Blackpool and Benidorm at similar prices there was only one winner.
Quite. Blackpool grew rich because people were unable to get to the Costas. They should have evolved to give people a taste of places they still (in the main) can't get to. Namely become the 'Vegas of the North' someone keeps telling us they are.
With the trade deficit also having grown during q1 it looks like another record year for the UK's current account deficit.
Problem is London dwarfs the rest and accounts for half the visitors to the UK, London is the most visited city in the world on some measures, while the UK is only the 8th most visited nation. Britons have few other cities worldwide to compete with London, NY maybe and that is about it. France is the most visited nation by contrast, followed by the US and then Spain. Britons have many more nations they can visit for better weather and often equal cultural attractions, few foreigners come to Briton for the sunshine!
I think that's a fair summary, but I don't think it's 'the problem'. The problem is the same with all our industries, cheap foreign imports/holidays displacing domestic products/holidays, and not enough exports/inbound tourism to make up the shortfall.
Having London is a positive, as we'd rather have those visitors than none at all, and many can be persuaded to visit the hinterlands or even further afield at the same time. Americans in particular are famous for packing in all the major tourist spots in ridiculously short itineraries.
If I knew the solution; I'd know the solution to all our woes. But I think it must lie in thinking big. Big legal and regulatory changes, big projects, big razmataz attractions. That and locking Julian Fellowes in a cell with only bread and water till he writes more Downton.
I said I'd report back on the food in Cornwall. I can confirm it was significantly better than the food I had in Lyon/Beaujolais two weeks ago. I visited five different restaurants in each place, in six days in both cases, so it was a very fair comparison.
The dinner I had last night at Idle Rocks Hotel, St Mawes, was probably the best I've had all year, anywhere in the world.
The hotels were ALSO way superior to the ones in France.
We ARE getting there, and we are getting it right. Cornwall in May was full of Germans, Dutch, French, and Americans. I spoke to several hoteliers and they were all buoyant, and all said they had nearly year-round trade these days, it's not just the summer.
One of the reasons tourists are flocking to Cornwall is, yes, the food.
Great to hear. But the overall figures are very discouraging.
You rather ignore the reasons people go abroad on holiday. It's not, and has never been, something to do with the evil that is borrowing. It's to do with choice. When people were given the choice between Blackpool and Benidorm at similar prices there was only one winner.
Quite. Blackpool grew rich because people were unable to get to the Costas. They should have evolved to give people a taste of places they still (in the main) can't get to. Namely become the 'Vegas of the North' someone keeps telling us they are.
Not many people know that Blackpool doubled in population between 1901 and 1921.
I have a friend in America who rails regularly against "the 1%".
I pointed out to him that he and his wife earn probably $150,000 between them, and live in a large house in a very nice suburb of Washington DC, and their kids go to a great local school. They travel to great places on holiday, have the latest iPhones, and have two cars.
They think of themselves as - relatively - poor. Yet, in the general scheme of things, they are in the 1%. Maybe not in the US, but certainly globally. 99% of the world population would see them as the elite.
And when I hear about people talking about "the elite", I'm reminded that - to most of the world's population - these people railing are the elite.
People tend to see the person in front of them and the person behind them.
Everything is relative.
A full time job on the new living wage in the UK places you easily in the global top 1%. There's 75m people in that top 1%.
I see about 10 countries with more than 10 million people that are as rich as the UK. There are over 750million people in them, so the global 1 per cent are the top 10 per cent (at most) of earners in rich countries; probably less than 10, in fact.
That makes me and a good proportion of posters here one of the 1% ers.
According to HMRC anyone earning more than £40k is in the top 10% of UK personal incomes.
With the trade deficit also having grown during q1 it looks like another record year for the UK's current account deficit.
Problem is London dwarfs the rest and accounts for half the visitors to the UK, London is the most visited city in the world on some measures, while the UK is only the 8th most visited nation. Britons have few other cities worldwide to compete with London, NY maybe and that is about it. France is the most visited nation by contrast, followed by the US and then Spain. Britons have many more nations they can visit for better weather and often equal cultural attractions, few foreigners come to Briton for the sunshine!
