Talk:Economy of the United Kingdom

Biased article?

The article appears to be very biased: while other similar articles typically give last full year results, this one seems to be giving whichever number puts the UK economy under the most favourable light (cf: growth in the box on the right; comparison would give the impression that the UK has grown at 1.6% whilst Germany's output fell by 4.9% - also as seen from below, people tend to add percentages. This is already dubious, even more so, since the percentages do not seem to come from the same sources.)

There are also very dubious statements like : "GDP growth had briefly reached 4454146581% in the early 1990s, gently declining thereafter."

I think it should be checked for neutrality (how can I add this?) 81.6.214.162 (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Paris a "command centre" of the global economy?

I can't find any other reference to Paris being a command centre on wikipedia. Most other articles agree that there are only 3? E.G Interactive (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is this a question on the UK economy page? I think this shows the bias of this article. 81.6.214.162 (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That's poor evidence, if that's what you believe it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.81.36 (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No sections

The section on historical exchange rates is frankly irrelevant, mention the regime and that it has floated since 1992, but the specific numbers mean nothing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.4.76 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

why does this article have no citations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.93.215 (talk • contribs)

The article has many links to reference sources, known as Embedded citations , it has not got any Footnotes yet as no one has yet applied these to this article. GameKeeper 21:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the average salary in the United Kingdom? Edward 01:31, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

The average salary in the UK is approximately £23,000. Lapafrax

GDP rank

Since when has the Uk been the 4th largest economy in the world? Surely the French and Chinese would have something to say about that.

Since the late 1990's, the UK has been the world's 4th largest economy, using the method of GDP based on current exchange rates. Lapafrax 20:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The rankings will need to be changed later this year when China overtakes the UK but France has always been behind the UK in terms of economy size

Correct ranking from https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html (note need to 'improve' rank by 2 to discount "World" and "EU aggragate" totals) and https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html.

Those figures at the CIA's POV over what the PPP ranking is. They're not the actual ranking. The '4th' ranking is about that.

Please read what you cite.

James F. (talk) 13:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2005 data is from OECD and the links are now to the relevant pages on Wiki. Yes, they are the nominal totals, before "Purchasing Power Parity" adjustment. If you want to do that, you'll have to add the text to explain. (And then maybe you should update all the other "Economy of" articles to be consistent!) --Red King 14:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lucky I came Red King, here is the UK's growth as provided by the most reliable economic source going IMF:

Year	GDP in billions of USD PPP	% GDP Growth
2002	1575.906	2.0
2003	1640.829	2.5
2004	1736.377	3.2
2005	1825.837	1.9
2006	1910.818	2.2

Link for verification. I've been to all EU countries and updated their GDP and GDP growth accordingly. For consistency I think the Wiki community should come to some consensus on the source they use for economic facts, personally I find the IMF the easiest use, providing the most up-to-date and impartial economic evidence available. I know that the CIA has a method of their own for calculating GDP and they've been know to be slow to updating. So I'll insert this table and update the information. --JDnCoke 19:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

France's economy was larger than the U.K.'s by at least one measure until the late 1990s. For consistency I have added the type of measure used in the article to arrive at the rank. -A.Rod (21:20, 8 October 2004 (UTC))

I read in the paper a few days ago that China had overtaken the UK so CHina is now 4th and Britain is 5th. --86.129.34.134 11:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

As per above, there are problems with the measure you use. You really need to cite something more precise than "I read in the paper a few days ago". The IMF one is good, so if you feel up to it, search the database and report back. --Red King 22:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the facts in the opening paragraph need links to their sources. To say the UK has the largest povert rate among the large economie sis rather ambiguous. - Adam, 3/6/06

It's also a very problematic comparison, as poverty is defined at a national level, and even if 'harmonised' system is applied, it runs into serious local variations. The UK, for instance, tends to put social housing right next to expensive housing so that even the richest areas have some form of social provision (though the quality and quantity of this can be debated). However, it means that saying that 'poverty' exists for someone who gets a subsidised house in Chelsea is a bit more problematic than someone living in a carivan in the South of the US. Roche-Kerr 19:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me how the GDP growth figures listed in USD aren't affected by exchange rate fluctuations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.81.36 (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Taxation

This section was just a POV party political broadcast (and I'm not even a Labour voter). What is really needed here is solid data about the size of the national 'cake' that is taken in taxes; this would provide interesting comparisons against other countries. This is what I've removed: The Labour government has increased funding of education, transport, and the National Health Service, at a cost in higher taxes. The government has been criticised by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats for its stealth tax raises. --Red King 14:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The five economic tests

The article related to the five economic tests says "It is alleged that the five tests were dreamt up by then shadow Chancellor Gordon Brown". So maybe only the Labour government should be mentioned as the originator in the main article. Taupe 14:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I've rephrased that bit of the five economic tests article. The section in this article is a summary of that detailed article, so it it not good practice to repeat details. --Red King 15:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Average total income by ethnic group

Hi guys. Look at [[2]] and then compare this with Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom#Other_Statistics. You see the changes ? It looks like an ego clash here ... can anyone give any authentic reference here to make things more clear? Like was there any authentic study to find the average income by ethnic group? The way how the thing was changed, it seems like vandalism, as the older page was there for quite a few months and the person who changed the information here, only interchaged the words whites and indians. Also about the Indians, wiki is telling that Indians in the US are the highest earning ethnic group there. Given the richest person (in the UK) Mittal is an Indian and 1 out of 20 Indians in the UK are doctors, it's likely that average income of Indians are the highest in the UK as well, though we need confirmation here. Thanks. Sobuj 17:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

In case there's no authentic evidence and data about the income per group, I think it's better to delete the section simply, better than to have unconfirmed data as that may mislead. Or, someone may kindly give a source from where the data was taken. I couldn't find any source that's speaks about the given figures like £30,000, £25,000 etc. Sobuj 15:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The alledged sources given for the table at the bottom of this page do not make any reference to income per head by ethnic group. Can a source be found, otherwise the table should be deleted (81.104.245.2 (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC))

I saw that the discussion had not moved on for one year. I have requested that citations are made for the statistics at the bottom of the page because the sources given did not contain the alledged information (81.104.245.2 (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)).

