The shame of Austerity Britain

Allyg

I have no idea what your post at 20.59 Thurs 8th June is meant to be saying. I don't know why you 'double quoted' (i.e my quote from your original post is quoted with my name on it)

I don't understand why you are going on about austerity in Greece; you appear to have missed this sentence in my post Governments which control their own sovereign currency . The thread subject is about 'Austerity Britain' (a country which does have its own sovereign currency) and my post is about why the tory 'austerity' policy since 2015 has been completely unnecessary and why your 'maxing the credit card analogy' is completely false.

You may have nothing at all relevant to say in response to that, I don't know, but while bringing in completely irrelevant opinion on a country in the eurozone may satisfy your desire to denigrate the EU whenever possible it doesn't move discussion on the thread subject any further forward.

And would you please try to format your posts in such a way as to make them clearer. It's not difficult. Gnet has very simple instructions under the 'reply' box.

Maisie if you don't understand my post. Don't bother responding. That way no one knows that you don't understand it.

Thank you for all your advice.

"MaizieD Fri 08-Jun-18 23:21:14
AllygI have no idea what your post at 20.59 Thurs 8th June is meant to be saying. I don't know why you 'double quoted' (i.e my quote from your original post is quoted with my name on it)"

MaizieD can't find the post your referring to on the 8th June at 20.59.

allyg "Economic austerity affects society, it is not political."
What does this mean?
You surely can't mean that on so many levels!
For a start economic policies are by definition political in that they influence political actions.
Secondly, anything that "affects society" is political.

Austerity is a political-economic term referring to policies that aim to reduce government budget deficits through spending cuts, tax increases, or a combination of both. from Wikipedia

MaizieD can't find the post your referring to on the 8th June at 20.59.

That's because it was on 7th June not 8th. My error.

Maisie if you don't understand my post. Don't bother responding.

I understood it absolutely fine. Just couldn't understand why you were posting something irrelevant to the thread subject.

Thank you for all your advice.

It's a pleasure.

MaizieD. Thank you for correcting your posting day error I have now looked at the posting and will post a response later today.

It is very difficult to respond to your post if you say you "don't understand" and then you say "you understood it absolutely fine". What I think you are saying is that you don't regard my post to be relevant to what you said. I do. However I have done a very detailed and lengthy response using the words of "professional's" on the subject by cutting and pasting. Something to look forward to later to day.

What I think you are saying is that you don't regard my post to be relevant to what you said.

That's remarkably astute of you, Ally, considering that I've twice, myself, stated that I thought your post was irrelevant to the thread topic.

. " mostlyharmless Sat 09-Jun-18 04:49:44
allyg "Economic austerity affects society, it is not political."
What does this mean?
You surely can't mean that on so many levels!
For a start economic policies are by definition political in that they influence political actions.
Secondly, anything that "affects society" is political."

Just a quick response Mh. "Economic austerity affects society, it is not political." You ask what does this mean.
It means that austerity is one tool used to control the economy to prevent economic collapse of markets, and economies of country's (depression). Recession, as we have gone through since 2008, was worldwide and could easily have slipped into depression.

The austerity tool affects society and has political consequences. So the definition you give "Austerity is a political-economic term referring to policies that aim to reduce government budget deficits through spending cuts, tax increases, or a combination of both." from Wikipedia is defining the term. The action of austerity measures and all other corrective instruments being used is triggered by economic conditions and in a recession is forced by outside economic factors. The choice of economic theory or theories, chosen to correct the economic downturn affects society and will have political consequences.

There are so many theories about how to handle such economic situation all of which might be chosen by any political persuasion in Government. Mainly the central Bank or in our case The Bank of England, which should be independent of political favour has enormous influence in how the economic instruments will be used, so non political corrective measures.
It is simplistic to put austerity down to politics. It is first and foremost a fall back situation to survival. The length, depth and type of recession will determine for how long austerity measure continue. At that point it becomes socio/economic/political. But my study of economics was part of other study so I am in no way knowledgeable beyond basic understanding.
It also seems that we are (world economics) is moving beyond a lot of the theories and actions used in the past. So as the cycle of recession moves from every 20 years, to every 10 years and possible if Schumpeter is to be believed ever closer upturns and downturns, we shall have to see more flexible sovereign debt actions. This of course places the Eurozone in particular danger.
All my own work.

Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950)
“Schumpeter and the economists who adopt his succinct summary of the free market’s ceaseless churning echo capitalism’s critics in acknowledging that lost jobs, ruined companies, and vanishing industries are inherent parts of the growth system. The saving grace comes from recognizing the good that comes from the turmoil. Over time, societies that allow creative destruction to operate grow more productive and richer; their citizens see the benefits of new and better products, shorter work weeks, better jobs, and higher living standards.”

www.econlib.org/library/Enc/CreativeDestruction.html
Now, if you want a real discussion about politics, capitalism v other forms of economic/social control. No political group unless they understand this will govern their countries to survive economically or socially intact.

This is where we should start, with Schumpeter’s “perennial gale” of Creative Destruction. It is I believe where the twenty first century will go: is going, economically protecting the inevitable continuously and changing people(s), affected by fast changing skill requirements, whilst efficiently preparing us for the next skill sets required. Rapid change, technology will aid all this until I believe there will be a basic ‘wage’ for all and work will be plus income. Exciting, scary and the future. I will be long gone. How I wish I could go round again in these times.
All my own work. Gone off thread again!! Long post sorry.

Mailed Why are you so scratchy? We all have problems you know. No need to bring it on line.

Sorry checker changed MaizieD to Mailed. It is for you Maizie.

MaizieD, here is my long, cut and pasted response as promised earlier in the day. You start with:
“I don't understand why you are going on about austerity in Greece; you appear to have missed this sentence in my post Governments which control their own sovereign currency . The thread subject is about 'Austerity Britain' (a country which does have its own sovereign currency) and my post is about why the tory 'austerity' policy since 2015 has been completely unnecessary and why your 'maxing the credit card analogy' is completely false.”

Response:
“Deborah Mabbett and Waltraud Schelkle LSE European Institute”
“The choice of comparator countries does matter here. The UK has done nicely out of its monetary sovereignty, with the Bank of England now holding about £375 billion in gilts – 25-30 per cent of the debt stock, depending on how you measure it. But it has been able to do this without inducing a deep slide in sterling only because of the fortuitous fact that sterling remains a reserve currency. Sterling could have lost that status, but it was aided by the problems affecting other reserve currencies, including the dollar and the euro.”
blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2014/04/03/the-lack-of-monetary-sovereignty-is-not-the-reason-eurozone-countries-struggled-during-the-crisis/

“National economies are not like household or personal economies. This is just a myth promulgated by one set of economic theorists.”

Response:
Which set of economic theorists?

“Households and individuals have a finite amount of money. They cannot spend more than they have unless they are prepared to take on debt which they very likely cannot afford to repay (or even service in many cases)”.

Response:
Is this not the maxed out credit card/consolidation borrowing theory?

“Governments which control their own sovereign currency are not confined to a finite amount of money. They were in the old days of currency being pegged to the gold standard but that was abolished in the early 1970s.
They are not confined to a finite amount now. Nor are they actually obliged to borrow from anyone to finance their spending (though they still do to a certain extent by issuing government bonds).”

Response:
“Printing money and national debt”.
“Governments borrow by selling government bonds/gilts to the private sector. Bonds are a form of saving. People buy government because they assume a government bond is a safe investment. However, this assumes that inflation will remain low.
•If governments print money to pay off the national debt, inflation would rise. This increase in inflation would reduce the value of bonds.
•If inflation increases, people will not want to hold bonds because their value is falling. Therefore, the government will find it difficult to sell bonds to finance the national debt. They will have to pay higher interest rates to attract investors.
•If the government print too much money and inflation get out of hand, investors will not trust the government and it will be hard for the government to borrow anything at all.
•Therefore, printing money could create more problems than it solves.
•See also: Printing money and national debt”
www.economicshelp.org/blog/634/economics/the-problem-with-printing-money/

“The past decade has seen quite extensive use of Quantitative Easing (QE) whereby some £340+ billion has been created by the Bank of England, initially to cushion the economy against the international banking crisis of 2007/08.”