I think that's a fair summary, but I don't think it's 'the problem'. The problem is the same with all our industries, cheap foreign imports/holidays displacing domestic products/holidays, and not enough exports/inbound tourism to make up the shortfall.
Having London is a positive, as we'd rather
I said I'd report back on the food in Cornwall. I can confirm it was significantly better than the food I had in Lyon/Beaujolais two weeks ago. I visited five different restaurants in each place, in six days in both cases, so it was a very fair comparison.
The dinner I had last night at Idle Rocks Hotel, St Mawes, was probably the best I've had all year, anywhere in the world.
The hotels were ALSO way superior to the ones in France.
We ARE getting there, and we are getting it right. Cornwall in May was full of Germans, Dutch, French, and Americans. I spoke to several hoteliers and they were all buoyant, and all said they had nearly year-round trade these days, it's not just the summer.
One of the reasons tourists are flocking to Cornwall is, yes, the food.
Cornwall is great and I went there regularly as a child, on a sunny day the beaches and scenery are unbeatable, unfortunately you cannot guarantee every day will be a sunny day and not raining, which is why the masses will still flock to the Costas and not the West Country!
You rather ignore the reasons people go abroad on holiday. It's not, and has never been, something to do with the evil that is borrowing. It's to do with choice. When people were given the choice between Blackpool and Benidorm at similar prices there was only one winner.
Quite. Blackpool grew rich because people were unable to get to the Costas. They should have evolved to give people a taste of places they still (in the main) can't get to. Namely become the 'Vegas of the North' someone keeps telling us they are.
I've seen this renaissance with my own eyes. Indeed I reckon I can pinpoint when and where it started: St Ives in the early 1990s, when I noticed the first chic tapas bars (and the Tate Modern opened there), and I thought: Yes, of course, this is the way forward for UK coastal towns. Develop things like art and food: become all-year destinations. We'll never have the guaranteed sun but we do have culture and landscape, and a booming foodie obsession...
And so it has proved.
Also people have more money and time: they will still do their two weeks in the Med, but for that second holiday it is now very fashionable to visit our own seductive seaside. And three cheers for that.
Yes, that is probably the best way forward, people will still book their fortnight in the sun but also a weekend break in Britain in a historic city or market town or maybe a week in Devon or Cornwall, a trend which has been pioneered by our very own Prime Minister no less!
I have a friend in America who rails regularly against "the 1%".
I pointed out to him that he and his wife earn probably $150,000 between them, and live in a large house in a very nice suburb of Washington DC, and their kids go to a great local school. They travel to great places on holiday, have the latest iPhones, and have two cars.
They think of themselves as - relatively - poor. Yet, in the general scheme of things, they are in the 1%. Maybe not in the US, but certainly globally. 99% of the world population would see them as the elite.
And when I hear about people talking about "the elite", I'm reminded that - to most of the world's population - these people railing are the elite.
People tend to see the person in front of them and the person behind them.
Everything is relative.
A full time job on the new living wage in the UK places you easily in the global top 1%. There's 75m people in that top 1%.
Really? As you say, the global top 1% will be the top 75m. A 35 hr/wk job on the UK living wage will pay a little over £14k. There must be way over 75m across the 1bn+ in the OECD countries earning that much, even before adding in developing countries and commodity exporters.
Damn Google and out of date statistics, I was reading a report from 2005 and applying 2016 incomes to it. Whoops!
Global Rich List report 2015, top 1% by income earn US$32,400 per annum, about £22,000.
You rather ignore the reasons people go abroad on holiday. It's not, and has never been, something to do with the evil that is borrowing. It's to do with choice. When people were given the choice between Blackpool and Benidorm at similar prices there was only one winner.
Quite. Blackpool grew rich because people were unable to get to the Costas. They should have evolved to give people a taste of places they still (in the main) can't get to. Namely become the 'Vegas of the North' someone keeps telling us they are.
