 I'm joined now by Fran Byatt, executive director at Positive Money. Fran, down 2% for the first quarter, but as our economics editor, Ed Conway was saying a little earlier, it's the second quarter that we're really going to see the impact of, aren't we? How bad do you think it could get? So, yes, this drop of 2% was very much expected and the predictions for the second quarter are, you know, up to 30%. And obviously this fall in GDP puts policymakers under pressure to accelerate easing of these emergency public health measures. But this is very dangerous, you know, the government's eagerness we've seen this week to kind of rush to get workers back to workplaces regardless of whether they're safe is pretty shocking. A We Commission polling released this week that says 8 out of 10 Britons think that right now the UK must be prioritising health and wellbeing of citizens over economic growth. The government, though, would say that they are encouraging people to go to work but only if they can't work from home and only if their employer is able to implement safety measures. I mean, if you look at the kind of chaos and confusion that's come out over the last few days, we've seen packed trains, we've seen, you know, many reports from workers saying they're scared to go in and they're uncertain. And so I think that, you know, we can see that this isn't straightforward. And when we have the highest death toll in Europe, the second highest in the world, it's looking like it's going to be, then I think that this is incredibly reckless of the government. And you can see that the public is changing. And actually, the government is out of sync with public opinion. Our polling also showed that 6 out of 10 want social and environmental indicators to be considered ahead of economic growth after that pandemic. I think what this is showing is that, you know, the idea that people must risk their lives and some people die in order to kind of save the economy, you know, indicates how deeply our dysfunctional is before the crisis and how out of touch I think the current government is with people. The problem is, though, that there are many people who want to go back to work who perhaps don't fall into one of the categories that the government can help them with money. And they actually need to go back to work. They need to feed their families. And some people actually want to go back to work. So of course, you know, people want to work and that's totally understandable. But what we've got to remember is if there's a rush to get people back to work, then obviously public health is at risk. More people will die and will potentially see a second wave. And what we need to see is more support from the government, not less. Positive Money has been one of many organizations calling for some kind of universal income, guarantee, universal basic income, which is now also very popular in the public. You know, we need to ensure that we don't see millions slipping into poverty, into debt, not being able to feed their families because of this public health crisis. But we can't have this situation where we put people's lives on the line. People risk potentially dying in order to, you know, keep the economy going. That just doesn't make sense. And I think, you know, this is really getting us to question, you know, what is the point of the economy? And actually, we need one that works for people that provides a decent standard of living and puts health and well-being first. And that's what the public want too. Indeed. But many would say that the chance that a Rishi Sunak has plowed an enormous amount of money into helping people during this crisis in terms of the following staff initiative, which has been extended now all the way up until the autumn. And that there is only so much the government can put in. And if people don't go back to work, if the economy shrinks even further, the long-term impacts of austerity, which we know are linked to public health outcomes to poverty, to poverty in children, could be a great deal worse. I mean, what we've seen is obviously unprecedented changes. Things that we never thought would be possible at the beginning of the year have happened. And really, you know, the government and what we can see is ripping up the rulebook, if you like. Now, the economy is just a set of rules, if you like. It's designed by us. And so we can redesign it in order to make it work for people. There's no reason that the government can't actually build on the support it's given. It's given employers a lot of support. And it needs to give citizens that financial support directly too. The point is that if the government does give people direct financial support, it all has to come from somewhere, doesn't it? And that money, once it's spent, has to be recouped. And so the point is, in the future, they will have less money to spend on things like the NHS, things like social care, things like unemployment benefit. So I think that's what you've just said there is quite a widespread myth, a narrative, if you like. And actually we're seeing many people, economists coming out and saying, you know, it's just not correct that the government is like a household. It's not. The government can sustain a high level of national debt. And indeed the Bank of England can come in, as it said, and directly finance fiscal spending, government spending. So we've seen the Bank of England say you can have the ways and means scheme. Well, actually the Bank of England can directly finance government spending. So we don't need this trade-off of, you know, is it the NHS or is it money going into furloughed workers? It's actually about ensuring that people can have a decent stand of living in this country and health while being put first. And we are really seeing a kind of dash for growth. And if you like a going back of this austerity rhetoric, you know, which is very, very dangerous considering the increases in poverty we've seen due to austerity, considering the hollowing out of the NHS, which actually has left them in a worse position to cope with the pandemic. And obviously increasing inequality, the highest levels in Europe, which obviously has played into the reason we've got the worst debt hole on the continent. So I think that, you know, we've got to understand that things have been got very wrong over the last decade since the crash we saw after the financial crash. We bailed out the banks and we all had to pay. Public services were scrapped, austerity was implemented. And if this government goes down that path again, it's incredibly dangerous, you know, for social cohesion in this country. And so they have to put citizens first, their health, their wellbeing and living standards. I mean, the problem with comparing the death tolls and that we have been, you know, warned of this from many different avenues is that you're comparing apples with pears and you can't say that we have a higher death toll because we have very different populations and very different ways of measuring and that it will be something that will take a little time for us to actually see in context. But my point remains that you seem to argue that it's absolutely fine to get in debt in the long term to get away from the current situation. But what happens in the future if we are a country based on debt and the global economic situation changes, do you not concede that that could have a really bad economic effect, health effect, poverty effect on the UK population? So what's much more dangerous and actually, you know, much more concerning than public debt is private debt. And that is what will continue to go up if the government doesn't really get a handle on ensuring it's properly funding public services, properly ensuring that people aren't dropping into poverty and having to take more private debt. It's private debt that caused the instability in the crash in 2008 and it's private debt that's continued to threaten economic stability. So, you know, there is an issue with debt and we have a very dysfunctional system. Positive Money released a report two days ago saying that... But I'm not talking about private debt, I'm talking about government debt. You just short time ago argued that it was absolutely fine for the government to borrow more, that the Bank of England would be prepared to back them, that this government should borrow more and more money and not worry about the long term consequences. My point is that actually, if you haven't, economy based on debt, that there are long term consequences and that they can be really negative consequences for the population. I mean, I don't agree with that. I'm not sure what you're basing that on. If you look at levels of public debt, you know, some of the highest levels of public debt we've had are things like post-Second World War, there's been no issue. In fact, you know, thriving economy, as you know, people were employed and public services were expanding. So, if you look at where there's been issues in stability, it's always come from private debt can be sustained at a high level and central banks can finance that debt directly, that we can do direct monetary financing as the Bank of England's come out and said. So, I do think there's quite a big kind of education around different types of debt that has, you know, been swept under the carpet over the last 10 years as this narrative of public debt being the problem has been kind of forced down people's throats when it's just not true. OK, Fran Boyd, Executive Director of Positive Money. Interesting to talk to you. Thank you. Thank you.