Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Starmer still strong betting favourite for post-election PM – politicalbetting.com

1246712

Comments

  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,345

    It will be very telling for those who want to believe it.

    Here we go again with that negativity. @Fishing made a very interesting and valid point as to the relevance at mid term, but you just go for the negativity again.

    The UK polling companies are honest. Their results are obviously limited by the statistical limitations of the sample they take (say 3% range in 95% of cases for example) and the other unknown often discussed here eg their selection criteria (picking your sample of people is not like selecting light bulbs) but other than that the results are meaningful (if not necessarily accurate).

    I don't know why you have to be so negative. Just look at the others who are to the right on this forum:

    @Sean_F, Excellent posts and with a very dry wit.
    @MarqueeMark, Very funny and a wide range of entertaining posts and very helpful to other posters.
    @Sandpit, Very pleasant person, who always makes polite posts and conversation even if you disagree.
    @BartholomewRoberts Tenacious poster. Whether you agree with him or not always gives a good argument. As someone who intersects my views (Libertarian vs Strong Liberal) I find we either agree or disagree strongly on everything with little in between, but have great conversations and respect.
    @Leon, Very entertaining posts and a great laugh.
    @DavidL, Maybe not so much to the right as the above, but witty, well thought out posts and always polite anyway
    @Richard_Tyndall , who gave you are hard time last night, same as David. Mayybe you should reflect on why pleasant posters are on your case.

    Sorry for those that I have missed. I know I am wasting my time, but it would be nice if @squareroot2 did for once make a positive post.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,154
    edited September 2022

    MattW said:

    Catching up with the Krazy Kwarteng speech.

    Where does his first claim that UK has 2nd lowest debt:GDP in the G7 come from?

    For Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States, it looks carefully selected and perhaps wrong.

    Apparently that is correct.

    https://countryeconomy.com/countries/groups/g7

    Japan 259%
    Italy 151%
    US 134%
    France 113%
    Canada 112%
    UK 95%
    Germany 69%

    That said, the deficits look quite different:

    US -15.49%
    Japan -8.95%
    UK -7.99%
    Italy -7.2%
    France -6.5%
    Canada -4.71%
    Germany -3.70%
    I don't want to quibble, but there's no date on that link that I can see. There seem to be variable figures for Canada, depending on whether State debt is included or not.

    The latest official Govt figure published for May 2022 was 99%, so the figure quoted is some way out of date.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637
    Hilary Mantel has died
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,214

    Kwarteng has said: "Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services.
    Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services."

    How much growth is needed to make up for the £45 billion reduction in tax revenue? OK, this is my attempt at a back of an envelope calculation. Please do correct me! Let's say tax revenue is 30% of GDP, so to make up for £45 billion, you need the economy to grow by £45B/0.3 = £250 billion. UK GDP is £2.7 trillion, so growth of £250 billion would be 9¼%.

    The highest growth ever achieved since 1949 was 7.5% last year, with post-COVID bounce back. 6.5% was achieved in 1973 following Barber's dash for growth, which was followed by one of our worst recessions.

    We are not going to achieve 9¼% growth. These tax cuts will not pay for themselves. Public spending will have to be slashed.

    Spot on. It’s impossible to know how much growth will come from tax cuts. It could just end up as wads in back pockets and not creating growth.

    You don’t so easily tax cut your way to growth. Growth comes only from investment, investment in people, upskilling, infrastructure - you can’t guarantee tax cuts for industry or business or any tax cuts trickles down to these things for growth.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,206
    edited September 2022
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I'm urrming and ahhing about planning to do a sprint triathlon in 2024. A 750m swim, a 20k bike, and a 5k run.

    I know I can run 5k easily (though not fast), and I can cycle 20k no probs. It's the swimming that lets me down. The most I've done for years is a few lengths (say 100m) whilst the little 'un's been in the pool. I'd also need a decent road bike, unlike my Apollo.

    All this talk about power meters and ideal RPMs flies merrily over me head...

    I'd say go for it... but sooner than 2024! Swimming is tricky to practice unless you live near the sea... I don't think doing lengths of the pool is quite the same.
    It's interesting. You can be fit and have a good crack at so many sports but swimming seems to be in a world of its own. I rated and rate myself as pretty fit and still end up being one of those irritating people who has to stand up, goggles off, to take a breather at the end of each length. Whereas a mate of mine who was short(er) and fat(ter) than me and got out of breath easily was also a competitive swimmer and flew through the water like a thing that flies through the water and was super impressive.
    I dont think your problem was fitness or even "swim fitness" it was probably breathing wrongly if doing front crawl. I used to be the same ,never managing more than 4 lengths at a time of front crawl until I read how to breathe properly doing it - took a couple of sessions to correct my breathing but then literally i went from being able to do 4 lengths to 50 without stopping . Basically make sure you do all your breathing out UNDER the water so when you come up for breath you have the full time to breath in (hence get double the air in ) before i learnt how to breathe I spent half the time above the water expunging breath and so only had half the time to breath in
    Oh undoubtedly it was my breathing and I tried some variations but then I didn't pursue it enough to make the breakthrough that you made.
    I think you also become a lot more "zen" and calm then when swimming which helps especially in a competition or open water swims in triathlons. I quit triathlons because i could never get to grips with cycling which I found very hard but for most people its the swimming element that puts people off triathlons.
    I do like multi sports thouh so now doing speedgolf -which combines your time taken to complete a round of golf (in minutes) plus your golf score and the lowest overall wins- great fun!
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,939

    Kwarteng has said: "Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services.
    Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services."

    How much growth is needed to make up for the £45 billion reduction in tax revenue? OK, this is my attempt at a back of an envelope calculation. Please do correct me! Let's say tax revenue is 30% of GDP, so to make up for £45 billion, you need the economy to grow by £45B/0.3 = £250 billion. UK GDP is £2.7 trillion, so growth of £250 billion would be 9¼%.

    The highest growth ever achieved since 1949 was 7.5% last year, with post-COVID bounce back. 6.5% was achieved in 1973 following Barber's dash for growth, which was followed by one of our worst recessions.

    We are not going to achieve 9¼% growth. These tax cuts will not pay for themselves. Public spending will have to be slashed.

    Come on, you've just got to believe harder :wink:
  • Just seen the “mini budget” announcements.

    Good god.

    The Tories had better hope all this works because if it doesn’t we’re in for a very bumpy ride.
  • Driver said:

    alex_ said:

    Could I just point out that the Govt haven’t remotely got an electoral mandate for all this.

    Except for an ~80 seat majority.
    Constitutionally you are correct - parliament is sovereign, and MPs can do whatever they like once there. However, the political norm is that MPs run on a manifesto and then don't directly act in contradiction of this.
  • Cyclefree said:

    So what are the odds of a snap General Election, if the polls turn?

    If.

    They won't turn. Well, not in that direction...
    Brave prediction. Lots of less politically obsessed people are going to be getting a reduction in tax. They may well thank the government.
    The idea this benefits the rich is naturally labours narrative but in truth this benefits most working people ad families
    Only if you think that tax cuts don't have to be paid for by cuts to services or higher taxes in the future. The tax cuts are skewed massively to the rich.
    Tax cuts should generate growth but as I have said this is huge gamble that may see Truss win 2024 but equally may see her lose very badly

    The one thing it does do is cause labour to look at just which taxes it will raise in 2024 and on whom
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,651
    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Catching up with the Krazy Kwarteng speech.

    Where does his first claim that UK has 2nd lowest debt:GDP in the G7 come from?

    For Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States, it looks carefully selected and perhaps wrong.

    Apparently that is correct.

    https://countryeconomy.com/countries/groups/g7

    Japan 259%
    Italy 151%
    US 134%
    France 113%
    Canada 112%
    UK 95%
    Germany 69%

    That said, the deficits look quite different:

    US -15.49%
    Japan -8.95%
    UK -7.99%
    Italy -7.2%
    France -6.5%
    Canada -4.71%
    Germany -3.70%
    I don't want to quibble, but there's no date on that link that I can see. There seem to be variable figures for Canada, depending on whether State debt is included or not.

    The latest official Govt figure published for May 2022 was 99%, so the figure quoted is some way out of date.
    The comparable figure would have to include Canadian state debt as it is guaranteed by the federal government just as local authority borrowing is in the UK.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 9,073
    DavidL said:


    The question is whether the tax cuts can generate enough additional economic activity to offset the loss of revenue that they represent with new revenue from that activity.

    And then pay for all the other stuff that needs paying for, such as huge energy subsidies.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/23/rees-mogg-constituency-fracked-tory-shale-gas-drilling

    'Jacob Rees-Mogg should “lead by example” and make his the first constituency to be fracked, a Conservative MP has said.

    Mark Menzies, the MP for Fylde, challenged the business secretary to start drilling in North East Somerset before imposing fracking on other constituencies.

    [...]

