O/T. The Government's handling of Covid

[Geoff Parkstone]

I've never thought people won't be poorer - that would be daft. But their spending won't fall.

As for reversing the policies - the damage has already been done and I doubt reversing every single one will restore us to the position before mad Monday. That's the sad lesson of ill thought out policies being hastily dumped out there just because you promised them to win a leadership vote. Bum

[ramAnag]

I've never thought people won't be poorer - that would be daft. But their spending won't fall.

As for reversing the policies - the damage has already been done and I doubt reversing every single one will restore us to the position before mad Monday. That's the sad lesson of ill thought out policies being hastily dumped out there just because you promised them to win a leadership vote. Bum

With respect GP...you wrote, ‘Inflation of any sort makes people feel poorer but still have the same, or maybe more, disposable income if they have a tax cut. Thus they will spend more.’

I think MA has already dealt admirably with that issue but...if those tax cuts also equate to rising mortgage rates - as they undeniably have - then they do NOT have ‘more disposable income’.

As for the ‘reversing policies’...we agree, but isn’t that what MA and I (and to a lesser extent Swale who’s been quite quiet recently) have been saying only to be accused by you and AF of ‘sniping’ and negativity.

So far, in recent times, you’ve accused me of ‘sniping’ at Johnson, ‘sniping at Trump’ and now at ‘Mavis and Crazy’...but haven’t they deserved it? The proof of the pudding...as they say.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Yes they do have more disposable income. All income is disposable. I think our difference is that you regard disposable income as net income after essential expenditure. I don't. The economy doesn't. Spending is spending regardless of what its on.

You wont find me arguing that people wont have less "income after housing costs" but that's not relevant to a policy simply designed to stimulate growth via spending.

[ramAnag]

Yes they do have more disposable income. All income is disposable. I think our difference is that you regard disposable income as net income after essential expenditure. I don't. The economy doesn't. Spending is spending regardless of what its on.

You wont find me arguing that people wont have less "income after housing costs" but that's not relevant to a policy simply designed to stimulate growth via spending.

You’re absolutely right...that is exactly ‘our difference’ and I can’t accept that ‘all income is disposable’.
You may not ‘regard disposable income as net income after essential expenditure’ and ‘the economy’ may not...you may even be technically correct, but for the vast majority of ordinary folk that’s precisely how they view how ‘well off’ they are and in reality that governs how much they feel and actually are able to spend on all ‘non essential’ spending on everything from fashion to vehicles, pubs and restaurants to holidays and the entertainment industry so where is the ‘growth’ in those crucial areas of our economy?

Maybe you’ll be the next Chancellor ...reckon this one is on seriously borrowed time.

[Geoff Parkstone]

MA has asserted that no-one has any savings which infers everyone is already spending 100% of what come in. Ergo its no a question of how much non essential spending is made - its all deemed essential, al gets spent and goes as quickly as it comes in. otherwise the savings multiplier does come into play albeit at lower (or negative) levels

[ramAnag]

MA has asserted that no-one has any savings which infers everyone is already spending 100% of what come in. Ergo its no a question of how much non essential spending is made - its all deemed essential, al gets spent and goes as quickly as it comes in. otherwise the savings multiplier does come into play albeit at lower (or negative) levels

I was referring to MA’s post #2908 which describes how, hypothetically, those who begin the month with £1000 are now much worse off following the ‘mini budget’ which, of course, Truss knew nowt about.

Anyway...he’s gone - ‘Crazy’ not MA. Wonder who’ll be next? Is this a record for the number of Chancellors in a year? This will be four in as many months I think. Is it any wonder we’re regarded as a financial basket case?

[Geoff Parkstone]

interesting he's sacked, but not her - must be the shortest lived ever! Wonder if he will play the race card? Bit of a waste of a return ticket to Washington...

[MadAmster]

More of you income goes on mortgage, energy etc leaving much less for food and leisure. That costs jobs. Those now out of work have less per month on the dole than they had in work. Ergo, less money being spent meaning more redundancies...... a downward spiral.

[ramAnag]

interesting he's sacked, but not her - must be the shortest lived ever!

I think Ian MacLeod went a little more quickly when we were kids...but that was because he died, not as a result of being sacked for implementing his boss’ policies.

[Geoff Parkstone]

I think Ian MacLeod went a little more quickly when we were kids...but that was because he died, not as a result of being sacked for implementing his boss’ policies.

yes, I agree with that, but bear in mind the KK was idling for 10 days due to Lizzie dropping off the perch, so he actually had less working time.

So question is, would you rather Truss stay or go, bearing in mind it would be another 6 weeks of inactivity as they roll out the election leadership rigmarole all over again. Which is the lesser of the two evils?