Response:
“In the liquidity trap of 2008-2012, the Bank of England pursued quantitative easing (increasing the monetary base) but this only had a minimal impact on underlying inflation. This is because although banks saw an increase in their reserves, they were reluctant to increase bank lending.
However, if a Central Bank pursued quantitative easing (increasing the money supply) during a normal period of economic activity then it would cause inflation.
Related
•National Debt, printing money and inflation
•Hyperinflation – causes, costs and examples”
Last updated: 10th July 2017, Tejvan Pettinger, www.economicshelp.org, Oxford, UK

“The objective of QE was to put money into the economy to keep it 'working'. Unfortunately it went mostly into the 'wrong' economy. Instead of going into the 'real', everyday economy (the one that you and I and most people exist in) through investment in infrastructure and new businesses (creating jobs and purchases which keep money moving around the economy and eventually returning to the treasury through taxation) much of it ended up in the financial markets, inflating bond and equity prices and making a lot of already wealthy people even wealthier.”

Response:
“The Bank of England brought its quantitative easing programme to a standstill last year, capping asset purchases at £435bn ($601bn). It has since indicated that the unwinding will begin when interest rates have returned to around two percent. The fact that QE is tried and tested is likely to mean that there is less reluctance to fall back on it in times of economic trouble. According to Reis: “I think that QE should be a tool that central banks use with some frequency in the future. It has proven to be effective at affecting financial markets and at providing signals about the future path of interest rates while having modest, if any, additional effects on actual inflation.” In any case, the big test of the coming months will be to redefine what is conventional for the central banks of the future.”
www.worldfinance.com/banking/the-qe-reversal

“We know that 'trickle down' doesn't really work. Wealthy people tend, on the whole, to put their money to work in the financial markets to make more money and then aim to pay as little tax on it as possible by squirrelling it away in tax havens. They may spend a bit more on high end goods and services but not enough to make a difference for most workers or businesses.”

Response:
Pension funds do too. This statement is all encompassing and may not be true that: “Wealthy people tend, on the whole, to put their money to work in the financial markets to make more money and then aim to pay as little tax on it as possible by squirrelling it away in tax havens”. What a generalization. I am sure some do, but really put some figures behind this statement or be more circumspect.

“There comes a point where restricting the money available in the 'real' market puts the cost of goods and services dependent on global market prices beyond the reach of 'ordinary' people and the businesses supplying these to the domestic market suffer loss of income which leads to cutting jobs and lessening the tax take from people's earnings and taxes on profits. Which makes no sense whatsoever.”

Response:
This growing clamour for an end to fiscal restraint has come on the back of news that the UK is finally running a budget surplus on day-to-day spending.
There is no doubt that this is a landmark achievement for the government. In 2010, the current budget deficit was nearly £100bn and this has now been wiped out – mostly thanks to the determination of George Osborne. It is easy to forget just how much pressure Osborne was under to abandon his fiscal consolidation plans. In the early part of this decade a chorus of voices, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF), proclaimed that fiscal consolidation was wrecking the economic recovery. Yet he broadly stuck to the course and the IMF has now concluded that Britain is much better off for it.
8 March 2018
By Daniel Mahoney @danielmCPS

But does the positive news on the current budget mean we can relax and loosen the purse strings? Timothy and others, including prominent backbencher Nick Boles, argue that now is the time for more departmental spending and greater government investment.The first thing to note is that there has already been a considerable amount of fiscal loosening since the EU referendum. These decisions will already cost the Exchequer nearly £60bn. Further extending this in a significant way would seem deeply irresponsible.
8 March 2018
Austerity worked – but that doesn’t mean we have money to spend
By Daniel Mahoney @danielmCPS