I've seen this renaissance with my own eyes. Indeed I reckon I can pinpoint when and where it started: St Ives in the early 1990s, when I noticed the first chic tapas bars (and the Tate Modern opened there), and I thought: Yes, of course, this is the way forward for UK coastal towns. Develop things like art and food: become all-year destinations. We'll never have the guaranteed sun but we do have culture and landscape, and a booming foodie obsession...
And so it has proved.
Also people have more money and time: they will still do their two weeks in the Med, but for that second holiday it is now very fashionable to visit our own seductive seaside. And three cheers for that.
Really Sean, it's a lovely story, but a new cohort of affluent Londoners indulging in semi-ironic frolicking in Margate or Hastings is not a revival of the beach holiday. I don't mean to be negative, but: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/commercial-property-for-sale/Blackpool.html - 880 commercial properties for sale in Blackpool.
You rather ignore the reasons people go abroad on holiday. It's not, and has never been, something to do with the evil that is borrowing. It's to do with choice. When people were given the choice between Blackpool and Benidorm at similar prices there was only one winner.
Quite. Blackpool grew rich because people were unable to get to the Costas. They should have evolved to give people a taste of places they still (in the main) can't get to. Namely become the 'Vegas of the North' someone keeps telling us they are.
I've seen this renaissance with my own eyes. Indeed I reckon I can pinpoint when and where it started: St Ives in the early 1990s, when I noticed the first chic tapas bars (and the Tate Modern opened there), and I thought: Yes, of course, this is the way forward for UK coastal towns. Develop things like art and food: become all-year destinations. We'll never have the guaranteed sun but we do have culture and landscape, and a booming foodie obsession...
And so it has proved.
Also people have more money and time: they will still do their two weeks in the Med, but for that second holiday it is now very fashionable to visit our own seductive seaside. And three cheers for that.
Really Sean, it's a lovely story, but a new cohort of affluent Londoners indulging in semi-ironic frolicking in Margate or Hastings is not a revival of the beach holiday. I don't mean to be negative, but: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/commercial-property-for-sale/Blackpool.html - 880 commercial properties for sale in Blackpool.
I hear Sevastopol has some great bargains at the moment
You rather ignore the reasons people go abroad on holiday. It's not, and has never been, something to do with the evil that is borrowing. It's to do with choice. When people were given the choice between Blackpool and Benidorm at similar prices there was only one winner.
Quite. Blackpool grew rich because people were unable to get to the Costas. They should have evolved to give people a taste of places they still (in the main) can't get to. Namely become the 'Vegas of the North' someone keeps telling us they are.
I've seen this renaissance with my own eyes. Indeed I reckon I can pinpoint when and where it started: St Ives in the early 1990s, when I noticed the first chic tapas bars (and the Tate Modern opened there), and I thought: Yes, of course, this is the way forward for UK coastal towns. Develop things like art and food: become all-year destinations. We'll never have the guaranteed sun but we do have culture and landscape, and a booming foodie obsession...
And so it has proved.
Also people have more money and time: they will still do their two weeks in the Med, but for that second holiday it is now very fashionable to visit our own seductive seaside. And three cheers for that.
Yes, that is probably the best way forward, people will still book their fortnight in the sun but also a weekend break in Britain in a historic city or market town or maybe a week in Devon or Cornwall, a trend which has been pioneered by our very own Prime Minister no less!
My sister has two holiday flats in St Ives. They are booked solid from March to October, and Christmas/New Year. She doesn't even have to advertise.
Rock, Padstow, Fowey, are nearly as busy. St Mawes possibly even busier. Ditto Mousehole, Polperro, Mevagissey...
Yes, this is encouraging 'In June, the renowned global publishing giant Lonely Planet included the South West is among the top three places to visit in Europe this summer and on a par with heavyweight holiday spots Greece and Italy.' Devon and Cornwall have picked up where Blackpool, Scarborough and Bognor left off, they are the main destinations in the UK for beaches and summer holidays
You rather ignore the reasons people go abroad on holiday. It's not, and has never been, something to do with the evil that is borrowing. It's to do with choice. When people were given the choice between Blackpool and Benidorm at similar prices there was only one winner.
