Is this the government you thought was safe with the economy?

Don't get huffy, Pantglas. I'm not talking about people's personal circumstances. I'm talking about people's ignorance incomprehension of how a national economy works.

It was an apology and a polite explanation MaizieD - I don’t do huffy

Apology from me, then, Pantglas. I misinterpreted it as sarcasm..

Thank you - I’m genuinely in awe of some of the political/economist folks on these threads and I do learn an awful lot from all the back’n forth that goes on! My tuppence worth may seem irrelevant but I’m sure there are lots more like me in the great outdoors!

When people think about paying their way, they usually only think about paid work and benefits and whether they paid for the roof over their head and food, etc. They should also consider whether they paid a fair share for our armed forces, roads, courts, clean air and all the other things which make the UK a reasonably safe and pleasant place to live. Although I've paid in the past, I know that I don't now because I pay little tax and have virtually no disposable income for luxuries such as holidays and new clothes. I'm quite a heavy user of the NHS, although I no longer have children at school or receive child benefit (family allowance). It all balances out, which is how it should happen in a well-balanced society.

Your comments are never irrelevant Pantglas. I learn something too.

No , but I don’t believe any other party has the answers either.
Time for a coalition government, they should all be working together to get us out of the mess we are in.

If people ever worked together for a "common good", we wouldn't get into a mess. The fact is that there will always be people who don't want to give up what they have and want even more. They won't work together with those they perceive as wanting a greater share of the wealth and will pay for a position of power.

The figures for the last month have just come out and are looking worse than expected. We have to wait until next month to find out if we are in a technical recession but whether we are or not this is very poor.

There is an additional, knock effect to the global downturn from the possibility of our leaving the EU, with companies not investing as much as expected. We cannot expect to recapture this if we do leave as most of it depends on access to the larger market.

Productivity stats were out yesterday and they were pretty awful. Again, partly to do with a global downturn and partly to do with our shrinking economy. Productivity has now been poor for the last 10 years.

We may just avoid a recession. We cannot avoid a global downturn so could someone please tell me why we are tying our hands behind our backs at this precise moment by leaving the EU?

Oh, come on, GGMk2. You know the answer.

There was never going to be a good time to leave the world's largest trading bloc, the fact that it happens to be at a time when a world recession is threatening is nothing to worry about.

There are plucky Leavers out there ready to die for lack of medicines if we leave without a 'deal'. How can we be so timid as to fail to celebrate their courage; we should be inspired by their example.

It will be challenging, if not impossible, for businesses to deal with the added cost and red tape involved in abolishing free movement of goods and services but think of the benefits it will bring...

No, I can't keep this up.

Brilliant MaizeD, but also so accurately sad.

I've posted this a few times before but it seems that it could do with repeating.

The National Debt started with William 111 who asked a syndicate of City traders and merchants to issue for sale an issue of government debt. This evolved into the Bank of England. The purpose was to improve the army to fight in the European wars at that time.

In 1815, at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, the debt stood at 200% GDP. By the beginning of the 20th Century it had been reduced to 30% GDP but it increased again as a result of WW1 and again after WW2. It has fluctuated thereafter.

Government Debt is financed by the issue of interest bearing Government Stocks (Gilts) which are safe investments for the general public. So the interest provides an income for the stock holders.

trade? who needs it?

I know Maizie. Apparently the ERG are beginning to recognise this too. They have gone very quiet.

"anyone who thinks a no deal Brexit is OK is not paying attention, doesn’t eat fresh food, doesn’t need medication, has lots of fx to hedge against sterling and couldn’t care less about people’s jobs"

twitter.com/DeborahMeaden/status/1169336262848892929

1,000 days without government: Stormont’s shutdown has cost taxpayers £100m, says economist

www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/1000-days-without-government-stormonts-shutdown-has-cost-taxpayers-100m-says-economist-38583161.html

MaizieD is spot on. Austerity, not needed anyway, caused great harm. A lot of people (unfortunately) do compare the economy to a household budget (Thatcher did) and believe that 'cutting back' is the answer - it isn't.

Why do people always bring up large families and benefits? There are very few large families. They are insignificant.
The overwhelmingly greatest drain on the benefits system are elderly people. We are all living too long! We have avoided (but are well overdue) a recession. They do happen regularly, always have.

Finally, while the ignorant masses keep voting in these clowns to run our government, we will always be in trouble!

I think this gov't is a disgrace, just look at the state of the NHS, Schools, Police & after 10 yrs of Tory/Lib Dem rule we ought to have the wonderful world they promised a decade ago. This gov't are very good at emphasising the parts of their message which will appeal to the working class and slipping in huge tax cuts for the well off. Just look at this research by Oxfam, so motivated by hunger, not politics.https://www.oxfam.org.uk/get-involved/campaign-with-us/inequality-and-poverty

Thanks, Hetty

You, know, the more I think about it, the more I think that the 'mixed economy' model we enjoyed before Thatcher went on the rampage, was a very good system. If you follow the money, apart from the wages and salaries paid directly to people employed in a 'nationalised' service, every single penny spent by that service went to private companies, both large and small. Equipment, uniforms, fixtures and fittings, vehicles, drugs, printed matter, locomotives (perhaps not, were the huge engine building centres run by BR or private companies? ) Do you get my drift?

About the only thing private companies didn't have a chance to make any profit from was actually running public services.

In return we got uniform services available for all citizens...

Getty and Maizie how lovely to see sense written.

Even on the "household budget" model I sincerely hope that no advisor would suggest living on the bread-line for 10 years or more! I can understand pulling back, downsizing your outgoings for a year to 18 months but during that time you would also be suggesting the person increased their income. This might mean slowing down the payback a little in order to invest in that growth. Keynes reminded us that bad economics leads to extremism. In households it can lead to crime, in this country it has lead to extremism in politics which often seem akin to crime.

Large families are indeed very rare and most of them have very rich parents. In is yet another of the straw man arguments of the socially conservative will keep trying to use in order to prove we live in a just society. This is so they can continue to believe they are comfortable because they worked hard and obeyed societies rules therefore those who end up struggling must have done something wrong. It really does make you wonder which century we are living in.

I think the mixed economy and Social Capitalism (a description used in other countries) can work for the good of many more people if not actually all. I am certainly all for that Maizie. The only thing people could complain about is that those at the top do not get a disproportionate share of any wealth generated.