Hi thanks for checking the references but I think something has gone wrong. I see a valid link at [3] which to cut and paste from it says 'One in 20 Hindu men were doctors compared with one in 200 Christian or Sikh men.' When I click the link I see an article from ONS called 'Employment Patterns'. The info comes from the 1st paragraph after the graph, 2nd sentence. I removed your reference request as I think it's already there. Maybe ONS was doing some bank holiday maintenance and that link was broken briefly. GameKeeper (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I looked at what i did and i put the 'citation needed' in the wrong places. I Dont know what happened there, i had seen the 1 in 200 statistic. My query is with the income stats, i cannot find the information in the references. I have put the 'citation needed' mark back on the income. As for the table at the bottom. The given reference does not give statistics on average income, can you find a reference for the table? (152.71.195.135 (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

Hello again, I’ve put the ‘citation needed’ marks back on the income table because the source given doesn’t provide this information and I cannot find the information anywhere (152.71.195.135 (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)).

It's been over a year and there still aren't any verifiable sources to back up the claimed data. Someone should just delete the section, I would myself but I'm unregistered and it would probably be reverted anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.21.39 (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"Unregistered": I did try to improve - off the cuff, though - this terrible section as best I could some months ago. I was unregistered too at the time. I'm with you. I think it's beyond salvaging. It won't matter how many people with as much good will in the world try to make it meaningful and relevant to an article about the British economy. It either should be turned into a separate article or deleted permanently, though I would hesitate before doing either of those things without further discussion. Suffice to say I believe it is divisive, ill-conceived, unsupportable and out of place in this article. (Denverthen (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC))

I have deleted this section as its been flagged for some time and clearly gives a misleading view of circumstances in the United Kingdom. If someone does revert to the old version they should read through the comments made on this discussion page or actually look at the article and see it offers very little to an already extensive and in my opinion too long article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.108.38 (talk) 12:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Poverty

Is this figure- 17 %-accurate? I think it must come from a survey carried out called Breadline Europe: The Measurement of Poverty.

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1207241.stm

The issue I have with this figure is that it taken from a survey, asking people if they felt they didn't have enough to live on. This is therefore subjective, and not based on a set measurement of poverty. Is there a standard measure of poverty that is used for all countries? The entry Economy of the United States claims that only 12% of the population are below the poverty line. I find it hard to believe that America, which has a far less extensive welfare state, has a lower level of poverty than the UK. Are different measures being used here?

An article I found showed abaout a UN Human development index study found that the US with 16.5% poverty was the worst in the industrialised world. http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/44/177.html

There are numerous ways to measurew poverty. http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Income-inequality-metrics#Absolute_income_criteria I get the impression that the 17% is either based on subjective assessment or on relative poverty, while other countries' entries may be based on a 'absolute' measure. This needs to be rectified. We need a list of countries using a standardized measure of poverty, whether that be relative to other citizens in each country or relative to living costs, or based on a particular amount of money. Does anyone know any good websites where this information can be found?

REPLY: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2046.html A CIA world factbook 2006 estimate puts this figure at 14%, not 17%, BUT still higher than the Us at 12%. To my knowledge, the percentage is measured as the number of poeple living below a "poverty line", or the minimum income anyone could live on in that particular country relative to it's own economy. THis figure therefore changes depending on the country you're in. Someone below the poverty line in the UK may be above it in some areas of the US. In my view the CIA result should be the only one used, as i have no idea where the 17% comes from, and there is a plethora of figures of other nations given for comparison on the CIA site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.36.8 (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems it's the "national" UK poverty line which is chosen to be 60% of the UK median income, so it's meaningless to compare it between countries. That being the case, I've explicitly put that definition in the statistics box, and mentioned that it's "relative poverty" in the poverty subsection.--Farry (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Expansion request

The UK economy is dominated by services, but this article only features the things they do in the city and three lines on tourism. The services section of the article should really be longer than the primary industry and manufacturing sections combined. Osomec 07:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the pov and inaccurate parts of the manufacturing section, and that doesn't leave much - there is not one statistic. So I've added an expansion notice there too. Osomec 07:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

mixed currencies?

Values are given in US dollars in the 'Economy of the UK' table, in pounds in the Services section, in euros in the Regional Variation section. Can't we standardise on one currency? Markb 17:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree it make sense for it all to be in dollars Bobus Builderus 00:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Regional Variances section now in Sterling

Any objections?

I'm not sure, although it definatly should be listed in Sterling, it does make international comparison much more difficult. The GDP per region section has a sentance with figures quoted in Euros appearing just under the list, which makes the section look a bit disjointed. I think additional columns displaying the amounts in Euros and USDs would be good.

