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

Yes, borrowing is going to increase markedly ( and needs to)
But things would have been ever so much worse if there hadn’t been some years of austerity cuts.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies predicted borrowing would rise to 92 billion pounds - equivalent to 4% of national income - by 2021/22 under a “relatively benign” no-deal Brexit scenario, in which there are no major delays at borders.

Even then, the economy would still enter recession in 2020, the IFS said in an annual assessment of the public finances.

If the government undertook enough fiscal stimulus to stop the economy contracting - roughly 23 billion pounds of extra spending in 2020 and 2021 - annual borrowing would peak at 102 billion pounds

“A no-deal Brexit would likely require a fiscal short-term stimulus followed by a swift return to austerity,” IFS deputy director Carl Emmerson said.

In the 2018/19 financial year Britain’s budget deficit was 41 billion pounds or 1.9% of GDP, its lowest since 2001/02, following years of efforts to reduce the deficit from a peak of 10.2% during the depths of the financial crisis in 2009/10.

In the longer term, a no-deal Brexit would mean less money to spend on public services - or higher tax rates - than staying in the EU or leaving with a deal, the IFS said.

uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-budget/no-deal-brexit-likely-to-push-uk-budget-deficit-to-100-billion-pounds-ifs-idUKKBN1WM2DO

Compare this with the promises the leave voters believed. Would anyone ever have voted for this?????

No not safe with the economy A total failure to balance the budget Ha Who would have thought it. Well for one thing Austerity was and is not needed as government is not like a household budget though they like to fool you into thinking that, the bias Tory right wing press too. Lot more in work poverty,zero hours contracts, counting those only working an hour a week as in work. Boris don't mention that name to me filthy piece of toe rag. Millions in poverty, food banks NHS cuts since 2010 thousands of nurses and doctors short Did you hear this? ha. twitter.com/maspatel01/status/1180929851496259585?s=20
Offering more police same as they cut and so it goes on. Labour has brilliant transforming polices with Jeremy Corbyn have you seen been to one of his rallies? More help with youth services, cut by over a billion since 2010

Labour will promise you the earth if they think it will gain votes. The question is how they can afford it.

newnanny, your post earlier about how people should only have the children they can afford, and not to expect the state to pay for them, made me smile in recognition.

Quite some months ago now there was a similar discussion on here about 'poverty' in this country, and I made a very similar comment to you, only for howls of outrage from some, indignantly asking me if I truly believed that people should only have the children they could afford !

Honestly I thought I had entered a parallel universe, until I realised that, horrifyingly, that is what a lot do believe, that their children are the responsibility of the State.

That, in a nutshell is the difference between conservatism and socialism isn't it?

I believe that apart from a few genuine cases of hardship, everyone should pay their way in life. Socialists on the other hand of course don't.

I liked the fact that Pritti Patel quoted something Margaret Thatcher said 40 years ago, which she said is as relevant today as it was then.

Something along the lines of...…….
An honest day's work for an honest day's pay
Pay your way in life
Always pay your bills on time
Respect the police.

Ok I struggle a bit with the last point all the time the police seem more interested in chasing 'hate crimes', 'racism' and various other 'isms' rather than actually apprehending real criminals, but the rest really is common sense isn't it?

The spending promises by this government and no doubt will be contained in the Queens speech ( what a wonderful opportunity - a free party political broadcast) will amount to £100bn of borrowing.

This will rise exorbitantly when we brexit with a deal but will be totally out of control if there is a no deal.

This will then present us with a choice of a return to austerity and tax cuts or borrowing like we’ve never before experienced.

One of the reasons for this parlours state is that there simply is not enough money put by for Brexit and the economy is not performing as well as was forecast.

Newnanny I don't think that you get the picture at all re the 4 day week proposal. There will be more jobs if people work 4 days because other people will be needed to work the remaining 3 days.

Large retail outlets operate 7 days per week. Do you think that they will close for 3 days each week?

Very few employed people work 7 days per week, doctors and nurses excluded and they should work shorter hours. As we now know they will have to continue their long hours (maximum average 72 hours in a 7 day period) because of the shortage of staff, soon to be reduced further with the Brexit induced exodus.

Austerity was introduced for ideological reasons, in my opinion. There's a idea of the 'undeserving' along with all sorts of supposed Victorian values. The government has spent millions trying to get the sick back to work, only to find out that the vast majority were actually unfit to work. We desperately need a change of government, only problem is that labour can only offer Corbyn, which is not acceptable to a lot of people. It's tragic that with all that's going on at the moment labour seem to be trailing in the polls. Then again we know for a fact that the polls can't be trusted.

I don't trust any of them with the economy. Johnson makes promises which will only restore many areas to what they were before his party decimated them and still would cost billions. What the hell was all this austerity for! However Corbyn is also promising the earth, albeit a different one and his party would also need to borrow billions. I don't believe either one has properly worked out where all the money is coming from. Poor Britain, we really are in a lose lose scenario

We really ought to stop brexit first, then have a general election where we can focus on everything else.

Once an extension is granted Varian it's on the cards. Labour is gearing up already.

The ironic prospect is that if we do get a no deal exit a Corbyn led government could well cause less damage to the economy

Wouldn't it be just great if Corbyn could agree to propse a Vote of No Confidence in Johnson and then support Margaret Beckett (or Ken Clarke) as an interim PM who could command the support of a majority of MPs??