    “There is nothing to stop him from demanding that North East Somerset is the flagship project. I am sure after listening to him in parliament, he is very confident people will welcome this with open arms, that communities will celebrate. Let us begin with North East Somerset. I think we would applaud him.”

    Rees-Mogg did not respond when asked by the Guardian whether he would take up Menzies’ challenge. While British Geographical Survey maps show there could be shale gas under his constituency, there have been no licences granted yet in North East Somerset. However, there are shale gas licences in the neighbouring constituency of Wells, so his constituents would still be affected if those areas were fracked.'
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,874

    Kwarteng has said: "Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services.
    Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services."

    How much growth is needed to make up for the £45 billion reduction in tax revenue? OK, this is my attempt at a back of an envelope calculation. Please do correct me! Let's say tax revenue is 30% of GDP, so to make up for £45 billion, you need the economy to grow by £45B/0.3 = £250 billion. UK GDP is £2.7 trillion, so growth of £250 billion would be 9¼%.

    The highest growth ever achieved since 1949 was 7.5% last year, with post-COVID bounce back. 6.5% was achieved in 1973 following Barber's dash for growth, which was followed by one of our worst recessions.

    We are not going to achieve 9¼% growth. These tax cuts will not pay for themselves. Public spending will have to be slashed.

    I think UK GDP is actually nearer £2.2trn, 2.7trn may be in dollars. But the bigger flaw is that you are imposing a time scale of a year on this. If the changes resulted in the UK growing 2% faster over 5 or more years then the costs of the package will gradually be offset and then the shortfall can be recovered. Its a risk, no question, but as Simon Clarke put it this morning doing nothing is a risk too. In fact, its not so much a risk as a certainty: the current level of public spending and services cannot be sustained on the current economy with low growth.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644

    Driver said:

    alex_ said:

    Could I just point out that the Govt haven’t remotely got an electoral mandate for all this.

    Except for an ~80 seat majority.
    Constitutionally you are correct - parliament is sovereign, and MPs can do whatever they like once there. However, the political norm is that MPs run on a manifesto and then don't directly act in contradiction of this.
    Well, worrying about the manifesto went a while back. 2019 Conservative manifesto: "We placed a moratorium on fracking in England with immediate effect. Having listened to local communities, we have ruled out changes to the planning system. We will not support fracking unless the science shows categorically that it can be done safely."
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    She, Hilary Mantel, dead at 70
  • Is this government about to call an election? It does have a whiff of pre-election cheering up to it?

    No
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,993
    Remarkable how far the Overton window has shifted due to the succession of Brownite Chancellors, that we have so called Tories on here thinking it's morally wrong and dangerous to reduce "the jobs tax" and to bring the top rate of income tax back down to the level it happily sat for a working lifetime. Which I might add was the period of most impressive economic growth post WW2. David Herdson really has left the small c conservative nest as thoroughly as Bercow did with comments like that.

    Truss's premiership will now hinge on the Fed and little else. If they start their pivot in good time before the UK elections, that will allow sterling to recover and uk rates to top out too. The changes to stamp duty are smart, as they'll allow first time buyers between now and 2024 to put the funds saved towards a slightly larger deposit, which should then get them access to slightly better rates.
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 1,452

    Billions and billions and billions and billions of pounds of additional borrowing to make rich people richer.

    Financiers and (top) football players, rejoice, rejoice, rejoice.
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 1,593
    This is very interesting. China making clear signals to Putin here.

    I met with State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi to discuss relations between Ukraine and China. My counterpart reaffirmed China’s respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as its rejection of the use of force as a means of resolving differences.
    https://twitter.com/DmytroKuleba/status/1573221116113461249
  • Kwarteng has said: "Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services.
    Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services."

    How much growth is needed to make up for the £45 billion reduction in tax revenue? OK, this is my attempt at a back of an envelope calculation. Please do correct me! Let's say tax revenue is 30% of GDP, so to make up for £45 billion, you need the economy to grow by £45B/0.3 = £250 billion. UK GDP is £2.7 trillion, so growth of £250 billion would be 9¼%.

    The highest growth ever achieved since 1949 was 7.5% last year, with post-COVID bounce back. 6.5% was achieved in 1973 following Barber's dash for growth, which was followed by one of our worst recessions.

    We are not going to achieve 9¼% growth. These tax cuts will not pay for themselves. Public spending will have to be slashed.

    A paranoid thought occurred to me last night. What if the Tories are pissing in the pool, just before the Labour Party get in? Throw some meat to the base, trash the economy and let Labour spend the political capital cleaning it up.

    I don't fully believe it, but it's a worm in my brain.
  • @DrDavidJeffery
    I'm 30 and I think that was the first Thatcherite budget I've ever seen. I like the way the chancellor explained why he was doing things like the bankers' bonus cap, rather than just trying to sneak it out. I'm a fan of this new intellectual confidence on the front bench.


    https://twitter.com/DrDavidJeffery/status/1573237539208560640
  • Tax cuts for the rich, withholding benefits from the poor.

    Leveling up.

    Rachel Reeves had a good line in response to Kwarteng:
    "You've replaced levelling up with trickling down".
  • ping said:

    Kwarteng has said: "Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services.
    Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services."

    How much growth is needed to make up for the £45 billion reduction in tax revenue? OK, this is my attempt at a back of an envelope calculation. Please do correct me! Let's say tax revenue is 30% of GDP, so to make up for £45 billion, you need the economy to grow by £45B/0.3 = £250 billion. UK GDP is £2.7 trillion, so growth of £250 billion would be 9¼%.

    The highest growth ever achieved since 1949 was 7.5% last year, with post-COVID bounce back. 6.5% was achieved in 1973 following Barber's dash for growth, which was followed by one of our worst recessions.

    We are not going to achieve 9¼% growth. These tax cuts will not pay for themselves. Public spending will have to be slashed.

    That’s part 2 of their strategy.

    Truss and Kwarteng are two of the most cynical people ever to grace British politics.

    They don’t have a mandate for any of this shit.
    This is clear political game playing. Create a scorched earth environment so you can force Labour to confirm it needs to raise taxes - even if it’s to “correct” these cuts it’s going to allow the Tories to roll out to old tax bombshell line.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 9,073

    Cyclefree said:

    So what are the odds of a snap General Election, if the polls turn?

    If.

    They won't turn. Well, not in that direction...
    Brave prediction. Lots of less politically obsessed people are going to be getting a reduction in tax. They may well thank the government.
    The idea this benefits the rich is naturally labours narrative but in truth this benefits most working people ad families
    Only if you think that tax cuts don't have to be paid for by cuts to services or higher taxes in the future. The tax cuts are skewed massively to the rich.
    Tax cuts should generate growth but as I have said this is huge gamble that may see Truss win 2024 but equally may see her lose very badly

    The one thing it does do is cause labour to look at just which taxes it will raise in 2024 and on whom
    That's not the only thing it does for Labour. Given the state the public finances are going to be in by the next election, it pretty much gives them carte blanche.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,874

    Is this being said with pleasure, or as part of a discreet distancing?

    A massive moment for iealondon. They’ve been advocating these policies for years. They incubated Truss and Kwarteng during their early years as MPs. Britain is now their laboratory.

    https://twitter.com/montie/status/1573238591496634370

    Who voted to be a Guinea pig?
    Right now, it's an attractive prospect. Fur to keep you warm, all the sunflower seeds you can eat, lots of sawdust to hide in, away from all of this...
    Aren't those sunflower seeds supposed to come from Ukraine? There is no escape.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,054
    edited September 2022
    IshmaelZ said:

    She, Hilary Mantel, dead at 70

    Bravo. A fitting tribute.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,651
    Just calculated my annual saving and it's a useful amount of money, not sure what to do with it, probably just stick it into an ETF. 🤷‍♂️
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,212
    edited September 2022

    @DrDavidJeffery
    I'm 30 and I think that was the first Thatcherite budget I've ever seen. I like the way the chancellor explained why he was doing things like the bankers' bonus cap, rather than just trying to sneak it out. I'm a fan of this new intellectual confidence on the front bench.


    https://twitter.com/DrDavidJeffery/status/1573237539208560640

    "Intellectual confidence"? JFC.

    My six-year old has intellectual confidence in spades but that doesn't mean he could run the British economy.

    Though, to be fair, he would probably do a better job of it than Truss and Kwarteng.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    Driver said:

    ping said:

    Driver said:

    alex_ said:

    Could I just point out that the Govt haven’t remotely got an electoral mandate for all this.

    Except for an ~80 seat majority.
    It’s bait and switch.

    They played the working class like a violin.
    Ever since the Wheeler case, nobody should expect that any government will do what it promised.
    That doesn't mean being happy about it when they take the piss like this.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836
    DavidL said:

    Is this being said with pleasure, or as part of a discreet distancing?