Also, the list notes that the London GDP per capita is the highest in Europe, but I am yet to find anywhere else with a higher GDP per capita anywhere in the world. Is it the highest in the world, or just Europe? Canderra 01:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"largest financial centre"

Someone has insisted on calling London the "largest financial centre" twice in this article, when this doesn't agree with the statement in the opening paragraph that along with New York it is one of the two largest financial centres. There is far from unaninomous agreement that London is the largest, and by various measures it is sometimes estimated to be New York and sometimes London. I think it would be safer to just say that London is "one of the largest financial centres". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.184.30.255 (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC).

it depends on how you measure it if you count the total amount of money that moves through its London. Bobus Builderus 00:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

False. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.42.50 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, New York only ever comes off in terms of total accumulated assets, which isn't surprising given that the New York Stock Exchange has huge amounts of existing companies. However, in terms of total jobs in financial services, as well as variety of business, and furthermore the total turnover of operations, the City (and Docklands) overtook New York in 2005/6. Roche-Kerr 01:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Also false

I changed the article to reflect the comments here, but sadly Alexnia (admin) has reverted the changes and accused me of vandalism

I leave it to you guys to fix this since this is not the first page I have rightfully edited and then had reverted by Alexnia

I have been contributing to Wiki for years now, but apparently it is no longer a place where the community is respected and I will not edit this article again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.42.50 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The World Economic Forum clearly stated in 2011 that London is the number one centre on a whole host of criteria Twobells (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Regional Variation Vandalism

The regional variation data seems to be subject to creeping vandalism. Here is the original data being added difference. [4]

If anyone can find a more recent source that would also be good. GameKeeper 08:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Table needs to be converted to the form {{Infobox Economy}}. Thanks — Jack · talk · 02:00, Monday, 19 March 2007

Opening Section

There seems to be an awful lot of information about transport in the first section of the article. Does it really need to be there so early on in the article? - I thought that section was meant for a brief overview of the page. There also seems to be a lot negativity in the first section. Gives the impression of the UK economy being quite crap, when I thought it wasn’t going so bad lately. 81.111.223.76 23:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it. It simply does not belong in this article and was poorly written and unclear anyway. David 23:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Gross External Debt 384% of GDP ?

[5]

As extracted from the link above, Q3 2007 figures in pound sterling are as follows :

GDP = 348,500,000,000 Gross external debt = 5,501,800,000,000 Gross external debt as percentage of GDP = 394.68% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.224.30 (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

France

All I can say is so what? The fact remains that the UK economy has outperformed the French economy since the early 1990's, in terms of mean GDP growth and unemployment. Besides, if it is true that France is now a larger economy than the UK, then your linked article even attributes it ramifications from exchange rates, and not in consequence from a lower mean rate of economic growth. If the French economy was in such a rosy state, then why is President Sarkozy attempting to privatise state industry and and make France more akin to an Anglo-Saxon capitalist model? He, and practically all others in the French ruling class, know that something has to give if France is to be economically competitive in the future. So yes, have an orgasm at the fact that France (according to your link) has a larger economy, but at the moment one would say that the UK has better prospects, due to our less regulated economic model. Whether Sarkozy and co. can do the same remains to be seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lapafrax (talk • contribs) 19:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

:: Lapafrax your comments are all based on assumptions. It could be that the French governments changes are all in response to the entire world being in an economic downturn as a result of the attacks on the US and the following war(s). Either way your arguement is based on emotion not facts.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.101.76 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

i agree with lapafrax. check GDP growth statistics on any reputable website, whether the OECD, UN, IMF or what have you. It is fact that Sarkozy in 2007 election ran on a manifesto of changing the French macroeconomic model. It is fact that since the start of the current decade, the UK has experienced a higher average rate of economic growth. it is fact that the UK has also experienced lower unemployment in the period. To say these points are assumptions makes little sense. And what global economic downturn was there in 2007, at the time Sarkozy became president? Few economists at that time could predict the current recession.

And a global downturn as a result of 9/11? What? I'd imagine since 9/11, the Eurozone has been the worst performing region in the first world. Why then didn't Canada, Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, the UK, New Zealand and South Korea all experience stagnant economic growth and high unemployment since 2001? http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/2830-sarkozys-french-revolution - see this link. Sarkozy was often seen as the French Margaret Thatcher, since in the UK Thatcher's remit as PM was to reform the UK economy in order to halt a relative economic decline.

The problem is that Wikipedia GDP data comes from the IMF and World Bank (see List of countries by GDP (nominal)), so it's not up to Wikipedia to update the data but rather the IMF and World Bank. Knowing that France has overtaken the UK isn't particularly useful on its own because we'd need to know the whole list to update it. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The IMF and CIA don't agree with the Financial Times. I know who I'd trust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think i'll never understand this british obsession of always comparing UK with France whatever the matter. aren't the hundred years' war and napoleonic era over ? Last time I was in France, they did care of UK as their first diaper. Baby Bobby —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.9.24.105 (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with a British obsession. It just so happens that the UK and France have similar GDP figures, and so their international ranking is subject to considerable debate. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"Why then didn't the UK experience stagnant economic growth and high unemployment since 2001" The answer to this can be found here http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/government_expenditure.html#ukgs302 The UK gov increased public spending from £1021 billion in 2001 to £1451 billion in 2010 go on read that again, thats an increase of £431 billion in 9 years. Increasing gov supported employment and supporting a SHRINKING economy. The gov also removed the BOE's responsibility of controlling inflation and relaxed banking regulations in the UK, which encouraged bad lending practices to support the UK. Increased dept to unsustainable levels and now we have to pay the price. Basically the UK differed payment until the bailiffs came knocking. The labour Gov also sold 400 tonnes of the UK's gold reserves from 1999 to 2002 http://www.bullionmark.com/bullion-market-tools-a-resources/blog-and-articles/2010/3/00/52-UK-gold-sale--was-it-a-bank-bailout?.html The UK has very few substantial assets left and considerable debt. Scotlands oil wont last forever.