We need an interim PM who is well respected, nearing the end of their parliamentary career and has no ambition to become PM long term.

If Jeremy Corbyn had the character and judgement to do that his star would rise hugely. He might even be seen as a statesman willing to put the country befor the party and his own personal ambition.

When I read some of these posts I can't help but wonder what would happened to some of the posters if they, with their just the right size family and halo earning work ethic suddenly found themselves, their family and their friends, homeless and without a penny to their names.

How much would they then believe in this "just society" they conjure? The one were we all get our just desserts. The poor deserving their poverty, the homeless having brought it upon themselves and those with nothing to fall back on having obviously flushed opportunity away.

You could almost wish it on them couldn't you? They could then have a taste of this dehumanising mantra. But I won't. This is not a just world. You can work three jobs and still no have enough to put on the table for your children. You can be the perfect tenant an still be evicted. You can dehumanise others, treat some as if they were another species and still find yourself treated with kindness. No, it's not a just world.

gg3. ?

Do you never think GracesGranMK3 that those of us who are fortunate enough to be able to work and pay taxes etc should do so in order that there is money available for the state to take care of those who can’t, for whatever reason?

That’s what most of us are doing, taking care of ourselves and our families and trusting that the government (and let’s not pretend there was no poverty under Labour) of the day uses our taxes etc wisely to help those unable to help themselves.

JenniferEccles You really don't get the difference between a Tory and a Democratic Socialist. A Tory's fundamental beliefs are based upon the principle that my prime responsibility is for oneself and what is mine. A. Democratic Socialist's belief is based upon. The principle that we are all responsible for each other. These differences are illustrated by the first actions of Tories when there is financial problems is to introduce austerity policies but protecting themselves, while the Socialist will seek to stimulate the economy by increasing public spending as was illustrated immediately after WW2 when a socialist government created the NHS and launched a massive rebuilding program.

I doubt that you think that those revolutionary Socialist policies should not have occurred but in relative terms the LP proposed program, which is for more than one parliament, is not as radical as that followed after the war.

I worry for the future for the younger generation. As things are it looks bleak.

It's actually quite easy to go into a downward spiral and end up living in a cardboard box, I'm afraid. I can't believe the callousness of some people on this forum .

I can’t believe the callousness either Labaik. This thread has horrified me.

I suppose a great deal more honesty is being exposed than was before. There were so many people posting once about how they had to vote Tory because Labour couldn't be trusted to manage things. Now it seems they are revealing their true colours, that they actually don't care. I would point out one thing, today's children are the tax payers of tomorrow. Children raised in a caring society where they are supported and nurtured grow up to do better and make more contribution to society, if they grow up in poverty, underfed and uncared for they are less likely to become able to sustain the society we are used to. So when some of the younger grans reach old age there will be no NHS, no care services and no support. I do hope their families are prepared to do everything for them.

Do you never think GracesGranMK3 that those of us who are fortunate enough to be able to work and pay taxes etc should do so in order that there is money available for the state to take care of those who can’t, for whatever reason?

I'm not sure what you read Pantglas but I don't think it could have been my post.

If only most of you weren't so economically illiterate.

Taxes do not 'fund' government spending. Taxation is a way of stopping the economy overheating by taking money out of circulation.

A national budget is not like a household budget, governments can spend as much as they like so long as there is something to spend it on. They issue the money for heavens sake, where else do you think it comes from?

Money 'spent' by the government goes into the economy; it doesn't disappear into a big black hole. It pays people's wages. It purchases goods and services from private companies which in turn pay their employees and buy goods and services from other private companies. People's wages are spent in the economy, which supports yet more private enterprises providing consumer goods, food, entertainment, transport etc. etc.

Austerity starved the economy, it destroyed people's jobs, it destroyed people's businesses, it destroyed public services. It wasn't necessary. It was an ideological move, designed to destroy public services, to 'shrink the state'. Unfortunately, shrinking the state shrinks the whole economy. Most economists will tell you that that is a really bad idea..

But who takes any notice of economists...

Thank you Maizie. I so wish people would get away from the idea that the nation's finances are like a household budget.

Government borrowing actually means some people are getting richer because they lend the government money and charge interest.

However, as you say, much of the money only exists on a balance sheet because a country with a sovereign currency (which the UK is) can produce as much money as it wants and then reclaim it in tax. It's a way of controlling inflation and redistributing wealth.

Another little fact - something like 70% of people (including the sanctimonious) take more from the economy than they give over a lifetime.

Most people at some stage go through a stage when they take considerably more than they pay. People's lives change and a socialist government recognises that.

Something for those who think they've always paid their way to think about.

I think it was the IFS who did a detailed study on the subject, but it's the middle of the night and I'm off to try and get some sleep, so I don't have the energy to look for the paper (which most posters probably wouldn't read anyway).

Apologies for my economic illiteracy MaizieD - I never got past a handful of o levels but I’ve never been in debt (apart from a mortgage which I managed to pay off 10 years early) and I’ve never not worked.

However, I have always know that I was fortunate in those three things as I’m now in a position to help others which I do on a regular basis - my friends families as well as my own. If all of that means there’s more in the pot for those less fortunate, how could anyone think it was a bad thing?