How safe will our economy be in the candidate’s hands?

Ha ha! What economy?

WWMk2, your opening to this thread sums everything up eloquently and accurately. I am greatly disturbed that people are now talking about Thatcherite economics as a positive, just how short are people's memories? It was her hand on the tiller that sold off housing stock with the results that we all see now, it was her that started the north/south divide, it was her that said there is no such thing as society and her that started the myth that a country had to be run like the housekeeping budget of a working class wife. I use 'her' repeatedly because I do not think I owe 'her' any courtesy or regard.

Maizie We could also increase GDP without exhausting resources, by increasing the provision of "caring" services. This would keep money flowing and, as ever, most of it would find its way back to the Treasury through taxation for the government to direct as it wishes. GDP doesn't have to be about producing physical goods.

PS. I know you know this.

I'm convinced that the unedifying sight of these candidates bickering and the general playground mud slinging amongst the party will do more to turn people away from actively engaging in politics than every aspect of the political debacle we've already had to endure from this incompetent government.

It's a shameful demonstration of the unproductive, self centred, insular infighting going on within the party. Worst of all it's something which most of us have no way of contributing to or resolving until the next general election.

I gave up after 30 minutes because Rishi was talking over Liz most of the time, not giving her a chance to talk. I do not want either of them but we are lumbered with one and we have no say in the matter.

Has that partying buffoon moved out yet?

growstuff

It's possible to have growth without producing more tangible goods. A significant percentage of the UK's GDP is made up of services. I agree with you that the country needs a more equitable distribution of wealth/resources.

We also have the problem of global warming and high energy costs. Labour are promising £28billion pa to be invested in green technologies and green energy.

There are areas, such as retro fitting insulation and double glazing to old housing, where there could be a place for traditional materials, such as wool and wood to replace synthetic materials. The demand for fleece for textiles is dropping rapidly, using it for insulation seems like a good use of available resources. Double glazing doesn't have to be made of plastic; we have wooden framed double glazing which is still fine after 20+ years.

We could be more inventive in our use of renewable materials. And in recycling materials like plastic instead of putting them in landfill or shipping them off to other countries. It all needs investment and it creates jobs.

It seems to me that 'green investment' can lead to growth, but sustainable growth which doesn't exhaust finite resources.

I agree with MOnica, we can't go on mindlessly consuming and wasting resources, but we can surely consume more cleverly? We can't just turn of the tap, so to speak. The population still has to be housed and clothed to a decent standard.

Casdon

I’m listening to the BBC now, good grief.

I do think this is the best put-together debate. The contestants are what they are but the BBC has done well.

RichmondPark1 Mon 25-Jul-22 20:12:50

Thank you RichmondPark and apologies to Dempsie if I misunderstood.

It is not the size of the national debt that matters, but what interest rate we are paying. Currently interest rates ar low so the cost of borrowing is quite low and we can sustain a large national debt.

The problem is when interest rates start rising, they are creeping up at present, but if they reach 5% or more - and many of us can remember interest rates at 10% or more. then the cost of servicing debt gets expensive.

I haven't checked this out, but I seem to remember that the debt takes the form of government bonds, with a fixed interest and a fixed term. a bit like a fixed rate mortgage and when they expire they need to be renegotiated for a new term and new interest rate. Thats when the flak can hit the fan. However, I think, the government has issued some bonds with very long dates.. I have checked it out and it is all explained on this site www.dmo.gov.uk/responsibilities/gilt-market/about-gilts]]/ In fact the whole Debt Management Office site is worth looking at.

I have gone to bed early with a painful eye and the remnants of a migraine. The last thing I want to do is watch two people who are absolutely unsuitable to be PM. Why would I watch anyway? I don’t have a vote.

Our 6th form debating society was better mannered!

Me too. Arguing with each other and not answering the questions….

I’m listening to the BBC now, good grief.

The problem is that if there's a recession (and it's looking increasingly likely that there will be), there's less money circulating, together with inflation, and, as RichmondPark highlighted, small businesses will close.

It's possible to have growth without producing more tangible goods. A significant percentage of the UK's GDP is made up of services. I agree with you that the country needs a more equitable distribution of wealth/resources.

The "national debt" was over 100% of GDP for most of the 20th century until the 1960s. The country won't implode!

