Food, warmth and shelter are the three basic necessities. If food and fuel become cheaper this is considered a Good Thing. If housing becomes cheaper this is considered a Bad Thing. The only reason for this seems to be that people can borrow against rising house prices and then spend on (imported) consumer goods, a bubble economy if ever there was one. If house prices fall we may have to start earning real money instead of speculating on the price of one asset. Likewise, if the financial services sector continues to find still more ingenious ways of going bankrupt we may even have to start making things again, things that people actually want to buy. And if the wealthy foreigners leave London and Chelsea Football Club go down the tubes, that would be the icing on the cake.

Ben Galim, Haifa, Israel

As far as I'm concerned the mega rich can take their money and leave. They're inflating prices with indiscriminate spending, clogging up London's streets with their Bentleys and generally making the rest of us feel like inadequate paupers in our own land. We're clearly no longer a sovereign nation if our entire economy relies on the patronage and fashion trends amongst a few hundred Arab princes, Russian oligarchs and international financiers.

Dave, London, UK

A collapse in the economy you say? Hooray! I remember a time when homes were for living in, not to profit from at the expense of those trying to buy a home for their family. Maybe this will in turn bring some realism to property prices, obliterate the 6 to 7 times your income to buy a home and at the same time, negate the need for sucking more credit to pay the mortgage.

Lailaa Carr, Brentford, UK

To some people who live in our northern cities the roof started to fall in a good few years ago! It was nothing to do with high finance, economics, or who was making the news at the time. It was nothing to do with how well the country was doing or how smart the leader was looking on television, it was the feeling of change, irredeamable change. It was also a feeling of humiliation, degradation, betrayal and abandonment. The disenfranchisement, the simple fact of ones mother queueing at the post office for her pension in fear of being floored by a young ruffian and her livelihood for the next few weeks torn from her fingers. This was the repayment of bringing up a family in the war years. The scrimping and scraping, and eventually getting through but also getting old at the same time. To many, many, people who had no alternative but to put their faith in their leader of the day. When change came along they couldn't understand who had started this crazy thing, what sense did it make?

Roy Smith, Tauranga, New Zealand

I agree that the Tories need to 'distance' themselves from Labour's spending plans. They will need room to maneuvoure. But the Tories, at the moment seem determined to pledge to 'out-spend' Labour.

I listened with astonishment to yesterday's proposals to provide 'care' for every new mother at home for up to 6 hours a day for the first week: to include some light housework and preparing meals for other family members. What a ridiculous waste of money: that is what the father, grandparents, relatives and friends should be doing - not the state. We don't seem able to afford to care for the elderly in our society who really do need help - yet the Conservaties seem to think it is a good idea to spend taxpayers money providing care workers to cook and clean for new mothers.

Donna Walker, Effingham, Surrey

Only in Britain could an economic adjustment which would benefit everybody be regarded as a bad thing. At the moment half the country can't buy a house and almost all the other half struggles for 25 years to pay for one. Only the small percentage of wealthy people float above this pernicious burden. Bring on the collapse. 90% falls should be our hope. And if the Russian Mafia oligarchs and tribes of parasitic Saudi princelings (is there a Saudi who isn't one?) infesting London don't like it - well tough.

eric campbell, harrogate, uk

Its a weak argument on cutting of social expenditure, since recent reports from the DWP suggest that Parnell and his friends are about to do just that. It seems that times are beginning to change and talk of reducing or eliminating benefit has become the new macho politic.
If Brown and Darling are pushed on public finances, they will have cut to anyway, as the impending over balance in the books means that something will have to give.
Its possible to manage social budgets with off balance sheet accounting for a while, but then demands are made which cannot be fulfilled. PFi is one example where hospital budgets are being compressed due to the higher costs of PFI hospitals which have fewer beds and patients. Its only a matter of time, as Brown spend during the Boom years like a drunk with a lottery win..creating no reserve for the down times. The police pay award is symptomatic of a government that has run out of cash.

Danny, Manchester,

We should all be grateful that Mystic Mogg is predicting doom again this year. This means that the chances of an upturn must be very strong.

Bob, London,

For the past 10 years there has been no real economic management of the country because no real difficult choices have had to be made. 2010 onwards (possibly sonner) it looks as if one of the two major political parties will have to make some real decisions that detrmines the future path of the country. I fear it will be more of the same. It is notoriosuly difficult to "cut" public spending and even halt the rise of public spending....until things are so bad that there are more losers than winners...the academics call it the punctuated equilibrium theory...until then the party goes on and the Govt's current account will be full used.

Ash Kumar, Herts, England

.Matching labour's expenditure is political suicide. It merely keeps them in an unelectable position. The Tories need an alternative to the many present failed policies. They need to make a committment to reduce the role of the state, petty legislation, over-zealous health and safety, nanny state policies, excessive and wasteful economic policy etc. As it stands, it appears almost as if the present government have been infiltrated by zealots intent on bringing down the whole country. Following that lead is madness!
The Pre-Thatcher 'brain drain',excessive taxation/spending brought the country to it's knees just as wasteful spending/taxation is resulting in the financial drain today. The smoking ban was a labour own-goal - most smokers and drinkers are from the working classes - an attack on their own supporters. Tories, voted against this ban that was realistically more of a threat to personal liberties than health promotion. Labour=control: Tories should emphasise liberty!

winstonian, Darlington, UK

I agree with Mr Rees-Mogg on his prognosis for the economic situation over the next two years, ie until the end of 2009; however, there could well be a significant upturn in 2010, the year in which Gordon Brown will no doubt call the next general election. At that stage he could well be a formidable candidate although I still think the result will be a hung parliament. While it's still too far out to call, the present policy mix of the Conservatives on education and the economy is not very coherent - and here I entirely agree with R-M's analysis. The revelation that 70 Tories employ relatives in their political offices reminds me that they have much in common with their Greek counterparts who are currently embroiled in the worst scandal to hit modern Greece. In Greece the FAFA principle - a friend of a friend of a friend - is employed in all political appointments. Cameron, like Hercules, needs to divert a river to clean out his stables. Perhaps he could open up the Thames barrier?

Dr David Green, Athens, Greece