Quite. Blackpool grew rich because people were unable to get to the Costas. They should have evolved to give people a taste of places they still (in the main) can't get to. Namely become the 'Vegas of the North' someone keeps telling us they are.
I've seen this renaissance with my own eyes. Indeed I reckon I can pinpoint when and where it started: St Ives in the early 1990s, when I noticed the first chic tapas bars (and the Tate Modern opened there), and I thought: Yes, of course, this is the way forward for UK coastal towns. Develop things like art and food: become all-year destinations. We'll never have the guaranteed sun but we do have culture and landscape, and a booming foodie obsession...
And so it has proved.
Also people have more money and time: they will still do their two weeks in the Med, but for that second holiday it is now very fashionable to visit our own seductive seaside. And three cheers for that.
Really Sean, it's a lovely story, but a new cohort of affluent Londoners indulging in semi-ironic frolicking in Margate or Hastings is not a revival of the beach holiday. I don't mean to be negative, but: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/commercial-property-for-sale/Blackpool.html - 880 commercial properties for sale in Blackpool.
The stats don't lie. Visitor numbers are surging - in places where they are getting it right: i.e. offering art and food and good hotels, along with striking landscapes/heritage.
I said I'd report back on the food in Cornwall. I can confirm it was significantly better than the food I had in Lyon/Beaujolais two weeks ago. I visited five different restaurants in each place, in six days in both cases, so it was a very fair comparison.
The dinner I had last night at Idle Rocks Hotel, St Mawes, was probably the best I've had all year, anywhere in the world.
The hotels were ALSO way superior to the ones in France.
We ARE getting there, and we are getting it right. Cornwall in May was full of Germans, Dutch, French, and Americans. I spoke to several hoteliers and they were all buoyant, and all said they had nearly year-round trade these days, it's not just the summer.
One of the reasons tourists are flocking to Cornwall is, yes, the food.
I used to go down to the restaurant at Porthminster Beach at St Ives. Michael Smith took it over in the mid noughties and it was just unbelievable - the best seafood in town.
You rather ignore the reasons people go abroad on holiday. It's not, and has never been, something to do with the evil that is borrowing. It's to do with choice. When people were given the choice between Blackpool and Benidorm at similar prices there was only one winner.
Quite. Blackpool grew rich because people were unable to get to the Costas. They should have evolved to give people a taste of places they still (in the main) can't get to. Namely become the 'Vegas of the North' someone keeps telling us they are.
I've seen this renaissance with my own eyes. Indeed I reckon I can pinpoint when and where it started: St Ives in the early 1990s, when I noticed the first chic tapas bars (and the Tate Modern opened there), and I thought: Yes, of course, this is the way forward for UK coastal towns. Develop things like art and food: become all-year destinations. We'll never have the guaranteed sun but we do have culture and landscape, and a booming foodie obsession...
And so it has proved.
Also people have more money and time: they will still do their two weeks in the Med, but for that second holiday it is now very fashionable to visit our own seductive seaside. And three cheers for that.
Really Sean, it's a lovely story, but a new cohort of affluent Londoners indulging in semi-ironic frolicking in Margate or Hastings is not a revival of the beach holiday. I don't mean to be negative, but: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/commercial-property-for-sale/Blackpool.html - 880 commercial properties for sale in Blackpool.
The stats don't lie. Visitor numbers are surging - in places where they are getting it right: i.e. offering art and food and good hotels, along with striking landscapes/heritage.
Clearly none of these criteria are fulfilled by poor old Blackpool. Which is why Blackpool is fucked.
I agree the only hope for the town is to go for all out BLING. Embrace its cheesiness and become a Vegas in the rain. It's not impossible.
Blackpool should simply embrace fun. There's an enormous population within 50 miles of it for weekends out. But it needs to get it right - it can't simply reply on bars with cheap alcohol and sticky carpets, greasy pavements and dreadful B&Bs. Blackpool has been getting it wrong for decades because it's been chasing the market down the plughole without altering an offering that people have been rejecting as soon as they have enough money to do so.