    A massive moment for iealondon. They’ve been advocating these policies for years. They incubated Truss and Kwarteng during their early years as MPs. Britain is now their laboratory.

    https://twitter.com/montie/status/1573238591496634370

    Who voted to be a Guinea pig?
    Right now, it's an attractive prospect. Fur to keep you warm, all the sunflower seeds you can eat, lots of sawdust to hide in, away from all of this...
    Aren't those sunflower seeds supposed to come from Ukraine? There is no escape.
    Wrong sort of rodent. GPs are into leaves, hay and grass and kail and so on.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,054
    MaxPB said:

    Just calculated my annual saving and it's a useful amount of money, not sure what to do with it, probably just stick it into an ETF. 🤷‍♂️

    Ahem, a USD ETF. :smile:
  • DavidL said:

    This is the equivalent of the Lawson budget of 1987. Whether the results will be the same, well, who knows? Anyone who is confident about it really should be discounted.

    The question is whether the tax cuts can generate enough additional economic activity to offset the loss of revenue that they represent with new revenue from that activity. At the moment the UK economy is not expected to grow next year (the original OBR forecast is clearly out of date). If it grew 2% then that would be 2% x £2.2trn or roughly £44bn of additional activity. If the government takes its usual 40% or so of that this would amount to £17.6bn which would offset the cost of the packages announced today (energy excluded).

    Of course, if we don't get that 2% additional growth but continue to spend at the same rate things will get distinctly hairy. What this is is a rejection of the penny pinching attitude that has dominated UK politics and economics since at least 2010. It will change the nature of the debate quite radically and we may well find Labour presenting themselves as the "responsible" party. It will certainly shake things up big time.

    It is extraordinary and I agree with your comments

    It is a huge gamble with high stakes and I defy anyone to predict how this plays out and especially in GE 2024

    This morning the political debate has ratchet up many times and in the process buried Johnson and Sunak policies

    It is really fascinating and I would just caution those who have already written Truss off as there is no doubt she is a genuine opponent for Starmer after the days of Johnson


    The thing is, there are people in offices in the City whose job is to predict how this plays out. They're paid shedloads for doing so. And even if they ought to be wrong, their power means they end up being right. And as of now, they don't like what they are seeing;

    ..

  • Cyclefree said:

    So what are the odds of a snap General Election, if the polls turn?

    If.

    They won't turn. Well, not in that direction...
    Brave prediction. Lots of less politically obsessed people are going to be getting a reduction in tax. They may well thank the government.
    The cost of everything is soaring.
    Will they be any better off?
    Will they *feel* any better off?
  • Chris said:

    Cyclefree said:

    So what are the odds of a snap General Election, if the polls turn?

    If.

    They won't turn. Well, not in that direction...
    Brave prediction. Lots of less politically obsessed people are going to be getting a reduction in tax. They may well thank the government.
    The idea this benefits the rich is naturally labours narrative but in truth this benefits most working people ad families
    Only if you think that tax cuts don't have to be paid for by cuts to services or higher taxes in the future. The tax cuts are skewed massively to the rich.
    Tax cuts should generate growth but as I have said this is huge gamble that may see Truss win 2024 but equally may see her lose very badly

    The one thing it does do is cause labour to look at just which taxes it will raise in 2024 and on whom
    That's not the only thing it does for Labour. Given the state the public finances are going to be in by the next election, it pretty much gives them carte blanche.
    Possibly not to raise public expenditure by much?
  • Cyclefree said:

    So what are the odds of a snap General Election, if the polls turn?

    If.

    They won't turn. Well, not in that direction...
    Brave prediction. Lots of less politically obsessed people are going to be getting a reduction in tax. They may well thank the government.
    The idea this benefits the rich is naturally labours narrative but in truth this benefits most working people ad families
    Only if you think that tax cuts don't have to be paid for by cuts to services or higher taxes in the future. The tax cuts are skewed massively to the rich.
    Tax cuts should generate growth but as I have said this is huge gamble that may see Truss win 2024 but equally may see her lose very badly

    The one thing it does do is cause labour to look at just which taxes it will raise in 2024 and on whom
    Tax cuts don't pay for themselves. If they did every government would do them. It's just dishonest. They know that they are going to cut spending to finance this. They're just waiting for the crisis to brew first.
    Plus of course, Brexit was a staging post on the road to this destination. To think they got people to vote for it so the NHS would get more money. 🤣
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 7,459
    edited September 2022

    @DrDavidJeffery
    I'm 30 and I think that was the first Thatcherite budget I've ever seen. I like the way the chancellor explained why he was doing things like the bankers' bonus cap, rather than just trying to sneak it out. I'm a fan of this new intellectual confidence on the front bench.


    https://twitter.com/DrDavidJeffery/status/1573237539208560640

    Yes, in a 1989-90 way.

    Oh dear.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,651
    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    Just calculated my annual saving and it's a useful amount of money, not sure what to do with it, probably just stick it into an ETF. 🤷‍♂️

    Ahem, a USD ETF. :smile:
    Maybe, or do the same as Kwasi and bet the house on black.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,874
    Chris said:

    ..

    Just as well we don't have a problem with inflation at the moment.
    We have a more serious problem with our trade deficit. Reducing the value of Sterling makes us all poorer but it is necessary to get expenditure and income into line.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637
    DavidL said:

    Kwarteng has said: "Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services.
    Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services."

    How much growth is needed to make up for the £45 billion reduction in tax revenue? OK, this is my attempt at a back of an envelope calculation. Please do correct me! Let's say tax revenue is 30% of GDP, so to make up for £45 billion, you need the economy to grow by £45B/0.3 = £250 billion. UK GDP is £2.7 trillion, so growth of £250 billion would be 9¼%.

    The highest growth ever achieved since 1949 was 7.5% last year, with post-COVID bounce back. 6.5% was achieved in 1973 following Barber's dash for growth, which was followed by one of our worst recessions.

    We are not going to achieve 9¼% growth. These tax cuts will not pay for themselves. Public spending will have to be slashed.

    I think UK GDP is actually nearer £2.2trn, 2.7trn may be in dollars. But the bigger flaw is that you are imposing a time scale of a year on this. If the changes resulted in the UK growing 2% faster over 5 or more years then the costs of the package will gradually be offset and then the shortfall can be recovered. Its a risk, no question, but as Simon Clarke put it this morning doing nothing is a risk too. In fact, its not so much a risk as a certainty: the current level of public spending and services cannot be sustained on the current economy with low growth.
    Yes. I see the “budget” this way

    We are stuck in a horrible traffic jam and it’s getting cold and dark. We might not be home tonight. The kids are fractious, hungry. Petrol is running low. There are rumours of people violently robbing the stationary cars

    Kwarteng has pulled out of the jam, crossed the white lines, and we are now roaring along at 140mph, on the wrong but empty side of the road. Incredibly risky. Might work. But we might hit oncoming traffic and die. The kids stare out of the car window, bewildered

  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 4,198
    edited September 2022
    moonshine said:

    Remarkable how far the Overton window has shifted due to the succession of Brownite Chancellors, that we have so called Tories on here thinking it's morally wrong and dangerous to reduce "the jobs tax" and to bring the top rate of income tax back down to the level it happily sat for a working lifetime. Which I might add was the period of most impressive economic growth post WW2. David Herdson really has left the small c conservative nest as thoroughly as Bercow did with comments like that.

    Truss's premiership will now hinge on the Fed and little else. If they start their pivot in good time before the UK elections, that will allow sterling to recover and uk rates to top out too. The changes to stamp duty are smart, as they'll allow first time buyers between now and 2024 to put the funds saved towards a slightly larger deposit, which should then get them access to slightly better rates.

    The stamp duty cut to me seems to be the most damaging announcement today. As we saw during the pandemic all it did was produce a significant inflationary effect on house prices. All this will mean is that they will continue to rise, rapidly, and first time buyers will be even more screwed.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756

    SNP lady just said something bonkers I had to sense-check. And its true.

    We have had 7 chancellors in 6 years. Bonkers.

    No it isn't. We have had five Chancellors in 6 years. Hammond, Javid, Sunak, Zahawi and Kwarteng.

    Only three of whom presented budgets, I might add.

    That figure is bad enough without making it worse by exaggerating it.

    It's as many as there was in the previous 26 years from 1990 - Lamont, Clarke, Brown, Darling and Osborne.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 9,073

    Chris said:

    Cyclefree said:

    So what are the odds of a snap General Election, if the polls turn?

    If.

    They won't turn. Well, not in that direction...
    Brave prediction. Lots of less politically obsessed people are going to be getting a reduction in tax. They may well thank the government.
    The idea this benefits the rich is naturally labours narrative but in truth this benefits most working people ad families
    Only if you think that tax cuts don't have to be paid for by cuts to services or higher taxes in the future. The tax cuts are skewed massively to the rich.
    Tax cuts should generate growth but as I have said this is huge gamble that may see Truss win 2024 but equally may see her lose very badly

    The one thing it does do is cause labour to look at just which taxes it will raise in 2024 and on whom
    That's not the only thing it does for Labour. Given the state the public finances are going to be in by the next election, it pretty much gives them carte blanche.
    Possibly not to raise public expenditure by much?
    Carte blanche to raise taxes because the Tories have taken us to the edge of the precipice.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,345
    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    Is this being said with pleasure, or as part of a discreet distancing?