General information:
"Of course, this growing clamour for an end to fiscal restraint has come on the back of news that the UK is finally running a budget surplus on day-to-day spending.
There is no doubt that this is a landmark achievement for the government. In 2010, the current budget deficit was nearly £100bn and this has now been wiped out – mostly thanks to the determination of George Osborne. It is easy to forget just how much pressure Osborne was under to abandon his fiscal consolidation plans. In the early part of this decade a chorus of voices, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF), proclaimed that fiscal consolidation was wrecking the economic recovery. Yet he broadly stuck to the course and the IMF has now concluded that Britain is much better off for it."
8 March 2018
By Daniel Mahoney @danielmCPS

Mostly not my own work cut and pasted. Although I did the research, analysed the question and selected the response.
I agree with these views and opinions.

allyg: It is I believe where the twenty first century will go: is going, economically protecting the inevitable continuously and changing people(s), affected by fast changing skill requirements, whilst efficiently preparing us for the next skill sets required. Rapid change, technology will aid all this until I believe there will be a basic ‘wage’ for all and work will be plus income

Interesting that you think a “Basic income” model will be implemented. There was a discussion about this on the politics threads a few months ago.
It might be an antidote to Austerity policies and help boost the economy.
It should give people a steady (low) income that helps cushion them from redundancies, zero hours contracts, retraining for new jobs, helps the self employed with fluctuations in income, encourage creativity, hobbies and community work in an era of turbulent employment fluctuations.
It could be a very positive idea. It could be funded by lowering the tax threshold (at perhaps the higher tax rate £45,000 pa?) so allowing people with higher incomes to pay back their “basic income” in tax.

I gather that there is a new US presidential candidate who advocates “basic income”. All very interesting!

United States: Andrew Yang is running for President in 2020 on the platform of Universal Basic Income

basicincome.org/news/2018/04/united-states-andrew-yang-is-running-for-president-in-2020-on-the-platform-of-universal-basic-income/

Mostlyharmless. Yes I do feel that if Schumpeter is correct, and his “perennial gale” of Creative Destruction theory is to be the way the twenty first century world wide is to develop, then there will, inevitably I believe, be as you describe it, "turbulent employment fluctuation". The country's that see and understand this, and accept the inevitability of change, whilst, grasping the opportunities for social change that this present's will prosper, economically, socially, and technologically.

The issue will be acceptance that there will always be a proportion of the population either unemployed, retraining or in further or higher education with a view to planned employment opportunities. Skill shortages would be addressed.

The turnround, for want of a better word, in that population will be unlike unemployment as we have know it before. It will eventually be rapid, planned re-training or further or higher education to specific skill bases.

Basic income for all, will eventually also allow for personal development of choice, that might take a little longer but it will I feel sure be the future.

My feeling is that Country's who do not see this future coming, will I fear suffer social unrest and economic failure.

It is all so different to what we know and are use to. Even a little counter intuitive, however, change never comes easy, but come it does. When it does we have two choices, accept it and see opportunities or reject it and stagnate.

So yes, I am predicting that "basic income" as a social change agent in a capitalist world is the future.

What do you think about Andrew Yang standing for President on a platform of “universal basic income”? (See link above).
It could at least help raise the profile of UBI.
I’m not sure that VAT is the best way to fund UBI though.

mostlyharmless thanks for the link to Andrew Yangs UBI platform info.