You rather ignore the reasons people go abroad on holiday. It's not, and has never been, something to do with the evil that is borrowing. It's to do with choice. When people were given the choice between Blackpool and Benidorm at similar prices there was only one winner.
Quite. Blackpool grew rich because people were unable to get to the Costas. They should have evolved to give people a taste of places they still (in the main) can't get to. Namely become the 'Vegas of the North' someone keeps telling us they are.
I've seen this renaissance with my own eyes. Indeed I reckon I can pinpoint when and where it started: St Ives in the early 1990s, when I noticed the first chic tapas bars (and the Tate Modern opened there), and I thought: Yes, of course, this is the way forward for UK coastal towns. Develop things like art and food: become all-year destinations. We'll never have the guaranteed sun but we do have culture and landscape, and a booming foodie obsession...
And so it has proved.
Also people have more money and time: they will still do their two weeks in the Med, but for that second holiday it is now very fashionable to visit our own seductive seaside. And three cheers for that.
Really Sean, it's a lovely story, but a new cohort of affluent Londoners indulging in semi-ironic frolicking in Margate or Hastings is not a revival of the beach holiday. I don't mean to be negative, but: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/commercial-property-for-sale/Blackpool.html - 880 commercial properties for sale in Blackpool.
Most affluent Londoners would not be seen dead in Margate, Hastings or Blackpool, even in a heatwave. However they love Rock and Padstow and Porthcurno and many have second homes there, spend summers there (in between the jaunt to Provence or Tuscany) and their kids go for post exam jaunts there too
The stats don't lie. Visitor numbers are surging - in places where they are getting it right: i.e. offering art and food and good hotels, along with striking landscapes/heritage.
Clearly none of these criteria are fulfilled by poor old Blackpool. Which is why Blackpool is fucked.
I agree the only hope for the town is to go for all out BLING. Embrace its cheesiness and become a Vegas in the rain. It's not impossible.
I am grudgingly encouraged by the increasing visitor numbers you cite. Visitor numbers here in Edinburgh are also good, which is great.
I feel Blackpool needs to be something you simply can't get elsewhere. So as they've already got a mock Eiffel Tower, I think they should do a world cities thing and get a mock New York, a mock China, etc. A giant international orgy of selfie opportunities. You don't get to see all the world's wonders in one go in Lanzarote.
The stats don't lie. Visitor numbers are surging - in places where they are getting it right: i.e. offering art and food and good hotels, along with striking landscapes/heritage.
Clearly none of these criteria are fulfilled by poor old Blackpool. Which is why Blackpool is fucked.
I agree the only hope for the town is to go for all out BLING. Embrace its cheesiness and become a Vegas in the rain. It's not impossible.
I am grudgingly encouraged by the increasing visitor numbers you cite. Visitor numbers here in Edinburgh are also good, which is great.
I feel Blackpool needs to be something you simply can't get elsewhere. So as they've already got a mock Eiffel Tower, I think they should do a world cities thing and get a mock New York, a mock China, etc. A giant international orgy of selfie opportunities. You don't get to see all the world's wonders in one go in Lanzarote.
That's an excellent idea. They should make it into an even more ridiculous version of 'the World' at the Epcot Center (sic).
You rather ignore the reasons people go abroad on holiday. It's not, and has never been, something to do with the evil that is borrowing. It's to do with choice. When people were given the choice between Blackpool and Benidorm at similar prices there was only one winner.
Quite. Blackpool grew rich because people were unable to get to the Costas. They should have evolved to give people a taste of places they still (in the main) can't get to. Namely become the 'Vegas of the North' someone keeps telling us they are.
Also people have more money and time: they will still do their two weeks in the Med, but for that second holiday it is now very fashionable to visit our own seductive seaside. And three cheers for that.
Yes, that is probably the best way forward, people will still book their fortnight in the sun but also a weekend break in Britain in a historic city or market town or maybe a week in Devon or Cornwall, a trend which has been pioneered by our very own Prime Minister no less!