    A massive moment for iealondon. They’ve been advocating these policies for years. They incubated Truss and Kwarteng during their early years as MPs. Britain is now their laboratory.

    https://twitter.com/montie/status/1573238591496634370

    Who voted to be a Guinea pig?
    Right now, it's an attractive prospect. Fur to keep you warm, all the sunflower seeds you can eat, lots of sawdust to hide in, away from all of this...
    Aren't those sunflower seeds supposed to come from Ukraine? There is no escape.
    Wrong sort of rodent. GPs are into leaves, hay and grass and kail and so on.
    I love the tangents we go off on. Bravo.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,719
    I'm confused by the last line of the header. Do we know Truss can make U-turns because she used to be a Lemoncrat, and now she's not, or is there something inherent about Lemoncrats that makes them naturally tend towards sudden changes of direction?
  • @DrDavidJeffery
    I'm 30 and I think that was the first Thatcherite budget I've ever seen. I like the way the chancellor explained why he was doing things like the bankers' bonus cap, rather than just trying to sneak it out. I'm a fan of this new intellectual confidence on the front bench.


    https://twitter.com/DrDavidJeffery/status/1573237539208560640

    Someone who puts their doctorate in their Twitter handle talking about intellectual confidence. 😂
  • Well this was certainly a bigger fiscal event than I'd expected.

    Thinking it through and absorbing it, it seems across the board that everyone working for a living is going to be better off. That's extremely significant.

    We've got the biggest tax rates in over 70 years and we're still short of money and not growing, so this is absolutely the right thing to do in my eyes. Plus as I've noted before, we went into this recession with a fairly balanced budget and debt to GDP going down instead of a ballooning deficit and debt to GDP going up as we did pre-2008.

    Hopefully the new tax rates attract more immigration of high paid jobs which results in more taxes and more growth too.

    Work should pay more for everyone now. Anyone who's not working, time to get a job. :)
  • eekeek Posts: 22,078

    Just seen the “mini budget” announcements.

    Good god.

    The Tories had better hope all this works because if it doesn’t we’re in for a very bumpy ride.

    We are in for a VERY bumpy ride...
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,666

    Cyclefree said:

    So what are the odds of a snap General Election, if the polls turn?

    If.

    They won't turn. Well, not in that direction...
    Brave prediction. Lots of less politically obsessed people are going to be getting a reduction in tax. They may well thank the government.
    The cost of everything is soaring.
    Will they be any better off?
    Will they *feel* any better off?
    Yes - in the short term I think people are going to feel poorer whatever govt does... the inflation level guarantees it.
    Key question will be whether they blame govt or take the 'they're doing everything they can to help' line.
    What will really be a travesty is if Boris Johnson somehow gets off the hook for current economic problems.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,682

    Well this was certainly a bigger fiscal event than I'd expected.

    Thinking it through and absorbing it, it seems across the board that everyone working for a living is going to be better off. That's extremely significant.

    We've got the biggest tax rates in over 70 years and we're still short of money and not growing, so this is absolutely the right thing to do in my eyes. Plus as I've noted before, we went into this recession with a fairly balanced budget and debt to GDP going down instead of a ballooning deficit and debt to GDP going up as we did pre-2008.

    Hopefully the new tax rates attract more immigration of high paid jobs which results in more taxes and more growth too.

    Work should pay more for everyone now. Anyone who's not working, time to get a job. :)

    Lol. Watching you gradually come to terms with what a disastrous move this is is going to be fascinating, if painful.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,651
    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Kwarteng has said: "Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services.
    Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services."

    How much growth is needed to make up for the £45 billion reduction in tax revenue? OK, this is my attempt at a back of an envelope calculation. Please do correct me! Let's say tax revenue is 30% of GDP, so to make up for £45 billion, you need the economy to grow by £45B/0.3 = £250 billion. UK GDP is £2.7 trillion, so growth of £250 billion would be 9¼%.

    The highest growth ever achieved since 1949 was 7.5% last year, with post-COVID bounce back. 6.5% was achieved in 1973 following Barber's dash for growth, which was followed by one of our worst recessions.

    We are not going to achieve 9¼% growth. These tax cuts will not pay for themselves. Public spending will have to be slashed.

    I think UK GDP is actually nearer £2.2trn, 2.7trn may be in dollars. But the bigger flaw is that you are imposing a time scale of a year on this. If the changes resulted in the UK growing 2% faster over 5 or more years then the costs of the package will gradually be offset and then the shortfall can be recovered. Its a risk, no question, but as Simon Clarke put it this morning doing nothing is a risk too. In fact, its not so much a risk as a certainty: the current level of public spending and services cannot be sustained on the current economy with low growth.
    Yes. I see the “budget” this way

    We are stuck in a horrible traffic jam and it’s getting cold and dark. We might not be home tonight. The kids are fractious, hungry. Petrol is running low. There are rumours of people violently robbing the stationary cars

    Kwarteng has pulled out of the jam, crossed the white lines, and we are now roaring along at 140mph, on the wrong but empty side of the road. Incredibly risky. Might work. But we might hit oncoming traffic and die. The kids stare out of the car window, bewildered

    We've bet the house on black at the roulette table. It's a hugely risky strategy, yet if the UK economy does see significant growth over the next two years, say 3-5% per year then it will have paid off. The alternative feels like an IMF bail out.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756

    @DrDavidJeffery
    I'm 30 and I think that was the first Thatcherite budget I've ever seen. I like the way the chancellor explained why he was doing things like the bankers' bonus cap, rather than just trying to sneak it out. I'm a fan of this new intellectual confidence on the front bench.


    https://twitter.com/DrDavidJeffery/status/1573237539208560640

    Someone who puts their doctorate in their Twitter handle talking about intellectual confidence. 😂
    Oi! Do you mind?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,874
    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Kwarteng has said: "Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services.
    Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services."

    How much growth is needed to make up for the £45 billion reduction in tax revenue? OK, this is my attempt at a back of an envelope calculation. Please do correct me! Let's say tax revenue is 30% of GDP, so to make up for £45 billion, you need the economy to grow by £45B/0.3 = £250 billion. UK GDP is £2.7 trillion, so growth of £250 billion would be 9¼%.

    The highest growth ever achieved since 1949 was 7.5% last year, with post-COVID bounce back. 6.5% was achieved in 1973 following Barber's dash for growth, which was followed by one of our worst recessions.

    We are not going to achieve 9¼% growth. These tax cuts will not pay for themselves. Public spending will have to be slashed.

    I think UK GDP is actually nearer £2.2trn, 2.7trn may be in dollars. But the bigger flaw is that you are imposing a time scale of a year on this. If the changes resulted in the UK growing 2% faster over 5 or more years then the costs of the package will gradually be offset and then the shortfall can be recovered. Its a risk, no question, but as Simon Clarke put it this morning doing nothing is a risk too. In fact, its not so much a risk as a certainty: the current level of public spending and services cannot be sustained on the current economy with low growth.
    Yes. I see the “budget” this way

    We are stuck in a horrible traffic jam and it’s getting cold and dark. We might not be home tonight. The kids are fractious, hungry. Petrol is running low. There are rumours of people violently robbing the stationary cars

    Kwarteng has pulled out of the jam, crossed the white lines, and we are now roaring along at 140mph, on the wrong but empty side of the road. Incredibly risky. Might work. But we might hit oncoming traffic and die. The kids stare out of the car window, bewildered

    “You’ve got to ask yourself one question. Do I feel lucky?”
  • MattW said:

    Catching up with the Krazy Kwarteng speech.

    Where does his first claim that UK has 2nd lowest debt:GDP in the G7 come from?

    For Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States, it looks carefully selected and perhaps wrong.

    Apparently that is correct.

    https://countryeconomy.com/countries/groups/g7

    Japan 259%
    Italy 151%
    US 134%
    France 113%
    Canada 112%
    UK 95%
    Germany 69%

    That said, the deficits look quite different:

    US -15.49%
    Japan -8.95%
    UK -7.99%
    Italy -7.2%
    France -6.5%
    Canada -4.71%
    Germany -3.70%
    Those figures have calmed my fears a little bit. To some extent the game is not being too out of line with comparable countries.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    DavidL said:

    Kwarteng has said: "Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services.
    Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services."

    How much growth is needed to make up for the £45 billion reduction in tax revenue? OK, this is my attempt at a back of an envelope calculation. Please do correct me! Let's say tax revenue is 30% of GDP, so to make up for £45 billion, you need the economy to grow by £45B/0.3 = £250 billion. UK GDP is £2.7 trillion, so growth of £250 billion would be 9¼%.

    The highest growth ever achieved since 1949 was 7.5% last year, with post-COVID bounce back. 6.5% was achieved in 1973 following Barber's dash for growth, which was followed by one of our worst recessions.