2009 France GDP $2.666 Trillion 2009 UK GDP $2.224 Trillion

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/uk.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.181.191 (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but France has a much larger debt, when you put it all into context the UK comes out on top.Twobells (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually that reminds me, I want to add a warning here:

If you browse through many British & English historical and statistical pages on Wikipedia you will find that French editors have been there trying to give undue weight to their country, some even going as far as making up allegations about British historical figures creating so-called 'sexual preferences' sections and suggesting without any evidence a predilection towards homosexuality all completely unchallenged until you find them, they try to be clever by inserting 'citation needed' and of course no citation exists but the student doesn't know that so be on the constant lookout for certain editors.Twobells (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

--> all of that might be true, or just 'talk'; to me, from belgium, it seems all based on chauvinist feelings on either side of the channel; one example being the myth of the socalled 'anglosaxon capitalsit model'; if there is some-one that can explain in simple terms what that diffrence consists of, then I retract my words, but basicly, the RF and the UK are simply capitalist states with some social democratic characteristics of a welfare states... France has not been socialist for decades; and since WWII conservative (gaullist) ideology has dominated french politics, as it has also troughout most of the 19th century (despite the revolutionary elan of paris glowing like a firefly in the night)

yeah, there were riots in paris, yeah there were riots in london; you see, all the same inequality, failing economic policy and economic emancipation of young unemployed and the same bullshitting politicians wanting to clean it up (but putting it under the carpet)... Both paris and london are financial centres with global attraction and radiance... both france and britain are economies of similar size and population, very similar growth, very similar crises; how can anybody then say one model is so much more successfull when diffrence is basicly 'marginal'? resorting to the ad hominem: what idiot would analyse into the absurd these minute "diffrences" in order to obtain recognition of some vague assumed economic "ideology"???

As to the 'anglosaxon model'; once I went to the US; and thought the US could join the EU being rich enough and so similar in values and economic devellopment (though with a bit more space)... or inversely, the EU states could join the US... one could just as easily speak of the Belgian capitalist model; or the Euro-American model etc... its all the same to me: these parts of the world share the goal of trying to establish free trade, open markets and to create wealth as a basis of a mass consumerist welfare democracy (or in plural) alongside very similar methods (mostly still somehow imbedded in the old keynsian theory -as long as we use terms like BNP defined as they are today, its keynsian-, which is why all of our debts keep rising)...

I don't know why Brittish folks and French folks are baited so easily in some dumb nationalist or chauvinistic rethoric... probably because the're less intelligent compared to the others...

15:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monoclemask (talk • contribs)

leeds

info has been added regarding leeds 2x recently and removed for being POV and readded still without citations . I wish to remove it.

Leeds, is the largest financial sector in england outside of london.

Google this or variations, you will finds many large cities claim this in the UK, it is a POV thing as it is not measurable. The other information is hard to verify too, despite searching for references, which is why I would like to delete it. If we let any information be added to wikipedia and just add {{cite}} tags to it no matter how unlikely it is the whole encyclopedia would fill with cruft. GameKeeper (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Delete it. Bsrboy (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

GDP per capita , nominal or PPP

GDP PPP per capita is now mentioned in the opening paragraph now. I would prefer to change this to nominal GDP as nominal is more measurable (no need to estimate cost of living) and is more relevant when comparing to other countries economies as it is an absolute measure of wealth. (In contrast PPP is probably a better measure for comparing cost/standard of living). Since this article is on the Economy I think nominal measure is preferable and should have more prominence. GameKeeper (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Needs updating

The section that says "It is one of the strongest EU economies in terms of inflation, interest rates and unemployment" is either out-of-date or wrong. The UK's interest rates have been higher than the Eurozone for some time. Inflation is now routinely above target and regularly teetering on the edge of exceeding the level at which the Governor has to write to the Chancellor. Unemployment may be low officially, but it is widely recognized that the total number of people of working age not in employment is exceptionally high (around 5.5m) and only made to seem low by categorizing the majority as being incapacitated rather than unemployed. The economy looks likely to grow less than our neighbours and possibly to go into recession. The OECD have judged that the UK is uniquely vulnerable to the current tightening of global economic conditions. In the light of all this, that sentence cannot be described as objective or unbiased, and should be replaced with a very much more downbeat assessment.

Bgprior (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the disclaimer "in terms of inflation, interest rates and unemployment" makes as much sense as gordon browns 5 golden (secret) rules to entering the Euro Zone. The UK has the highest level of debt of any European country, much much higher than Greece. Propping up a country with unsustainable gov spending is not a sign of a strong economy, just ask Greece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.19.73.39 (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Arts sector

Does anyone have any information on the contribution of the arts sector (sometimes called creative industries, I think, i.e. film, music, etc.) to the UK economy? I seem to remember reading somewhere that music was our fifth biggest export - not entirely convinced by that but seeing as I have a professional interest in the subject I'd like to know. Cheers --Kick the cat (talk) 12:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There's some info here and an old BBC article that says music is the UK's third largest export in terms of market share (which doesn't mean it's the third largest export though). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Further expansion of other industries

THere appears to be a huge amount of information on the manufacturing and agricultural industries, but little to none on all the others, where the figures from the Blue book seem to be the only things shown. Each section at least needs to be measured in size relative to the UK economy, can anyone find some figures to add to these sections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.155.141 (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