There are a few things that concern me, not about UBI, the principle of which I sense is the way forward in the twenty first century, in a Capitalist world. It's about, as you say how to fund it? In this country the juxtaposition with the benefits system is another concern. So I guess I am saying that it must not be used in the first instance to replace a system for a previous time. Or as a sticking plaster, for a short term fix. Nor can it be an overnight innovation. It has to be structural, embedded, and across Governments. There is a danger that traditional political position of right across the spectrum and left across the spectrum, will hijack the concept and 'make it in their own image" so to speak, when in fact it is a restructuring of society to benefit from capitalism in a free world market. So Apolitical. So there will be a lot of built in resistance from traditional stances.
Andrew Yang, I am sorry to say will not succeed in my view, however, as you say it will raise the profile of UBI. This is just the sort of thing, that Trump would understand. He may have lots of fault, and I don't want to go there, but he does understand capitalism.

The big question how can UBI become part of a structural and embedded programme of economic action that will benefit and change society permanently. Not though the action of one President or one Government, be they left or right wing, or even Liberal. This is more than that.

Will you forgive me if I come back to you tomorrow on this I really do need to read up something and think about this a lot more. I am also quite tired and that affects my ability to respond well.

In the meantime take a look if you will at this link, it is about Schumpeters wave theory of innovative revolution. You might have come across it, if so accept my apology in advance. It explains so much about why we have to restructure society economically to benefit society from capitalism, prepare for constant change, and innovation. Whilst cushioning society from the negative side of this inevitable process, and capitalising on the benefits for all. Understanding what is going on is really the ground plan.

www.economist.com/node/186628

I will come back to you tomorrow.

www.sfha.co.uk/news/news-category/sfha-news/news-article/scotland-on-course-for-biggest-growth-in-social-housing-since-1970s

I'll just leave that there to show what can be done - where there is a will there is a way.

Scotland showing us how to do it. You’re right granny23. England and Wales just need to get on with it.

In England: But the new requirements focus firmly on home ownership and private renting. Any separate specification for what is urgently needed – building for low-cost renting by social landlords – is entirely absent.
www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2018/mar/19/affordable-homes-low-cost-rent-uk-planning-policy-government-developers?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

MaizieD On the topic of UBI and the response I posted last night. There isn't a lot more I can add to what has been said Maizie, other than to say that to remove UBI from being at the mercy of different political attitudes and therefore constantly in danger of being withdrawn, which would defeat the purpose of UBI as a major step in social change for the twenty first century, I have come to the conclusion that UBI would have to be given Act of Parliament status. This would embed the commitment of all political party's into the structure of our society in law.

All major social change in our Parliamentary democracy comes through being embedded in Law through an Act of Parliament and subsequent amendments. This would be the way to go.

The detail of how much is to be payed (has to be enough) a token amount would not work. Along with creating a robust national framework for identification and analysis of potential skill's requirements and vocational retraining/ further education or higher education over the short, medium and long term to offer the very best opportunities of gaining transferable skills that actually match the types of work available. This suggested framework essentially will have to be an integrated process, critical to the success of our economy the well being of all citizens and sustaining the UBI system so it works for society and the economy.

All very easy to say, not so easy to manage during the change process. But everything starts somewhere.

yes your comments are correct,but we must not forget the younger generation are brought up on debt , credit car companies have raised their credit limits so they keep on spending no thought on reducing debt at all,they all want their latest phones , internet, netflix, coffee and sandwiches out. Friday and Sat out spend spend spend. hols abroad etc etc .
I have 3 grown up adults and have spoken with many parents all have same problem, if you ever watch the sheriffs on TV they tell you the same problem younger generation do not mid if they go bankrupt where as we would see it as embarrassing!
the interest rates are the lowest for 60 + years but will the youngest save NO bank of mum and Dad or grandparents come to the rescue all too often .politicians of all parties blame each other they have lost the plot.
Hospitals have no where near enough beds, PFI was brought in some years back WHY??
I have lost 2 in laws and both parents in hospitals through neglect and received apologies but that does no good .
so the majority of the under 50,s should stop and look ahead as well as most politicians.

Pheasant75, I cannot disagree with anything you have said. As far as the Politicians are concerned, it strikes me that the main concern is to appease people who shout the loudest.