    We are not going to achieve 9¼% growth. These tax cuts will not pay for themselves. Public spending will have to be slashed.

    I think UK GDP is actually nearer £2.2trn, 2.7trn may be in dollars. But the bigger flaw is that you are imposing a time scale of a year on this. If the changes resulted in the UK growing 2% faster over 5 or more years then the costs of the package will gradually be offset and then the shortfall can be recovered. Its a risk, no question, but as Simon Clarke put it this morning doing nothing is a risk too...
    Is any politician or party advocating 'doing nothing' ?
    The debate over this is whether the large fiscal gamble is a good one or not.
  • Well this was certainly a bigger fiscal event than I'd expected.

    Thinking it through and absorbing it, it seems across the board that everyone working for a living is going to be better off. That's extremely significant.

    We've got the biggest tax rates in over 70 years and we're still short of money and not growing, so this is absolutely the right thing to do in my eyes. Plus as I've noted before, we went into this recession with a fairly balanced budget and debt to GDP going down instead of a ballooning deficit and debt to GDP going up as we did pre-2008.

    Hopefully the new tax rates attract more immigration of high paid jobs which results in more taxes and more growth too.

    Work should pay more for everyone now. Anyone who's not working, time to get a job. :)

    Lol. Watching you gradually come to terms with what a disastrous move this is is going to be fascinating, if painful.
    Oh well, if it works then fantastic. If it doesn't, then why should the Tories be the only ones who ever have a mess to clean up?

    Either way, Truss has honoured her promises. Good. And the reason I quit the Tories, the increase in NI, has been abolished. I was appalled when it was put up, I'd be a hypocrite not to celebrate its abolition and I am utterly delighted.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 9,073
    DavidL said:

    Chris said:

    ..

    Just as well we don't have a problem with inflation at the moment.
    We have a more serious problem with our trade deficit. Reducing the value of Sterling makes us all poorer but it is necessary to get expenditure and income into line.
    This is getting expenditure and income into line??
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,127
    ping said:

    Kwarteng has said: "Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services.
    Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services."

    How much growth is needed to make up for the £45 billion reduction in tax revenue? OK, this is my attempt at a back of an envelope calculation. Please do correct me! Let's say tax revenue is 30% of GDP, so to make up for £45 billion, you need the economy to grow by £45B/0.3 = £250 billion. UK GDP is £2.7 trillion, so growth of £250 billion would be 9¼%.

    The highest growth ever achieved since 1949 was 7.5% last year, with post-COVID bounce back. 6.5% was achieved in 1973 following Barber's dash for growth, which was followed by one of our worst recessions.

    We are not going to achieve 9¼% growth. These tax cuts will not pay for themselves. Public spending will have to be slashed.

    That’s part 2 of their strategy.

    Truss and Kwarteng are two of the most cynical people ever to grace British politics.

    They don’t have a mandate for any of this shit.
    Except for, as already mentioned, an ~80 seat majority...
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,874
    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    Is this being said with pleasure, or as part of a discreet distancing?

    A massive moment for iealondon. They’ve been advocating these policies for years. They incubated Truss and Kwarteng during their early years as MPs. Britain is now their laboratory.

    https://twitter.com/montie/status/1573238591496634370

    Who voted to be a Guinea pig?
    Right now, it's an attractive prospect. Fur to keep you warm, all the sunflower seeds you can eat, lots of sawdust to hide in, away from all of this...
    Aren't those sunflower seeds supposed to come from Ukraine? There is no escape.
    Wrong sort of rodent. GPs are into leaves, hay and grass and kail and so on.
    I bow to your expertise. I was just responding to Stuart. Given that we don't eat them anymore why do we still have guinea pigs?
  • pingping Posts: 3,297
    edited September 2022
    AlistairM said:

    This is very interesting. China making clear signals to Putin here.

    I met with State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi to discuss relations between Ukraine and China. My counterpart reaffirmed China’s respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as its rejection of the use of force as a means of resolving differences.
    https://twitter.com/DmytroKuleba/status/1573221116113461249

    I said, right at the beginning of this, just as it was kicking off:

    Watch China.

    This is indeed very significant.
  • Carnyx said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/23/rees-mogg-constituency-fracked-tory-shale-gas-drilling

    'Jacob Rees-Mogg should “lead by example” and make his the first constituency to be fracked, a Conservative MP has said.

    Mark Menzies, the MP for Fylde, challenged the business secretary to start drilling in North East Somerset before imposing fracking on other constituencies.

    [...]

    “There is nothing to stop him from demanding that North East Somerset is the flagship project. I am sure after listening to him in parliament, he is very confident people will welcome this with open arms, that communities will celebrate. Let us begin with North East Somerset. I think we would applaud him.”

    Rees-Mogg did not respond when asked by the Guardian whether he would take up Menzies’ challenge. While British Geographical Survey maps show there could be shale gas under his constituency, there have been no licences granted yet in North East Somerset. However, there are shale gas licences in the neighbouring constituency of Wells, so his constituents would still be affected if those areas were fracked.'

    I believe that JRM described people against fracking - like Mark Menzies the Tory MP for Fylde - as being in the pocket of Vladimir Putin...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756
    Question - did Kwarteng abandon that ludicrous proposal to make all self employed or small business people submit returns four times a year? That really would be an easy, cheap win as it isn't possible anyway.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650
    A dripping wet lefty i was at Uni with has posted a whine on FB about 'tax cuts for the rich'
    I'm obliged to become a fully paid up Kwartengite in response
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,154
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Kwarteng has said: "Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services.
    Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services."

    How much growth is needed to make up for the £45 billion reduction in tax revenue? OK, this is my attempt at a back of an envelope calculation. Please do correct me! Let's say tax revenue is 30% of GDP, so to make up for £45 billion, you need the economy to grow by £45B/0.3 = £250 billion. UK GDP is £2.7 trillion, so growth of £250 billion would be 9¼%.

    The highest growth ever achieved since 1949 was 7.5% last year, with post-COVID bounce back. 6.5% was achieved in 1973 following Barber's dash for growth, which was followed by one of our worst recessions.

    We are not going to achieve 9¼% growth. These tax cuts will not pay for themselves. Public spending will have to be slashed.

    I think UK GDP is actually nearer £2.2trn, 2.7trn may be in dollars. But the bigger flaw is that you are imposing a time scale of a year on this. If the changes resulted in the UK growing 2% faster over 5 or more years then the costs of the package will gradually be offset and then the shortfall can be recovered. Its a risk, no question, but as Simon Clarke put it this morning doing nothing is a risk too...
    Is any politician or party advocating 'doing nothing' ?
    The debate over this is whether the large fiscal gamble is a good one or not.
    Difficult to compare when currencies are all over the place.
  • Kwarteng has said: "Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services.
    Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services."

    How much growth is needed to make up for the £45 billion reduction in tax revenue? OK, this is my attempt at a back of an envelope calculation. Please do correct me! Let's say tax revenue is 30% of GDP, so to make up for £45 billion, you need the economy to grow by £45B/0.3 = £250 billion. UK GDP is £2.7 trillion, so growth of £250 billion would be 9¼%.

    The highest growth ever achieved since 1949 was 7.5% last year, with post-COVID bounce back. 6.5% was achieved in 1973 following Barber's dash for growth, which was followed by one of our worst recessions.

    We are not going to achieve 9¼% growth. These tax cuts will not pay for themselves. Public spending will have to be slashed.

    I don't think that growth will pay for these tax cuts, but the £45bn figure is the cost in 2026/7, so the extra growth required can be spread over several years, not just in one. Also, my understanding was that tax revenue was higher than 30% of GDP.

    On the other hand, this needs to be additional growth to that already forecast.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,127

    Driver said:

    alex_ said:

    Could I just point out that the Govt haven’t remotely got an electoral mandate for all this.

    Except for an ~80 seat majority.
    Constitutionally you are correct - parliament is sovereign, and MPs can do whatever they like once there. However, the political norm is that MPs run on a manifesto and then don't directly act in contradiction of this.
    Not since the Wheeler case.
  • Wait did they change daylight savings
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,993

    moonshine said:

    Remarkable how far the Overton window has shifted due to the succession of Brownite Chancellors, that we have so called Tories on here thinking it's morally wrong and dangerous to reduce "the jobs tax" and to bring the top rate of income tax back down to the level it happily sat for a working lifetime. Which I might add was the period of most impressive economic growth post WW2. David Herdson really has left the small c conservative nest as thoroughly as Bercow did with comments like that.

    Truss's premiership will now hinge on the Fed and little else. If they start their pivot in good time before the UK elections, that will allow sterling to recover and uk rates to top out too. The changes to stamp duty are smart, as they'll allow first time buyers between now and 2024 to put the funds saved towards a slightly larger deposit, which should then get them access to slightly better rates.