UK Economy's world's sixth largest, Europe's third

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5299162.ece

How do we go about editing this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.0.254.41 (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion here. The article uses the ranking at List of countries by GDP (nominal), which is based on IMF and World Bank data. Until that is updated, it is best to stick with the current ranking since we can't update all of the positions based on newspaper articles about the UK's position. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok, makes sense. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.0.254.41 (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone has switched it in spite of this, I'll switch it back. TastyCakes (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Missing oil and gas

Theres nothing about the importance of oil and gas in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.103.203 (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the UK's debts are secured against the North Sea oil reserves. It is worth in excess of £266 Million as of 2007 (much, much more valuable now) and it should be included in the opening paragraph. Oil is a very important part of the UK economy, Thatchers 80s recovery was heavily dependent on the Oil and gas reserves. More so I think the intro should have a brief breakdown of the important sections of the UK economy, banking, services, oil & gas, manufacturing, retail and so on. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.251.160 (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree it should be talked about more, do you guys have sources to support the stuff above? TastyCakes (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see you've already added it. I think more detail (reserves, production, values) should be elaborated on in another section as well... TastyCakes (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, more info is needed. Does anybody have anything on the Falklands projected oil reserves? We didnt go to war for nothing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.19.73.39 (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Revised Q3 growth

There are rumours going round (the reliable kind) that Q3 growth (already revised up from -0.4 to -0.3) is near certain to be revised up further....possibly even to not have shrunk, though the likely figure I hear is -0.1. No official sources yet, so doubt it'd go in....but a headsup to whoever watches this page to keep an eye out for the official revision in a few weeks. While typing this I see this quote "We still think there are further upward revisions to come [to the third quarter figures]. I think it will end up at close to zero but it takes time." here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8378129.stm. But mebe that'd break crystal ball. 92.2.3.171 (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Intro - too focused on the recent?

It seems to me that the intro is much too focused on recent economic news rather than the big picture stuff. I have no problem with the recent turbulence being in their somewhere, but the intro should be the broad strokes, not talking about various quarters of 2009 and so on. What do you guys think? TastyCakes (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right. The fifth and sixth paragraphs of the lead were far too detailed and conflicted with the Lead section guideline, so I've moved them into the Recent economic performance section. More generally there is a overwhelming trend towards Recentism and it would be helpful if the "Overview" section included an outline of the Economic history of the United Kingdom. If you are an economic historian—I'm afraid I'm not—perhaps you could help re-balance the article? - Pointillist (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not :). Thanks for your changes though, I think the intro is much better now. TastyCakes (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Some one has suggested the economy, as diverse as the UK's, was put into slow growth because of snow. There are no refs for this claim, they have put there opinion in front of a ref for the UK statistics relating to the preceding point, can we remove it?

Also there is a point after about the OECD, which does not make sense, it claims there will be 3.1% growth in the economy in Q3. Another unsubstantiated claim. Is there a link to this claimed figure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.251.160 (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the claim the snow caused slow growth in Q1 of 2010. I searched for stats on the projected loss of growth and found nothing factual.

I think now the UK gov has changed there should possibly be a new small section on forcast recovery from the new coalition gov, as it has very very diff policies on recovery than labour's fiscal stimulas comapred to the concentration of the Con & Lib Dems plan to reduce the UKs debt. It worked for the Clinton Administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.19.73.39 (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent Economy

This section is full of unsubstantiated opinions, most of them highly inaccurate.

“It has been suggested that the UK initially lagged behind its European neighbours because the UK entered the 2008 recession later”

“Many commentators in the UK were certain that the UK would leave recession officially in Q3”

We are talking about the economy, facts, figures and projections should be the only information in this article. The numbers don't lie. Not only are these opinions, there are no references to who said them.

Is it OK if I remove anything not proven? I will search for relevant links where appropriate. Replacing “the BBC reports” with the actual papers the news article was created from.

Any questionable claims should be posted here for review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.19.73.39 (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Use of dollars

Why are the gdp figures in $? Please change them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.130.243 (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Because this is how a lot of the data is released and would be innacurate to convert continiously, because of fluctuations in exchange rates. Also, using one currency for all articles makes it easier to compare between them. Jolly Ω Janner 15:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

so why is Euros used and this information is more likely to be used by British business and finance students so it wpuld easier to have it in sterling to compare with other data —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.126.58 (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Sorry but "because this is how a lot of the data is released" isnt a good argument i doubt the british government would release the date about the UK economy in dollars when the intended users are British subjects, and why dont you have both then as the article is more often used by British business and finance students should would be more benefitual — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.35.117 (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I changed the import/export figures to sterling while updating them because this is how the data is released and it would be inaccurate to convert, because of fluctuations in exchange rates. Asuffield (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to second this complaint. As far as accuracy goes, the UK GDP must be measured in £ because that is the currency in use in the UK. Any translation into dollars or euros is guaranteed to be incorrect because it involves an assumed exchange rate. The excuse for using dollars is so as to allow comparison of figures internationally, but frankly quoting dollars and euros is an insult! Why not quote the figures in dollars and yen? I came here because I wnated to know what the UK GDP is...and I still dont! All I have is choice of inaccurate dollar or euro equivalents. What exchange rate should I apply? Sandpiper (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Intro vandalism

