New cuts for old.

The recession began in 2008 and by 2009 the first of the 'cuts' were initiated. Some may think that most of the cuts have now been made and it is simply a question of leveling things out in readiness for the upturn. Er - Nope. Not so. 2013 will be the year the 'real' cuts will be introduced. Anything previously have just been window dressing to acclimatise joe public towards the fact that things ain't going to be what they used to be.
Stand ready for blast - and be ready to 'blast' back and remember - they will last the year, 2014 will be 'paper over the cracks year' in readiness for the 2015 election when the Con (and what a con)/Lib (and what a liberty) pact will fragment in time for you to re-elect them into office for another five years. And you know what - many of you will. How barmy is that????

Agree.
Notice there are no cuts or austerity for the well off. The bankers and politicians who caused the mess are doing very well for themselves.

True UTD. How can anyone make a bonus while they have made losses or in some of the Banks case paid with bonuses from TAXPAYERS money that propped up the banks.

Seems to be a fashion in this country to pay a bonus for a loss of profit.

We're going backwards.

When my father spoke of the 1920s depression I never thought I would witness some of the hardship he spoke about in 2012.

The world looks particularly unstable and unpredictable at the moment. What happens here is dragged along by larger events.

I would agree cyfrifia in that global events do have some influence on us here in these little islands - and perhaps so they should. No man is an island likewise no nation.
Firstly (as someone posted) the times of the 1920s were nothing like what is happening today but if one wishes to take an 'updated' view it will rank as a bad time considering the recent past and a time that has still yet to run its course. Too many people on the planet doesn't help - it's unsustainable and will be so until nature takes a hand - or man does something very stupid which is the most likely scenario.
But to get back to our own predicament - your main concern is the next fifty years (mine much more limited) and to combat the present crisis one will need to be pragmatic and play out events in such a way as to lessen the effects. Firstly - stamping ones foot on the neck of a politician won't work nor will stamping ones foot in frustration. Do your work properly. Spend don't save. Complain and boycott bad service or rip-off merchants and be POSITIVE. The sooner you do the sooner things will change. If you have time on your hands - give it voluntarily to any 'cause' that needs it. Remember there are billions of others worse off than you. Oh yes - and keep smiling.

Yes Atlas, some good ideas there. The huge and increasing world population does seem to be the underlying problem. What, if anything can be done about that is another question, but it seems to be taking a while for people to recognise that there is a population problem.

People have the idea that you can stand the population of the world on the Isle of Wight, and that there are enough resources to feed everyone, just badly distributed. There are huge areas of the world still hardly inhabited, global warming will free up areas like Canada, Greenland and Russia for population expansion.

Depends how you weigh it up and understand the situation. I estimate that, taking everything into account, including human behavior, we are over the maximum world population the planet can cope with already.

The general census of opinion would agree with your assessment that we have already passed the point of no return in population. Not because we cannot feed everyone. Not because we cannot resource sufficiently - but because we don't and won't 'share' what there already is or could be. Water will become the next big problem over which humankind will war. It is already happening in many parched areas of the planet and can only get worse. Food of course has been a problem since Adams time. But for we lucky few in this corner of the globe, we shall live out our lives basically immune to such needs regardless of how 'bad' we may perceive things to be.
So - Keep smiling. You have good cause to.

We tend to think of overpopulation in countries like China and India, but depending how you measure it, comparing resources and land available rather than just numbers, the middle east and europe are densely populated, and the UK very overpopulated. Europe has coped because it's been rich, and well connected with trade. The UK became wealthy by exporting it's population into it's empire and building up it's international trade, including a good amount of piracy, theft and exploitation.

The end of empire left the UK with a reservoir of wealth and global connections, we have been able to support our population on imported goods and food, in a situation that depends on global economics and political and trade arrangements.

For the moment, we are in a fairly hunky-dory situation with as you say, Atlas, every reason to think ourselves lucky, but the way things are developing internationally, the effects of world over-population and consequent pressures on resources leaves the UK looking vulnerable. I think the UK would be happier, more stable and manageable with less population to cope with and support. Countries like Canada, where there is much more land and natural resources could better absorb population pressures. They say Africa could easily feed itself if it organised itself to, whether people are in a lucky or unlucky place for food and future seems to depend on how they are run and organised.