    The stamp duty cut to me seems to be the most damaging announcement today. As we saw during the pandemic all it did was produce a significant inflationary effect on house prices. All this will mean is that they will continue to rise, rapidly, and first time buyers will be even more screwed.
    Quite the opposite. The Truss/Kwarteng ethos is that taxes have been too high and interest rates too low for a decade or two. We've ended up with sclerotic growth and massive asset inflation, which when combined has benefited wealth holders rather than those who work for income. Higher rates will temper house price growth far more than any stamp duty cut boosts them.

    And the stamp cut is targeted at first time buyers, who basically all need mortgages and who's affordability ratings have been hit by rising utility prices and interest rates.

    I don't know whether they're going to get rewarded electorally for this as there's not long to go but they're swinging for the boundary and I am far from alone in cheering them for it.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650

    Wait did they change daylight savings

    I dont think so. Darkness reigns
  • MaxPB said:

    Just calculated my annual saving and it's a useful amount of money, not sure what to do with it, probably just stick it into an ETF. 🤷‍♂️

    Tricky. If you're really at a loss, I'm happy to look after it for you.
  • This is a budget which says Red Wall, goodbye and thanks
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836
    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    Is this being said with pleasure, or as part of a discreet distancing?

    A massive moment for iealondon. They’ve been advocating these policies for years. They incubated Truss and Kwarteng during their early years as MPs. Britain is now their laboratory.

    https://twitter.com/montie/status/1573238591496634370

    Who voted to be a Guinea pig?
    Right now, it's an attractive prospect. Fur to keep you warm, all the sunflower seeds you can eat, lots of sawdust to hide in, away from all of this...
    Aren't those sunflower seeds supposed to come from Ukraine? There is no escape.
    Wrong sort of rodent. GPs are into leaves, hay and grass and kail and so on.
    I bow to your expertise. I was just responding to Stuart. Given that we don't eat them anymore why do we still have guinea pigs?
    I hesitate to ask, given the expertise of some on this site. But they might become very popular - cheap to run, and can always be eaten if necessary.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,874
    Chris said:

    DavidL said:


    The question is whether the tax cuts can generate enough additional economic activity to offset the loss of revenue that they represent with new revenue from that activity.

    And then pay for all the other stuff that needs paying for, such as huge energy subsidies.
    The timing of that is...unfortunate. But again, if we don't try something different, the huge energy subsidies are disastrous and ruinous anyway.

    I am naturally a fairly cautious soul, I am trying to persuade myself, as much as anybody else, that this is brave rather than reckless. But we were a lot nearer the end of the line on the status quo than most were willing to admit.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    Unpopular said:

    Kwarteng has said: "Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services.
    Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services."

    How much growth is needed to make up for the £45 billion reduction in tax revenue? OK, this is my attempt at a back of an envelope calculation. Please do correct me! Let's say tax revenue is 30% of GDP, so to make up for £45 billion, you need the economy to grow by £45B/0.3 = £250 billion. UK GDP is £2.7 trillion, so growth of £250 billion would be 9¼%.

    The highest growth ever achieved since 1949 was 7.5% last year, with post-COVID bounce back. 6.5% was achieved in 1973 following Barber's dash for growth, which was followed by one of our worst recessions.

    We are not going to achieve 9¼% growth. These tax cuts will not pay for themselves. Public spending will have to be slashed.

    A paranoid thought occurred to me last night. What if the Tories are pissing in the pool, just before the Labour Party get in? Throw some meat to the base, trash the economy and let Labour spend the political capital cleaning it up.

    I don't fully believe it, but it's a worm in my brain.
    It's certainly part of it.
    They've taken a huge gamble - and form the Conservatives' point of view it's mitigated by Labour likely inheriting the consequences if it goes badly wrong.
    They don't intend that it will, even if it's likely to.

    For any Tories in marginal seats, it's a less attractive prospect. But as we've seen, even a piss poor ex-PM is minted for life by virtue of the position.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756

    Wait did they change daylight savings

    I dont think so. Darkness reigns
    Well, the government look to be mooning us.

    At least, showing us they're arses.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650
    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    Remarkable how far the Overton window has shifted due to the succession of Brownite Chancellors, that we have so called Tories on here thinking it's morally wrong and dangerous to reduce "the jobs tax" and to bring the top rate of income tax back down to the level it happily sat for a working lifetime. Which I might add was the period of most impressive economic growth post WW2. David Herdson really has left the small c conservative nest as thoroughly as Bercow did with comments like that.

    Truss's premiership will now hinge on the Fed and little else. If they start their pivot in good time before the UK elections, that will allow sterling to recover and uk rates to top out too. The changes to stamp duty are smart, as they'll allow first time buyers between now and 2024 to put the funds saved towards a slightly larger deposit, which should then get them access to slightly better rates.

    The stamp duty cut to me seems to be the most damaging announcement today. As we saw during the pandemic all it did was produce a significant inflationary effect on house prices. All this will mean is that they will continue to rise, rapidly, and first time buyers will be even more screwed.
    Quite the opposite. The Truss/Kwarteng ethos is that taxes have been too high and interest rates too low for a decade or two. We've ended up with sclerotic growth and massive asset inflation, which when combined has benefited wealth holders rather than those who work for income. Higher rates will temper house price growth far more than any stamp duty cut boosts them.

    And the stamp cut is targeted at first time buyers, who basically all need mortgages and who's affordability ratings have been hit by rising utility prices and interest rates.

    I don't know whether they're going to get rewarded electorally for this as there's not long to go but they're swinging for the boundary and I am far from alone in cheering them for it.
    Theyve embraced Bazball
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,345
    edited September 2022

    Just seen the “mini budget” announcements.

    Good god.

    The Tories had better hope all this works because if it doesn’t we’re in for a very bumpy ride.

    Yes. I can't tell if this is inspired or a disaster. I fear the worse. I really, really hope I am wrong and it is just lack of ambition on my part.
  • it is going to be very very interesting watching the Tory backbenches over the coming weeks. They have a leader they did not pick, lots of big beasts back with them and a new economic policy that poleaxes the levelling up agenda they were elected on.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,651
    Something that occurs to me is that if it does all go tits up and we call in the IMF under Labour, they will be charged with making eyewatering cuts to the state in return for IMF help and raising taxes. It will be Keir Starmer cutting the NHS and begging to the IMF, not the Tories.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644
    DavidL said:

    Kwarteng has said: "Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services.
    Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services."

    How much growth is needed to make up for the £45 billion reduction in tax revenue? OK, this is my attempt at a back of an envelope calculation. Please do correct me! Let's say tax revenue is 30% of GDP, so to make up for £45 billion, you need the economy to grow by £45B/0.3 = £250 billion. UK GDP is £2.7 trillion, so growth of £250 billion would be 9¼%.

    The highest growth ever achieved since 1949 was 7.5% last year, with post-COVID bounce back. 6.5% was achieved in 1973 following Barber's dash for growth, which was followed by one of our worst recessions.

    We are not going to achieve 9¼% growth. These tax cuts will not pay for themselves. Public spending will have to be slashed.

    I think UK GDP is actually nearer £2.2trn, 2.7trn may be in dollars. But the bigger flaw is that you are imposing a time scale of a year on this. If the changes resulted in the UK growing 2% faster over 5 or more years then the costs of the package will gradually be offset and then the shortfall can be recovered. Its a risk, no question, but as Simon Clarke put it this morning doing nothing is a risk too. In fact, its not so much a risk as a certainty: the current level of public spending and services cannot be sustained on the current economy with low growth.
    You are right! 2.7trn was $. Thanks.

    OK, so £2.2trn. £250 billion growth would be 11.4% growth. Even less likely.

    But, yes, you're right, growth is cumulative. So, to achieve 11.4% growth over 5 years, we need the 5th root of 1.114. That means 2.2% extra growth per year. That's more feasible, but if you amortise over 5 years, you've got this large additional debt that's built up while you wait for additional growth to catch up (plus the interest to be paid). I would also suggest 2.2% extra growth is still difficult to achieve. It certainly won't be achieved with discredited trickle down economics.

    Clarke is right that doing nothing is a risk too. However, as ever, just because something needs to be done doesn't mean this something is the answer. There are clearly many, many alternatives. As per the CBI, what about investing in education and training, in encouraging R&D? What about a focus on productivity? Or what about investing in and reforming social care?
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,716

    ..

    What an absolute disaster of a budget
  • moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    Remarkable how far the Overton window has shifted due to the succession of Brownite Chancellors, that we have so called Tories on here thinking it's morally wrong and dangerous to reduce "the jobs tax" and to bring the top rate of income tax back down to the level it happily sat for a working lifetime. Which I might add was the period of most impressive economic growth post WW2. David Herdson really has left the small c conservative nest as thoroughly as Bercow did with comments like that.

    Truss's premiership will now hinge on the Fed and little else. If they start their pivot in good time before the UK elections, that will allow sterling to recover and uk rates to top out too. The changes to stamp duty are smart, as they'll allow first time buyers between now and 2024 to put the funds saved towards a slightly larger deposit, which should then get them access to slightly better rates.