My sister has two holiday flats in St Ives. They are booked solid from March to October, and Christmas/New Year. She doesn't even have to advertise.
Rock, Padstow, Fowey, are nearly as busy. St Mawes possibly even busier. Ditto Mousehole, Polperro, Mevagissey...
Yes, this is encouraging 'In June, the renowned global publishing giant Lonely Planet included the South West is among the top three places to visit in Europe this summer and on a par with heavyweight holiday spots Greece and Italy.' Devon and Cornwall have picked up where Blackpool, Scarborough and Bognor left off, they are the main destinations in the UK for beaches and summer holidays
It's not just the southwest tho. Norfolk, Skye, the Lakes, North Yorkshire...
If you are looking beyond beaches yes but you go to Norfolk for the broads, the Lakes for the Mountains and Windermere, Skye for the scenery, North Yorkshire for the moors etc
I think with the seaside towns there are two extremes. For ever Padstows, Rock etc, you have Blackpool, Weston Super Mare, Margate...
The latter collapsed when the masses started going to Spain rather than 'kiss me quick' resorts for their summer holidays, the former has also been able to attract the affluent market in a way the latter cannot
The stats don't lie. Visitor numbers are surging - in places where they are getting it right: i.e. offering art and food and good hotels, along with striking landscapes/heritage.
Clearly none of these criteria are fulfilled by poor old Blackpool. Which is why Blackpool is fucked.
I agree the only hope for the town is to go for all out BLING. Embrace its cheesiness and become a Vegas in the rain. It's not impossible.
I am grudgingly encouraged by the increasing visitor numbers you cite. Visitor numbers here in Edinburgh are also good, which is great.
I feel Blackpool needs to be something you simply can't get elsewhere. So as they've already got a mock Eiffel Tower, I think they should do a world cities thing and get a mock New York, a mock China, etc. A giant international orgy of selfie opportunities. You don't get to see all the world's wonders in one go in Lanzarote.
I think with the seaside towns there are two extremes. For ever Padstows, Rock etc, you have Blackpool, Weston Super Mare, Margate...
The latter collapsed when the masses started going to Spain rather than 'kiss me quick' resorts for their summer holidays, the former has also been able to attract the affluent market in a way the latter cannot
Places like Weston are now where those with drug, drink and mental health problems get encouraged to relocate to...and a place where a) support is poor or non-existent and b) lots of opportunity to part take in your favourite vice...not a pretty sight.
The stats don't lie. Visitor numbers are surging - in places where they are getting it right: i.e. offering art and food and good hotels, along with striking landscapes/heritage.
Clearly none of these criteria are fulfilled by poor old Blackpool. Which is why Blackpool is fucked.
I agree the only hope for the town is to go for all out BLING. Embrace its cheesiness and become a Vegas in the rain. It's not impossible.
I am grudgingly encouraged by the increasing visitor numbers you cite. Visitor numbers here in Edinburgh are also good, which is great.
I feel Blackpool needs to be something you simply can't get elsewhere. So as they've already got a mock Eiffel Tower, I think they should do a world cities thing and get a mock New York, a mock China, etc. A giant international orgy of selfie opportunities. You don't get to see all the world's wonders in one go in Lanzarote.
You rather ignore the reasons people go abroad on holiday. It's not, and has never been, something to do with the evil that is borrowing. It's to do with choice. When people were given the choice between Blackpool and Benidorm at similar prices there was only one winner.
Quite. Blackpool grew rich because people were unable to get to the Costas. They should have evolved to give people a taste of places they still (in the main) can't get to. Namely become the 'Vegas of the North' someone keeps telling us they are.
British seaside resorts are roaring back to life.
And so it has proved.
Also people have more money and time: they will still do their two weeks in the Med, but for that second holiday it is now very fashionable to visit our own seductive seaside. And three cheers for that.