Can user:Ledenierhomme please stop continuously removing a large section of the introduction without consensus which is supported by sources from the G7, G20, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, CIA, Forbes, and MasterCard? Australisian (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I stated my reasons for the edit - namely, (1) that the statement was not to be found ANYWHERE in ANY of the sources, and (2) that the language is inappropriate at any rate: "At the start of the 21st century however..." does that sound like encyclopedic language for an INTRODUCTION? No. But you just carried on reverting, so I followed suit, because frankly, I just couldn't be bothered repeating myself over and over again. Ledenierhomme (talk) 07:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You had no consensus to remove a large and long standing part of the introduction, which is fully supported by several very reliable sources. Your account history and talk page are littered with edit warring and this instance is no different. Your account appears to have no regard for the 3 revert rule, which you appear to have broken numerous times and been warned about this on your talk page numerous times. The G7 and G20 sources state their member economies are important in the global economy, the IMF, World Bank, and CIA sources state the UK economy is one of the largest in the world, and the Global Financial Centres Index, Forbes, and Mastercard sources state London is the world's largest financial centre. You cannot without consensus remove a large and long standing part of the introduction which is supported by several reliable sources. That is why I have and will continue to revert any attempts to remove this long standing, well sourced information. Australisian (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, just rambling nonsense. You're the one who breached the 3RR first, aren't you? You had no consensus to keep reverting my edit, did you? I'm not going to repeat myself. If you genuinely think that's appropriate language for an introduction, then, well, what else is there to say... - Ledenierhomme (talk) 08:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not required to revert the article to its prior state before an edit which did not have consensus. 3RR applies to those who change the article to a version without consensus more than 3 times. Australisian (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"Consensus is not required to revert the article to its prior state before an edit which did not have consensus." You realize what you typed there makes absolutely no sense whatsoever? "Consensus" is not required to make an edit. It is required when there is a DISPUTE over an edit. But I'm sure you knew that already.... ;-) - Ledenierhomme (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You are vandalising the article by deleting long standing, well sourced sections from the introduction without consensus. You cannot delete long standing, well sourced information from the article without consensus. That is vandalism and your account has a long history of it. Australisian (talk) 04:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, i get such kicks out of "vandalising" intros into such articles. I love it. My account has an enormous history of it. You've found me out! (care to point to a single example? No? not got any? surprise...) Ledenierhomme (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

rephrase your brochure language, and your hissy-fit will become redundant. -

Here are just a couple of examples of previous warnings on your talk page about edit warring [6] and [7]. Judging by the mostly negative comments on your talk page and that your contribution history largely consists of reverts and edit warring it is of no surprise that you are doing the same here. If you disagree with long standing, well sourced information on an article rather than deleting it and engaging in an edit war you need to gain consensus on the talk page and present reliable sources supporting your claims. Australisian (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Those two examples do not involve "vandalizing" intros to articles, do they? All you can do is launch feeble ad hominem attacks, you haven't once addressed the substance of my edit - namely, that the intro is too long and that the language is inappropriate. You started the edit war. My removing that redundant sentence was in itself wholly uncontroversial, no one else seemed to object. You breached 3RR and then asked for protection when I did the same. You've been a member for all of about 2 weeks, before you began this frivolous edit war. Whereas I have made countless lengthy contributions to articles on topics ranging from Irish association football, to the War in the Vendee, to the Kurdistan Democratic Party. So I'd say I would have rather less of a history of "edit warring" than your good self - if you're going to get personal. But keep it up, you're certainly making yourself look more than a little obsessive about this "At the beginning of the 21st century" phrase... - Ledenierhomme (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Those two examples are indeed examples of you being warned about your edit warring. You should know that on Wikipedia you cannot delete a long standing, well sourced section of the introduction from the article without gaining consensus from editors and providing reliable sources supporting your case. Your account is little more than an edit war account considering some 50% of your edits are reverts of other users' edits and so it doesn't surprise me you have no regard for rules on Wikipedia. So long as you continue to delete long standing, well sourced information without gaining consensus and providing supporting reliable sources then your edits too will be reverted. Australisian (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Why on earth would I require "sources" to alter the phrasing of a sentence to make it read more encyclopedic? And why on earth would I need "consensus" when you're the ONLY one who, for some unfathomable reason, objects? Ledenierhomme (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You are attempting to remove large ammounts of long standing well sourced content from the introduction, not add any. You need consensus to so this. Australisian (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If, as he says, the sources do not support the text, he does not need consensus to remove it. Do the sources support the text or not? Have you looked? Yworo (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not "more encyclopedic" or "alter the phrasing of a sentence" when your edit is one which removes large sections of long standing well sourced content from the introduction without consensus. You require sources in order for the content of the article not to be your wp:original research. Australisian (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The sources are from such organisations as the G7, G20, IMF, World Bank, CIA, City of London Corporation, Forbes, and Mastercard. And yes I have read the sources and each sources supports the text which it is placed next to. Australisian (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Besides, how come now he is attempting to remove other content which he didn't take problem with before, whilst now leaving the content which he did take problem with in the beginning? Australisian (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, then I suggest you discuss placement. The lead actually appears to be overly long and detailed. Typically, a lead is more summary-like. Also, it is typically not cited because it summarizes more detailed material placed later in the article which is cited. Please take the other editor seriously and have a discussion, rather than violating WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA by calling them a vandal. Yworo (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I am welcome for users to discuss changing the article and reaching a consensus on that change. However, the matter was the user wanting to change the article didn't seek consensus before changing the article. I welcome reducing the size of the introduction, so long as all editors agree. Australisian (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems like you and he are the only currently active editors (at least on this talk page). Therefore no consensus can actually be achieved. Also, there is no rule requiring an editor to "get consensus" in advance. When two editors are reverting each other multiple times, they should stop and discuss. I am going to stay out of editing the article, but you might try getting a third opinion or filing a content request for comment. Unless you get more editors joining this discussion, I don't see how your claim of "consensus" has any meaning, with only two editors involved. Yworo (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes on smaller articles there are not many users regularly editing the article, so if there are only two or three users then the user wanting to change the article should get consensus with what few editors there are. There being only a small number of editors is not an excuse to by pass consensus. Australisian (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