    The stamp duty cut to me seems to be the most damaging announcement today. As we saw during the pandemic all it did was produce a significant inflationary effect on house prices. All this will mean is that they will continue to rise, rapidly, and first time buyers will be even more screwed.
    Quite the opposite. The Truss/Kwarteng ethos is that taxes have been too high and interest rates too low for a decade or two. We've ended up with sclerotic growth and massive asset inflation, which when combined has benefited wealth holders rather than those who work for income. Higher rates will temper house price growth far more than any stamp duty cut boosts them.

    And the stamp cut is targeted at first time buyers, who basically all need mortgages and who's affordability ratings have been hit by rising utility prices and interest rates.

    I don't know whether they're going to get rewarded electorally for this as there's not long to go but they're swinging for the boundary and I am far from alone in cheering them for it.
    yes no point going into the election nudging and nurdling better to slog for sixes. A side effect could mean it brings out that unpleasant element on the left that puts people off (even if only conducted through social media) .
  • pingping Posts: 3,297

    This is a budget which says Red Wall, goodbye and thanks

    I’m trying to work out if the red wall Tory MPs who turned on Boris were cynical IEA’ers, or just really thick.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756
    kjh said:

    Just seen the “mini budget” announcements.

    Good god.

    The Tories had better hope all this works because if it doesn’t we’re in for a very bumpy ride.

    Yes. I can't tell if this is inspired or a disaster. I fear the worse. I really, really hope I am wrong and it is just lack of ambition on my part.
    Truss has yet to show any sign of being inspired in her career.

    The only thing that gives a faint spark of hope is that usually her actions seem great and only unravel when you bother to study them in depth. See maths GCSEs, trade deals, foreign affairs etc.

    This one could be the other way around, or it could be true to form in which case there will not be enough stepmoms in the world to do TSE's favourite simile Justice.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650

    This is a budget which says Red Wall, goodbye and thanks

    Depends which bit Horse.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,503
    AlistairM said:

    This is very interesting. China making clear signals to Putin here.

    I met with State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi to discuss relations between Ukraine and China. My counterpart reaffirmed China’s respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as its rejection of the use of force as a means of resolving differences.
    https://twitter.com/DmytroKuleba/status/1573221116113461249

    Yep, and Xi made it clear to Putin in person a few days ago.

    Russia are on their own with this one, even North Korea is denying they’re sending artillery shells across the border.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,939
    I guess we'd all better hope the announced policies are more than Kwasi-effective? :wink:
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,154
    Hmm. I'm not sure how to react to all this.

    Rachel Reeves has more satire than content.

    This is very much froth from KK imo. Lots of badda-badda-bam, but little subtlety.

    The extent of the low business tax zones is interesting - "West Midlands", "Norfolk". But raising Business Rates to their appropriate level by updating property values resulted in a huge squealing in the SE like stuck pigs, so perhaps cutting them for the others is an alternative.

    Driving the demand side of housing again by a crude reduction of Stamp Duty seems Krazy, compared to attempting to create a less distorted market.

    That list of prioritised projects bears some examination.
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 1,452
    pm215 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ah there you are. I have a question. As I was out on my Apollo Highway (or is it Highway Apollo) this morning I pondered the 18 gears. I use three at most.

    When you are proper bicycling do people use each of those for 18 different types of terrain?

    In the traditional 3-at-front 6-at-back type gear setup, you aren't supposed to use them all -- combinations like outermost front with innermost rear or innermost front with outermost rear aren't good for the chain. For the rest, it depends on the terrain, but if you're anywhere hilly you will likely be wanting both the lowest and the highest gear you've got.
    all my bikes have the Rohloff Speedhub gearing - 14 gears with no duplication, perfect chainline geometry and up to 10,000km between replacement of parts

    https://www.rohloff.de/fileadmin/_processed_/d/9/csm_Vergleich_2x10_englisch_a71e3e570b.png
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Kwarteng has said: "Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services.
    Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services."

    How much growth is needed to make up for the £45 billion reduction in tax revenue? OK, this is my attempt at a back of an envelope calculation. Please do correct me! Let's say tax revenue is 30% of GDP, so to make up for £45 billion, you need the economy to grow by £45B/0.3 = £250 billion. UK GDP is £2.7 trillion, so growth of £250 billion would be 9¼%.

    The highest growth ever achieved since 1949 was 7.5% last year, with post-COVID bounce back. 6.5% was achieved in 1973 following Barber's dash for growth, which was followed by one of our worst recessions.

    We are not going to achieve 9¼% growth. These tax cuts will not pay for themselves. Public spending will have to be slashed.

    I think UK GDP is actually nearer £2.2trn, 2.7trn may be in dollars. But the bigger flaw is that you are imposing a time scale of a year on this. If the changes resulted in the UK growing 2% faster over 5 or more years then the costs of the package will gradually be offset and then the shortfall can be recovered. Its a risk, no question, but as Simon Clarke put it this morning doing nothing is a risk too. In fact, its not so much a risk as a certainty: the current level of public spending and services cannot be sustained on the current economy with low growth.
    Yes. I see the “budget” this way

    We are stuck in a horrible traffic jam and it’s getting cold and dark. We might not be home tonight. The kids are fractious, hungry. Petrol is running low. There are rumours of people violently robbing the stationary cars

    Kwarteng has pulled out of the jam, crossed the white lines, and we are now roaring along at 140mph, on the wrong but empty side of the road. Incredibly risky. Might work. But we might hit oncoming traffic and die. The kids stare out of the car window, bewildered

    That implies he's sharing the risk. He's not.
    And note there's a section of society take no part of the risk, and will do very well out of it, whatever the outcome.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,874

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    Remarkable how far the Overton window has shifted due to the succession of Brownite Chancellors, that we have so called Tories on here thinking it's morally wrong and dangerous to reduce "the jobs tax" and to bring the top rate of income tax back down to the level it happily sat for a working lifetime. Which I might add was the period of most impressive economic growth post WW2. David Herdson really has left the small c conservative nest as thoroughly as Bercow did with comments like that.

    Truss's premiership will now hinge on the Fed and little else. If they start their pivot in good time before the UK elections, that will allow sterling to recover and uk rates to top out too. The changes to stamp duty are smart, as they'll allow first time buyers between now and 2024 to put the funds saved towards a slightly larger deposit, which should then get them access to slightly better rates.

    The stamp duty cut to me seems to be the most damaging announcement today. As we saw during the pandemic all it did was produce a significant inflationary effect on house prices. All this will mean is that they will continue to rise, rapidly, and first time buyers will be even more screwed.
    Quite the opposite. The Truss/Kwarteng ethos is that taxes have been too high and interest rates too low for a decade or two. We've ended up with sclerotic growth and massive asset inflation, which when combined has benefited wealth holders rather than those who work for income. Higher rates will temper house price growth far more than any stamp duty cut boosts them.

    And the stamp cut is targeted at first time buyers, who basically all need mortgages and who's affordability ratings have been hit by rising utility prices and interest rates.

    I don't know whether they're going to get rewarded electorally for this as there's not long to go but they're swinging for the boundary and I am far from alone in cheering them for it.
    Theyve embraced Bazball
    That is probably the best description to date.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644
    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    Is this being said with pleasure, or as part of a discreet distancing?

    A massive moment for iealondon. They’ve been advocating these policies for years. They incubated Truss and Kwarteng during their early years as MPs. Britain is now their laboratory.

    https://twitter.com/montie/status/1573238591496634370

    Who voted to be a Guinea pig?
    Right now, it's an attractive prospect. Fur to keep you warm, all the sunflower seeds you can eat, lots of sawdust to hide in, away from all of this...
    Aren't those sunflower seeds supposed to come from Ukraine? There is no escape.
    Wrong sort of rodent. GPs are into leaves, hay and grass and kail and so on.
    I got confused reading this. I thought this might be how Therese Coffey was planning to meet her new two-week GP appointment target.
  • DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Kwarteng has said: "Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services.
    Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services."

    How much growth is needed to make up for the £45 billion reduction in tax revenue? OK, this is my attempt at a back of an envelope calculation. Please do correct me! Let's say tax revenue is 30% of GDP, so to make up for £45 billion, you need the economy to grow by £45B/0.3 = £250 billion. UK GDP is £2.7 trillion, so growth of £250 billion would be 9¼%.

    The highest growth ever achieved since 1949 was 7.5% last year, with post-COVID bounce back. 6.5% was achieved in 1973 following Barber's dash for growth, which was followed by one of our worst recessions.

    We are not going to achieve 9¼% growth. These tax cuts will not pay for themselves. Public spending will have to be slashed.

