what happened to giving everyone a lump sum, quantitative easing?

Quantitative easing was money injected into the economy to keep things moving.
Unfortunately the money was given to the banks who promised to lend it to small business and keep the economy moving.

They didn't.

So the chancellor did it again.
So did the banks.

Many economists - and many ordinary people with brains could see that giving the money to PEOPLE would be a good idea, I believe it was called a "helicopter payment" and might have been in the area of £1000 each!
Of course it would do what you suggest. PEOPLE would spend it on fish suppers, Tax, things generally.
Small business would benefit, the majority would benefit.
Except the ones who keep adding the money to the huge amounts they already have and cannot possibly spend. But then they are among those who gain least from the PEOPLE having the money, they are also the ones doing the quantitative easing!

However it was just an idea and the chancellor, ever keen on the austerity route shunned the opportunity in favour of giving it to the banks again!

As for it being given in shares; BT, Gas, Electric, etc. This was the root of many of our current problems. The government sold the companies people already owned and bribed us to do it. Which meant we didn't own them any more and the people who did cut staff numbers and increased prices so they could make a profit (which hadn't been necessary before) thus adding to jobless and giving everyone less money to spend on other things. So not exactly the same as quantitative easing.

I'd probably spend mine on food too. I like food.

just mentioned the shares - because I think everyone knew it was really a give away of money. people were lining up to get registered to get a chance at it. free money.

it's what the tories did - sell off the family silver.

Switzerland isn't like anywhere else I've been to, so it's possible it isn't a good model.

Also, as with marketing for votes campaigns in (possibly all) other countries, we don't know what the population was told would be the outcome of a supporting vote. Fear of personal inconvenience and selfishness usually plays a part in the way people cast their votes.

I remember as a kid, being told about a future of automation and computers and everyone only working 3 days a week etc etc.

I wonder how much politicians and governments - everywhere - really understand "costs and weakened economies" and how many are actually thinking of their own personal future well being?

Funny how, everywhere, governments pay themselves bundles yet don't want the people for whom they work to earn a reasonable amount too, isn't it?
As mentioned earlier, if everyone had money, they'd spend it!!
Which would be good for the whole economy.

Working Tax Credit doesn't sound a bit like not working very much.
Why would you say it does?

It means not EARNING very much.
Plenty of people slog their guts out and work very hard and earn hardly anything.

I can't see why.
Giving it to people who spend it must be more sensible than giving it to people who keep it.
If things are sold they then need replacing. So it's good for manufacturing, distribution, retail and all the associated business.

Distribution of wealth is surely what keeps any economy buoyant, isn't it?

Just so I understand and before continuing any form of sensible conversation....

You think that giving the 65 odd million people of this country a notional £1000 each is a bad idea because they'll all spend it on drink or drugs, except pensioners who won't spend it at all because they already get free money?

£1000 isn't going to change anything substantial, merely put money through the economy the simplest way possible.
If there's more cash around prices increase - Really? Why?

Incidentally, it has nothing to do with any employers agreeing to anything.
£65 billion, (65 x £1000) would be from the government as a form of quantitative easing.
Which is a lot less than billions they gave to the banks, who simply kept it.

In any case, assuming it doesn't end up with the big corporations and mega rich and others who don't pay any, Tax would be paid along the way of the spending of the £65 billion as it travels through the economy.

If you want to see what quantitative easing does Just read the 1st paragraph of this link.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bank-england-fueling-house-price-rises-making-uk-wealth-inequality-worse-says-sp-1543037

The only thing you might be right about is that pensioners don't spend much. This is definitely true of pensioners with plenty of money, who bought their house when houses cost about 1 year's wage and not 20 years like they do now and whose outgoings are merely something to complain about. There are still plenty of poor pensioners.

The strain on health services stems from the cuts and selling off of the NHS.
Incidentally, and you can freely check this, there were 361,000 hospital beds available in 1979. There are 140,000 in 2017.
Nursing homes have been closed, psychiatric and old peoples homes have all been closed en masse.

Giving the population a few quid to spend won't add to health shortfalls

If you're just going to reply with blaming immigrants for everything, don't bother.

Yes, a one off "helicopter payment" as mentioned in the opening post, and my 1st reply.
I don't imagine as a nation we could stand £1000 a week each for very long, (unless MPs took a cut in salary).

I'm not saying you were blaming migrants, but so many on here do and your earlier line of:
The only 'jobs growth' for the ordinary joe and josephine slash svetlana/mohammad/kim jong chow are in call centres, care work and distribution work.
led me to believe you considered it a potential issue.

they were talking about billions. Probably around ten grand for everyone in the UK.
1 billion = 1000 million
375 billion - 375,000 million. /70 million people = 5,357 per person.

Five grand for every person in the UK, given to the banks. How did you prosper from that?

was that the first or second tranche?

http://positivemoney.org/2014/06/waste-375-billion-failure-quantitative-easing-video/