My proposal is some of the information regarding current events could be trimmed from the introduction. This needs to be agreed upon to decide what gets trimmed. Australisian (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think some of the information regarding growth rates should be moved from the introduction as it could be better placed in relevant sections on the article and it consists of a large ammount of the introduction. Australisian (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a great start. You might want to point out (somehow) exactly where the supporting text is in the references for the text being removed. Providing quotes to the other party can be useful. Perhaps he is simply scanning the sources too quickly. If you assume he is sincere but mistaken for whatever reason, he will most likely interact with you respectfully as well. Yworo (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like him to come to agreement on what should be changed. So far he usually doesn't comment when he reverts, hasn't attempted to engage here much, and his changes seem to randomly vary without reason given, hence I've considered it to be vandalism. Australisian (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ledenierhomme had the chance to engage and act constructively, but instead decided to at best edit war and at worst vandalise the article. The content of this article was built over time, forged by the consensus of the many who have contributed to it. Deleting sections of well sourced long standing content of this article requires seeking consensus, especially if there are others, such as myself, who oppose it. I have told Ledenierhomme many times on this talk page that he requires consensus for such changes, only to be ignored. To continue to delete sections of well sourced long standing content over and over again, randomly deleting various content, giving no or little reason for doing so, is unacceptable. I would welcome constuctive engagment with Ledenierhomme, but the behavior shown so far cannot work towards a constructive engagement and appears to show little desire for this. Hopefully this could change. Australisian (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"Come to an agreement"? "Act constructively"? All you've done is revert every attempt I've made to fix the intro, without giving any specific reasons at all. Tell us, please, which specific alteration do you object to, and for what specific reason? - Ledenierhomme (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I've told you over and over again on this talk page that you cannot remove paragraphs from the article such as the ones you have without getting consensus first. I object to you removing important introductionary sentences such as "The United Kingdom is one of the world's most globalised countries. The capital, London (see Economy of London), is a major financial centre for international business and commerce, the largest such in the world according the Global Financial Centres Index." and ""At the start of the 21st century however, the UK still maintains an important role in the global economy, due to its large gross domestic product and the financial importance that its capital, London, possesses in the world.". Australisian (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Economy of India may be a good article to read on how to write about countries economies. It has a paragrph on the history, but the rest is current data. Jolly Ω Janner 17:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There's a lot of information on growth rates too in the introduction which could be placed in more relevant sections of the article. Australisian (talk) 02:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Below is a block quote of the stuff removed. Should make it easier when commenting on it, instead of having to refer back to comparing revisions.

The United Kingdom is one of the world's most globalised countries. The capital, London (see Economy of London), is a major financial centre for international business and commerce, the largest such in the world according the Global Financial Centres Index. by Q4 of 2009 with a weak 0.4%; followed by a 0.2% growth in Q1 of 2010. . The recovery from the recession is expected to be slow. The British government expects annual growth in 2010 to be between 1% and 1.5% and 3.5% in 2011. By 2030, The United Kingdom is expected to have to largest economy in Europe, overtaking France in 2013 and Germany in 2027.

There's no reason to remove this paragraph. Just the other day Ledenierhomme was trying to remove the paragraph "At the start of the 21st century however, the UK still maintains an important role in the global economy, due to its large gross domestic product and the financial importance that its capital, London, possesses in the world.". Such random deletion is obviously vandalism. I'm surprised editors are falling for this attempt to delete random paragraphs from the article without reason. Australisian (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe the phrases "by Q4 of 2009 with a weak 0.4%; followed by a 0.2% growth in Q1 of 2010. [4]. The recovery from the recession is expected to be slow. The British government expects annual growth in 2010 to be between 1% and 1.5% and 3.5% in 2011. [5]" should be removed. The rest I think has some merit for inclusion, especially noting London as a global financial hub. It's always good to have some mention in the lead of future direction of economies, but I think with the UK it may be a bit too uncertain to say it will be the largest in Europe. We wouldn't want to be looking into a crystal ball about some issues. Jolly Ω Janner 17:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh and by the way Ledenierhomme won't be able to reply here until tomorrow afternoon, because he is blocked (ironically due to edit warring). Jolly Ω Janner 17:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems Australisian also ignored his warning and reverted a fourth time in 24 hrs. Don't know if he will be blocked, but the article has been protected in response to that move, it seems. Yworo (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the same as I think. Frivolous information such as that regarding growth rates should removed while important descriptive information such as the size of the UK economy, how globalised it is, and the importance of London should remain. Australisian (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Jolly Janner. Looks like we've found the "consensus" you were looking for Australisian ;-) - Ledenierhomme (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

In national and regional variation, the map should be updated to the 2007 version. All you have to do is change the year in the filename to 2007 and the date on the caption to 2007. Jolly Ω Janner 00:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Y Done Jolly Ω Janner 20:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Joining the Euro.

The text reads:

Until relatively recently there was debate over whether or not the UK should abolish its currency Pound Sterling and join the Euro.

I would dispute this. Euro membership is still on the cards. The Liberal Democrats favour the idea (however they have suspended their Euro-policy as a concession to the coalition), there are some in the Labour and Conservative parties who also favour it. Many in the UK favour the idea. While I can't see it happening any time too soon, once the sovereign debt crisis has been calmed down and tougher rules on treasuries have been established then doubtlessly the debate will resurge, and in time Britain will probably adopt the single currency.