    I think UK GDP is actually nearer £2.2trn, 2.7trn may be in dollars. But the bigger flaw is that you are imposing a time scale of a year on this. If the changes resulted in the UK growing 2% faster over 5 or more years then the costs of the package will gradually be offset and then the shortfall can be recovered. Its a risk, no question, but as Simon Clarke put it this morning doing nothing is a risk too. In fact, its not so much a risk as a certainty: the current level of public spending and services cannot be sustained on the current economy with low growth.
    Yes. I see the “budget” this way

    We are stuck in a horrible traffic jam and it’s getting cold and dark. We might not be home tonight. The kids are fractious, hungry. Petrol is running low. There are rumours of people violently robbing the stationary cars

    Kwarteng has pulled out of the jam, crossed the white lines, and we are now roaring along at 140mph, on the wrong but empty side of the road. Incredibly risky. Might work. But we might hit oncoming traffic and die. The kids stare out of the car window, bewildered

    “You’ve got to ask yourself one question. Do I feel lucky?”
    Are you confident that if Kwasi and back seat driver Truss see the headlights of an oncoming car they won't replicate the chickie run scene from Rebel Without a Cause?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756

    DavidL said:

    Kwarteng has said: "Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services.
    Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services."

    How much growth is needed to make up for the £45 billion reduction in tax revenue? OK, this is my attempt at a back of an envelope calculation. Please do correct me! Let's say tax revenue is 30% of GDP, so to make up for £45 billion, you need the economy to grow by £45B/0.3 = £250 billion. UK GDP is £2.7 trillion, so growth of £250 billion would be 9¼%.

    The highest growth ever achieved since 1949 was 7.5% last year, with post-COVID bounce back. 6.5% was achieved in 1973 following Barber's dash for growth, which was followed by one of our worst recessions.

    We are not going to achieve 9¼% growth. These tax cuts will not pay for themselves. Public spending will have to be slashed.

    I think UK GDP is actually nearer £2.2trn, 2.7trn may be in dollars. But the bigger flaw is that you are imposing a time scale of a year on this. If the changes resulted in the UK growing 2% faster over 5 or more years then the costs of the package will gradually be offset and then the shortfall can be recovered. Its a risk, no question, but as Simon Clarke put it this morning doing nothing is a risk too. In fact, its not so much a risk as a certainty: the current level of public spending and services cannot be sustained on the current economy with low growth.
    You are right! 2.7trn was $. Thanks.

    OK, so £2.2trn. £250 billion growth would be 11.4% growth. Even less likely.

    But, yes, you're right, growth is cumulative. So, to achieve 11.4% growth over 5 years, we need the 5th root of 1.114. That means 2.2% extra growth per year. That's more feasible, but if you amortise over 5 years, you've got this large additional debt that's built up while you wait for additional growth to catch up (plus the interest to be paid). I would also suggest 2.2% extra growth is still difficult to achieve. It certainly won't be achieved with discredited trickle down economics.

    Clarke is right that doing nothing is a risk too. However, as ever, just because something needs to be done doesn't mean this something is the answer. There are clearly many, many alternatives. As per the CBI, what about investing in education and training, in encouraging R&D? What about a focus on productivity? Or what about investing in and reforming social care?
    Politicians' logic:

    We must do something.

    This is something.

    Therefore, we must do this.

    Alternatively:

    All cats have four legs

    My dog has four legs

    Therefore, my dog is a cat.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 7,459
    edited September 2022
    As mentioned, the social context of this will become much clearer after the next price rise.

    Since there's been absolutely nothing on Universal Credit announced, by the end of the year even the friendliest media will not be able to avoid the increasingly obvious hardship and poverty, just as Truss and Kwarteng's flagship masters-of-the-universe policies roll into public view.

    In 1990 the Tory party was still sufficiently diverse in intellectual outlook to understand the need for a change of course. There's no sign of that now. The government will eventually be punished for this at the polls, as it would have been in 1992.

    And it will be richly deserved and just.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,939
    MaxPB said:

    Something that occurs to me is that if it does all go tits up and we call in the IMF under Labour, they will be charged with making eyewatering cuts to the state in return for IMF help and raising taxes. It will be Keir Starmer cutting the NHS and begging to the IMF, not the Tories.

    Never underestimate the ability of Labour to lose an election :wink:
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637

    DavidL said:

    Kwarteng has said: "Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services.
    Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services."

    How much growth is needed to make up for the £45 billion reduction in tax revenue? OK, this is my attempt at a back of an envelope calculation. Please do correct me! Let's say tax revenue is 30% of GDP, so to make up for £45 billion, you need the economy to grow by £45B/0.3 = £250 billion. UK GDP is £2.7 trillion, so growth of £250 billion would be 9¼%.

    The highest growth ever achieved since 1949 was 7.5% last year, with post-COVID bounce back. 6.5% was achieved in 1973 following Barber's dash for growth, which was followed by one of our worst recessions.

    We are not going to achieve 9¼% growth. These tax cuts will not pay for themselves. Public spending will have to be slashed.

    I think UK GDP is actually nearer £2.2trn, 2.7trn may be in dollars. But the bigger flaw is that you are imposing a time scale of a year on this. If the changes resulted in the UK growing 2% faster over 5 or more years then the costs of the package will gradually be offset and then the shortfall can be recovered. Its a risk, no question, but as Simon Clarke put it this morning doing nothing is a risk too. In fact, its not so much a risk as a certainty: the current level of public spending and services cannot be sustained on the current economy with low growth.
    You are right! 2.7trn was $. Thanks.

    OK, so £2.2trn. £250 billion growth would be 11.4% growth. Even less likely.

    But, yes, you're right, growth is cumulative. So, to achieve 11.4% growth over 5 years, we need the 5th root of 1.114. That means 2.2% extra growth per year. That's more feasible, but if you amortise over 5 years, you've got this large additional debt that's built up while you wait for additional growth to catch up (plus the interest to be paid). I would also suggest 2.2% extra growth is still difficult to achieve. It certainly won't be achieved with discredited trickle down economics.

    Clarke is right that doing nothing is a risk too. However, as ever, just because something needs to be done doesn't mean this something is the answer. There are clearly many, many alternatives. As per the CBI, what about investing in education and training, in encouraging R&D? What about a focus on productivity? Or what about investing in and reforming social care?
    “What about a focus on productivity? Or what about investing in and reforming social care?”

    Genius ideas. Blue sky thinking. If only you were Chancellor
  • Kwarteng has said: "Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services.
    Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services."

    How much growth is needed to make up for the £45 billion reduction in tax revenue? OK, this is my attempt at a back of an envelope calculation. Please do correct me! Let's say tax revenue is 30% of GDP, so to make up for £45 billion, you need the economy to grow by £45B/0.3 = £250 billion. UK GDP is £2.7 trillion, so growth of £250 billion would be 9¼%.

    The highest growth ever achieved since 1949 was 7.5% last year, with post-COVID bounce back. 6.5% was achieved in 1973 following Barber's dash for growth, which was followed by one of our worst recessions.

    We are not going to achieve 9¼% growth. These tax cuts will not pay for themselves. Public spending will have to be slashed.

    UK GDP is about £2.2tn not £2.7 so that makes things worse, but you're missing the impact of compound growth.

    £2.2tn with 0.5% growth per annum over five years = £2.25 tn
    £2.2tn with 2.5% growth per annum over five years = £2.5 tn

    So there's your £250bn difference that you needed. And of course if there's higher growth for six or more years at that rate, then you're now in surplus with what you're generating.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,975
    edited September 2022

    ping said:

    Kwarteng has said: "Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services.
    Growing the economy creates growing tax revenues, which pay public services."

    How much growth is needed to make up for the £45 billion reduction in tax revenue? OK, this is my attempt at a back of an envelope calculation. Please do correct me! Let's say tax revenue is 30% of GDP, so to make up for £45 billion, you need the economy to grow by £45B/0.3 = £250 billion. UK GDP is £2.7 trillion, so growth of £250 billion would be 9¼%.

    The highest growth ever achieved since 1949 was 7.5% last year, with post-COVID bounce back. 6.5% was achieved in 1973 following Barber's dash for growth, which was followed by one of our worst recessions.

    We are not going to achieve 9¼% growth. These tax cuts will not pay for themselves. Public spending will have to be slashed.

    That’s part 2 of their strategy.

    Truss and Kwarteng are two of the most cynical people ever to grace British politics.
    Oh absolutely. This is the second part of the plan. This is why the bad reaction in financial markets is precisely what they want, because a crisis provides the opportunity for radical cuts to spending.
    This is cut and paste from US Republican strategy, as you would expect. It's called "starving the beast". Cut taxes first, create a fiscal crisis, then cut spending to solve it.
    Class War in other words badged as "going for growth". It's been bugging me how people who are clearly very bright - eg KK - could believe the way to create strong sustainable growth is to borrow shedloads of money and gift it to the wealthy. That's moronic and we're not dealing with morons here.

    So maybe you're right. My take is more that they are both clueless about and uninterested in the financial consequences beyond the timeframe of the election. The plan is to generate a buzz of "newness" and a short term economic boost from shaking the magic money tree - they see this as their best and maybe only hope of winning again. And if that happens I'm emigrating.
This discussion has been closed.