Your hospital neglect of two in laws is just becoming the norm, it seems. Your so right apology does not bring back the dead, nor does it compensate the deceased for the suffering they may have gone through at the hands of those they should be able to feel safe with and trust. Nor does it take away from the relatives the feeling that we should have noticed something, those nagging doubts stay for a life time.

There seems to me to be a deliberate attempt to drive a wedge between the young and the old in this Country. Whilst we should never generalise, some of the younger generations for the first time I believe, resent the old.

It seems to me that living in a Country with benefit systems, although believed not to be enough, means that unlike my parents generation and those before them, who lived in poverty, and by that I mean, they had no money, they lived from week to week till they got their pay packet. When they said we have no money, they meant, they had no money. Debt was a no, no because that could land you on the streets, or at certain times in the workhouse in previous generations.So generally the working poor lived well managed lives, because the alternative was too bad to risk.

Today, poverty is hidden in debt, and being poor, does not mean, austerity, often the debt poor, are surrounded by nice furniture, certainly high tech gadgets, a car, at least a couple of TV's and of course the IPhone, or iPad, every child seems to have a "tablet". Some might go to school not having had a breakfast, and teachers are feeding them, but this is not because of poverty, this is because of bad parenting, poor domestic management, and lack of care. How much does a bag of porridge oats's cost, I get a bag for £1. Cornflakes, 60p for own brand for a giant box. Six eggs, 60p, milk, for four litres, £2.00 . Smart price loaf of bread, 30p. Smart price jam, 30p. I could go on. So it is a matter of priorities, responsibilities, and not expecting the world to take care of us. Now this is a generalisation, some will fall outside of this description.

Sadly, I think no one is brave enough to tackle some of these real issues. It is the fear of the self appointed righteous pointing the finger and making everyone who does not think that everything should be provided for those 'in need', is an uncaring middle class monster. It is the definition of need, that needs urgently to be addressed.

If there is no effort to provide for oneself or family, but people are living in hidden poverty but in relative luxury, through debt. How far should the Country go, how far should the Bank of Mum and Dad go to support that hidden poverty? For that is what we do, we support it, thereby encouraging the, we want it all at any cost, mentality. We as a nation are doing those in the above position no favours in the long run, by continually bailing them out. What has happened to personal responsibility and self respect?

There has to be a reality check. Those in genuine need, those in debt need to be assisted, but only once. Multiple bankruptcy is a way of living for some, because they loose nothing, they keep the credit card purchases,the debt is written off, and once discharged off they go again. This is happening over and over in a lot of cases. What is that way of living teaching children in those circumstances, it becomes a learned behaviour, that might perpetuate the debt life style in future generations.

It is 'tough love" that is needed, kindness, caring for those in worse circumstances than the general population certainly, but for that, there has to be a return, an expectation of change. Nothing for nothing. Those in dire genuine need will always need the care of the nation and the communities in which they live. Sadly the hidden debt poor, live at the level of uncontrolled luxury goods, and outward affluence, that hides mismanaged lives.

You can't run a society fuelled by expectations that the population constantly updates their possessions, and buys things they don't actually need, in order to keep companies in business and not expect people to get into debt.

Especially when wages are not keeping pace with inflation.

I’m not sure that you’re talking about real poverty there allyg. This thread is about the homeless living on the streets and people having to use food banks because their welfare benefits have been suspended, or delayed by months.
The homeless are extremely unlikely to own multiple TVs, iPads and iPhones as you suggest.

Sadly Maizie that is capitalism, not the fault of our Government. The fault lies, with the Bank's. Barclays were if I recall the first to realise that selling money to the masses, in the form of a credit card was good business. Of course a lot more controlled in those days, but the business concept was established. Once Barclays sent out that credit card to all it's customers, that was it. I was one of them and I cut mine up along with lots of people at the time. Many did not,although it was virtually impossible for a long time to get into enormous amounts of credit card debt then. The controls on credit were good.