Really Sean, it's a lovely story, but a new cohort of affluent Londoners indulging in semi-ironic frolicking in Margate or Hastings is not a revival of the beach holiday. I don't mean to be negative, but: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/commercial-property-for-sale/Blackpool.html - 880 commercial properties for sale in Blackpool.
Most affluent Londoners would not be seen dead in Margate, Hastings or Blackpool, even in a heatwave. However they love Rock and Padstow and Porthcurno and many have second homes there, spend summers there (in between the jaunt to Provence or Tuscany) and their kids go for post exam jaunts there too
You're wrong. For a certain kind of Hackney hipster it's now seen as very chic to hang out with the tattooed white natives in Hastings and Margate. A friend of mine bought an incredibly cheap period house in Hastings a few years ago. He says the locals all moan about the DFLs - "Down From Londons".
And property prices are beginning to edge up.
A few may do it for the irony value but neither are ever going to be able to catch Brighton, which really does have the hipster market pushing up property values
I think with the seaside towns there are two extremes. For ever Padstows, Rock etc, you have Blackpool, Weston Super Mare, Margate...
The latter collapsed when the masses started going to Spain rather than 'kiss me quick' resorts for their summer holidays, the former has also been able to attract the affluent market in a way the latter cannot
Places like Weston are now where those with drug, drink and mental health problems get encouraged to relocate to...and a place where a) support is poor or non-existent and b) lots of opportunity to part take in your favourite vice...not a pretty sight.
Yes, it is a familiar tale with so many seaside resorts sadly, which is why they turn to the likes of UKIP much to the sneers of Matthew Parris
You rather ignore the reasons people go abroad on holiday. It's not, and has never been, something to do with the evil that is borrowing. It's to do with choice. When people were given the choice between Blackpool and Benidorm at similar prices there was only one winner.
Quite. Blackpool grew rich because people were unable to get to the Costas. They should have evolved to give people a taste of places they still (in the main) can't get to. Namely become the 'Vegas of the North' someone keeps telling us they are.
I've seen this renaissance with my own eyes. Indeed I reckon I can pinpoint when and where it started: St Ives in the early 1990s, when I noticed the first chic tapas bars (and the Tate Modern opened there), and I thought: Yes, of course, this is the way forward for UK coastal towns. Develop things like art and food: become all-year destinations. We'll never have the guaranteed sun but we do have culture and landscape, and a booming foodie obsession...
And so it has proved.
Also people have more money and time: they will still do their two weeks in the Med, but for that second holiday it is now very fashionable to visit our own seductive seaside. And three cheers for that.
Yes, that is probably the best way forward, people will still book their fortnight in the sun but also a weekend break in Britain in a historic city or market town or maybe a week in Devon or Cornwall, a trend which has been pioneered by our very own Prime Minister no less!
My sister has two holiday flats in St Ives. They are booked solid from March to October, and Christmas/New Year. She doesn't even have to advertise.
Rock, Padstow, Fowey, are nearly as busy. St Mawes possibly even busier. Ditto Mousehole, Polperro, Mevagissey...
It's not just the southwest tho. Norfolk, Skye, the Lakes, North Yorkshire...
Parts of the Isle of Wight too. A strange combination a Chelsea tractors and the other end of the market. Side by side but never the twain shall meet (except on the ferry). Its the people in the middle who go to the Med.
Also people have more money and time: they will still do their two weeks in the Med, but for that second holiday it is now very fashionable to visit our own seductive seaside. And three cheers for that.
Really Sean, it's a lovely story, but a new cohort of affluent Londoners indulging in semi-ironic frolicking in Margate or Hastings is not a revival of the beach holiday. I don't mean to be negative, but: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/commercial-property-for-sale/Blackpool.html - 880 commercial properties for sale in Blackpool.
Most affluent Londoners would not be seen dead in Margate, Hastings or Blackpool, even in a heatwave. However they love Rock and Padstow and Porthcurno and many have second homes there, spend summers there (in between the jaunt to Provence or Tuscany) and their kids go for post exam jaunts there too
You're wrong. For a certain kind of Hackney hipster it's now seen as very chic to hang out with the tattooed white natives in Hastings and Margate. A friend of mine bought an incredibly cheap period house in Hastings a few years ago. He says the locals all moan about the DFLs - "Down From Londons".