I don’t understand economics at all so forgive me if I’ve got this all wrong and I’m doing it from memory. Gordon Brown said that government borrowing shouldn’t be more than 48 (?)
of GDP but it currently runs at 100% of GDP. I can’t remember where I heard it and I’ve probably got it all wrong so apologies in advance.

I understand that Keir Starmer has promised that Labour would make delivering "strong, secure and fair" growth its main priority if it won power.

And I despair, in a world where we face a climate crisis, when we are consuming far more than our share of the world's resources, what we need is prosperity without growth. A more equal sharing of resources and ways of ensuring a better use of existing resources, but emphatically not growth, sucking in more resources from other countries, consuming more energy and encouraging us to measure our success in life by how much we possess.

DaisyAnne When Dempsie said 'It won't be safe with either of them' I think she was answering the question about candidates, not parties and meant neither Truss or Sunak.

Following on from Dempsie's point about upcoming recession I believe she is right. Today I visited our county town in the South West of England. Parking was free to encourage people to town during the school holidays but the car park was mostly empty. Many shop units were empty - some have been empty for months. Many shops and cafes and that still look as though they're in business were closed. The streets seemed empty of people. I went into one nice but ordinary cafe to have lunch. It was pretty much empty. £12 for a salad bowl. It was £8 last summer. I went to M&S to buy one for £4 and ate it in the park. All this on a bright summer afternoon in the school holiday in an area usually full of tourists.

Businesses will close in droves once the energy bills go up and the cost of living crisis really bites. Sunak has been part of the making of this situation and seems bereft of ideas and Truss is utterly uninspiring. Time for a GE.

Dinahmo

It's a great pity that some voters believed the lies put out about Brown and the banking crisis and chose to vote Tory, thus leading to 12 years of austerity. I wonder how many people remember what life was like under a Blair govt. Excluding of course with the Iraq war which the Tories supported.

Yes the Iraq war was a huge stain. But it doesn’t in any way detract from the economic success.

It's a great pity that some voters believed the lies put out about Brown and the banking crisis and chose to vote Tory, thus leading to 12 years of austerity. I wonder how many people remember what life was like under a Blair govt. Excluding of course with the Iraq war which the Tories supported.

To compare with a Labour term in office.

Blair made a promise that he would keep to the same tax plan as the Tories, I.e. he would not raise tax during his term in office, and indeed that is exactly what he did throughout his first term.

He did raise NI in order to begin to rebuild the NHS after years of neglect by the Tories.

The U.K. went on to experience 15 years of growth with low inflation.

Tax was raised in further terms and ploughed into education, the NHS, Sure Start, social services etc.

The British population got used to economic stability and growth.

This was brought to a halt with the world banking crises.

However Brown later introduced fiscal stimulus which had begun to show real results.

Then Cameron won the election and the economy was hit with an almighty austerity hammer, and the NHS, education, social services, child poverty had gone completely into reverse.

MaizieD

^We then had the chaos of Mays tenure and of course Johnson, who has ended his tenure with the U.K. debt standing at £1.8trn., and growing at £45 per second.^

I really don't think the 'debt' itself is anything to worry about. After all, a very large proportion of it is 'created' money and is not owed to anyone. The rest is people's savings and investments. People have bought government bonds for a few hundred years as a means of securing a regular and reliable income.

What is more of a worry is how the 'debt' has been distributed by the tories for that last 12 years, because precious little of it has landed up in the pockets of a greater part of the population. If it had done so, the greater part of it would have returned to the government by way of taxation and we wouldn't have such a large deficit.

I may agree in part, but Tory policies are apparently partly built around this “fact”.

Norway is a fabulous example of resourceful use of public funds for the betterment of society.

We then had the chaos of Mays tenure and of course Johnson, who has ended his tenure with the U.K. debt standing at £1.8trn., and growing at £45 per second.

I really don't think the 'debt' itself is anything to worry about. After all, a very large proportion of it is 'created' money and is not owed to anyone. The rest is people's savings and investments. People have bought government bonds for a few hundred years as a means of securing a regular and reliable income.

What is more of a worry is how the 'debt' has been distributed by the tories for that last 12 years, because precious little of it has landed up in the pockets of a greater part of the population. If it had done so, the greater part of it would have returned to the government by way of taxation and we wouldn't have such a large deficit.