Sadly, as always those who see opportunity in human need and in some weakness, exploit the vulnerable. As we know: Pay-Day-Loans, exploitative interest rate credit cards, for people with bad credit, easy money with a big consequence. Easily accessed on line, one minute click and the money is in the lenders account within a few hours.

Maisie, there are always elements of most things on which we agree, however there is also a difference in who we blame. My view is that we do live in a time of access and excess and these two things are not good bedfellows, and will always leads to exploitation.

You are so right, about people getting into debt, but you know, we are free agents in this, we do have self control, we do have understanding that there will be enormous consequences for having everything we want, rather than need. Some people do not have that self control, no matter what the warnings are about interest rates, or increased credit limits offered by email. The temptations to the borrowers from the exploiters are many. But we have to take some responsibility for our actions and decisions. The alternative is a State I would not want to live in.

Equally I also believe the exploiters- the banks need controls, and if they can't self control, they must be brought to account, and controls imposed by law.

The only problem with this is, that it pushes lending underground and that is when the really vulnerable suffer, the desperate, those needing to use credit for living expenses, rather than things they want, and this is where we agree.

The exploitation once underground get's pushed downward because the exploiters become unseen, uncontrolled and then uncontrollable.

The whole thing is difficult and multi facetted with those being exploited often dependent on the exploiter, which always adds a dimension of resistance to controls by the very people the controls are designed to protect. Many want to have that access to that excessively expensive commodity -money, even if they can't afford it, because it accesses the things people want, rather than need.

One thing for sure Maize, something needs to be done about hidden poverty through credit, particularly for those who use credit to pay their bills as the norm, rather than those who create a lifestyle that is beyond their means with lavish purchases. This brings us back to one consideration UBI. Not the entire answer but worthy of investigation.

I would get too stressed reading these posts. Its something I feel deeply about. Can I just say ( as Bob Dylan said) we are only a pawn in their game.

annep, your quote from Bob Dylan captures exploitation in just a few words.

There are fortunately lot's of people who can help those trapped by these exploitative companies and sometime individuals who knock on doors. The less controlled the more difficult to deal with in law, but not impossible.

You say "this is something you feel deeply about", you might want to help anyone you know of or fear for, by volunteering with local debt support organisations. They are usually found in local newspapers or on notice boards in Supermarkets.

Or if people can't or don't want to get that involved, they can just let people know, that when things are totally out of control, they can go into Bankruptcy, it does not have the stigma once attached to it, and last for a much shorter time than in the past. People in genuine need who do not make Bankruptcy part of how they themselves exploit the system, should not fear going on line, there is a cost, but there is no humiliation attached to the process anymore.

Before doing so they should realise and check how it will affect them if they own property, or vehicles. Depending on how much they owe, it might mean selling the property. But the lenders will not be able to phone them, bother them in anyway, or take them to court, once they pay the fee and fill in the form to the Insolvency Service on line if they wish, the Insolvency Service will take over. It is less fraught for those who rent property, however, it might affect getting a new tenancy agreement, as there will be credit checks when doing so. Council or Housing Associations, are less stringent than private landlords.

I volunteer locally with a debt advice group, because I too feel very strongly about the hidden debt poverty trap.

The main thing is to let people know that if in difficulty with credit cards, or catalogue companies, they should phone them, offer to pay something and say for how long. They will need to work out how much is paid out to pay to live, and what is left is what you spread out between the creditors, proportionate to the amount they owe to each one, there is a formula and one or more of the people owed money will send a simple form to get that amount and then allocate what is left each week or month after living cost's to the creditors. If that works out at £1 and for another £2 then so be it.

Remind those you share this information with that, it will only be temporary arrangement, but the creditors will suspend in most cases, the interest, some will give them a payment holiday, there is a lot of help out there whilst people get themselves together and have time to think through their finances.

Sorry, I am always on my soap box to get this sort of information out there. Please, if you can tell more people, share the information. Thank you.