I don't think it does the issue justice to make out as if it was a past-debate like the reform of the corn laws.

If no one objects I shall change it to something that reflects the reality a little better.

Regards,

Mtaylor848 (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"Many in the UK favour the idea." - that would depend on your definition of many. It is very clear a large majority of people in the United Kingdom oppose joining the euro, even many liberal democrats do not want to join. As a big supporter of the European Union, id never want us to join the euro which is so deeply flawed and always has been.

Britain will not adopt the Euro for decades, mentioning that the government has no intention of joining the euro over the next 5 years is valid and relevant. A mention of the positions the main 3 parties take is also justified, however whilst the lib dems are pro EU they aint desperate for joining the euro and would hold a referendum, a referendum that polls show they would lose badly. Public opposition to it should also be mentioned.

I do agree with you though that the wording should be changed. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

David Cameron has stated categorically to the House of Commons that the UK will not enter the Euro in the current Parliament, so that seems to leave little room for doubt; the sentence therefore seems fairly accurate, although of course it could be further explained. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those debates which will never be settled and it would be wrong to say the debate is over. There is pretty large agreement that this would not be a good time to join, but give it five years for the current financial crisis to settle down, and who knows. Official statements by political leaders are also notoriously unreliable. Sandpiper (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Since when is London the capital of the UK

As this is a protected article on the UK economy I see no way of correcting this inaccuracy.The UK has no capital.It is incredibly stupid to write that London is the capital of the UK.Who on earth allows this extremely offensive "fact" to be printed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1robbbie (talk • contribs) 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I am unsure if you are trolling, but as you seem new, I will apply good faith. Often a capital is the headquarters of a country's government among other factors. London, being the largest city and the HQ of the Houses of Parliament is therefore the capital. The articles on London, United Kingdom and capital city might help you. Jolly Ω Janner 17:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you are Scottish? Even if Scotland is devolved and has a parliament of its own, the capital of UK (not Scotland) is London. The fact that the UK consists of different countries is shown on the UK article and the capital of each country is shown on their respective articles. 94.193.61.168 (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You have obviously never seen a map or left the house if you don't now that the capital of the UK is London, the UK has had london as its capital since 1801 with the act of union so I fail to see where you can get such a stupid idea of an offensive "fact" that london isnt the capital, what is incredibly stupid is the fact you belive the UK has no capital. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.126.58 (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Dont understand!!!

In the intro of this article after it talks about 0.3% growth in Q1 2010 and 1.1% growth in Q2 2010 its gives an anual growth of 1.6%!!!!!

From what I understand 0.3% + 1.1% = 1.4%, so for the next 6 moths of the year can we only expect around 0.2% growth? Recon.Army (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The 1.6 is Q3, Q4 2009, Q1, Q2 2010. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not the annual growth rate for 2010. It's just the growth rate for the previous year (four quarters) before Q2, 2010. The growth rates were: 2009 Q3 (-0.26), 2009 Q4 (0.41), 2010 Q1 (0.33), 2010 Q2 (1.1). Add them up and it equals 1.58%, rounded to 1.6%. Jolly Ω Janner 11:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for that mate, thats good to hear. Fingers X for good growth for the rest of the year! Recon.Army (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Internet accounts for 7.2% of the UK's GDP

...and set to grow at 10%pa according to this report from Boston Consulting Group (BCG) for Google. If the internet was an economic sector it would be the UK's fifth largest. Don't know how to integrate this into the article and it's a good article which I don't want to mess up. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 09:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Is the internet considered an economic sector? I suppose the best place for it currently would be as a subheading under industry, especially as it is larger than transport which also has a subheading. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The inference is that it isn't an official economic sector, which makes sense - it's a low cost communications channel offered by existing businesses. I think the fact that the UK is the world's leading nation for e-commerce warrents a mention in the article somewhere as it's something we obviously do well - "The UK, according to the report, is the world's leading nation for e-commerce. For every £1 spent online to import goods, £2.80 is exported. "This is the opposite of the trend seen in the offline economy, which exports 90p for every £1 imported," the report says. Internet companies play a vital role in employment with an estimated 250,000 staff, the report finds." -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 16:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

By those numbers it seems the internet if slightly larger could balance trade much more. Whole new section maybe? Or the article could be rewritten to cover each sector independently. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that it would be really good to get this information about the internet into the article. As you say the internet is not a specfic sector but a few sentences could go in the opening paragraphs of the services section, similar to tourism (which is also not a 'sector' as such but cross-cuts a number such as hotels and restaurants and transport).Rangoon11 (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

UK's national debt has jumped

I found out in debtbombshell.com, that yesterday the UK's national debt was at £1 trillion, but today it has jumped to £2.3 trillion. That's the first time I've seen it happen. Sjkop123 (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

1 Jankel = 2 Pounds —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.227.9.244 (talk) 07:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

currency listing

the average monthly salary and gdp are in euro and dollars, it should be in pound to make it easier for British people to understand especially as it is the national currency and US Dollars is understandable as it is a universal, but why it has euros is stupid its not legal tender in the UK it makes it difficult when using the information for school as you have to spend time converting to sterling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.126.58 (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. While I understand the "comparison" argument, that's what List of countries by GDP (nominal) is for, where all countries are compared in dollar terms. For a country's GDP to be listed in two different currencies, but not its own? In other words, the GDP of the United Kingdom, in its own currency, does not appear on Wikipedia at all (even though official sources will use the UK£)? Ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llamasharmafarmerdrama (talk • contribs) 19:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I see there are now two topics complaining about this. I agree, it must quote pounds as well.Sandpiper (talk)