And property prices are beginning to edge up.
A few may do it for the irony value but neither are ever go
You wanna bet?
They said the same about Hackney, Brixton, Peckham and even Notting Hill (a long time back).
The seedy southcoast is now seeing the natural ripple effect out from London. Also these old towns like Hastings are full of very desirable period properties.
Hackney, Brixton, Peckham and Notting Hill are all in London and near the centre of arguably the greatest city on earth. Hastings is at the bottom end of East Sussex and the poor relation of Brighton, I expect even Blackpool has a few period properties some may like but that does not comprise the majority of the housing, the average house price in Hastings is £193,817, ie at or slightly below the national average, nowhere near London prices http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/Hastings.html
Comments
But does that affect their lifestyles much even after they go bankrupt ? Whereas bankruptcy for the average person is probably a much more life changing event.
And that's before we get into issues of fatcats in tax havens.
If people spend more they take more foreign holidays, if there is less money in the economy they take no holidays at all, either way it does little to boost British tourism
Having London is a positive, as we'd rather have those visitors than none at all, and many can be persuaded to visit the hinterlands or even further afield at the same time. Americans in particular are famous for packing in all the major tourist spots in ridiculously short itineraries.
If I knew the solution; I'd know the solution to all our woes. But I think it must lie in thinking big. Big legal and regulatory changes, big projects, big razmataz attractions. That and locking Julian Fellowes in a cell with only bread and water till he writes more Downton.
Sadly, stories like his all too rare. When Donald Trump went bankrupt a while back, the bank insisted he restricted personal expenses to $200,000/month. Something I'm sure we can all relate to.
Of course people enjoy spending money they've been given on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat. And happy people equal voters who re-elect governments.
If I were American I would not be desperate to spends thousands of dollars to travel to Europe, where everything is costlier, smaller and many people will resent you for nothing more than your nationality.
Colonialism was something that many European countries shared as a cultural value.
I know that's a shocking idea when the accepted view is that we should steal wealth from the future but if we can't think shocking ideas at PB where else can we do so.
But the more money you have to spend on holidays leads consequently to the size of the tourism deficit.
And one of the sources of that holiday money has been the trillion pound which government has pumped into the economy.
The more the government pumps in, the more which will flow out of the country on overseas tourism and imported consumer tat.
Not borrowed (stolen from the future) money.
I pointed out to him that he and his wife earn probably $150,000 between them, and live in a large house in a very nice suburb of Washington DC, and their kids go to a great local school. They travel to great places on holiday, have the latest iPhones, and have two cars.
They think of themselves as - relatively - poor. Yet, in the general scheme of things, they are in the 1%. Maybe not in the US, but certainly globally. 99% of the world population would see them as the elite.
And when I hear about people talking about "the elite", I'm reminded that - to most of the world's population - these people railing are the elite.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/11/21/british-people-far-more-well-travelled-americans/
Everything is relative.
According to HMRC anyone earning more than £40k is in the top 10% of UK personal incomes.
Global Rich List report 2015, top 1% by income earn US$32,400 per annum, about £22,000.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2016/05/20/2105-MATT-GALLERY-WEB-P1-small_trans++qVzuuqpFlyLIwiB6NTmJwfSVWeZ_vEN7c6bHu2jJnT8.png
Read more: http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Overseas-boom-helps-fuel-record-growth-West/story-22807336-detail/story.html
President Obama was on a golf outing at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland when the shooting occurred.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/05/20/shooting-reported-near-white-house/84664906/
Well who would have guessed that.
I feel Blackpool needs to be something you simply can't get elsewhere. So as they've already got a mock Eiffel Tower, I think they should do a world cities thing and get a mock New York, a mock China, etc. A giant international orgy of selfie opportunities. You don't get to see all the world's wonders in one go in Lanzarote.
new thread
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/Hastings.html