There seems to have been little mention of the Kantar poll putting the Tories within 4 points of Labour. Did I miss the discussion, or are we just ignoring it?
First day of field work was before the Not-A-Budget.
I notice those shrugging their shoulders - Sean F, William G and Barth - are not mentioning the intervention by the Bank of England to stop pension funds collapsing. As for interest rates, we now have inflation. Of course interest are going to go up. It has already started. But the essential argument was whether the Bank should have gone 0.25% higher on Thursday, which now feels rather academic.
My sense is that certain people cannot accept that whilst Sunak's tax rises were in place the markets had confidence in UK borrowing. Once they were reversed and then some, the markets took fright. It goes against everything believed by people of a certain obsessive ideology. That tax cuts equal economic nirvana and tax rises equals economic doom. Reality is a bit more complicated.
As an aside, I think pretty much all governing parties are going to be hit by pretty serious headwinds right now.
Across the developed world - the UK, the US, Germany, Japan, etc. - you are seeing a combination rising energy prices, scarcity of parts for products, and rising interest rates.
It's a cocktail pretty much guaranteed to guaranteed to squeeze disposable incomes and lead to recessions. Even the US, despite being a (slight) energy exporters is likely to see one. While those countries that are large energy importers are being hit even harder.
But you know who's really getting screwed? People in poor countries, which simply can't afford to outbid the West for coal or gas supplies. The riots you are seeing in Pakistan and other places are because that cocktail might make us in the West feel slightly queezy, but it's disastrous for people in poorer places. (And it really doesn't matter how little you rely on Russian energy, the impact is much the same.)
In time, the world will adjust. Either we'll find alternative energy sources to Russia (as we did to OPEC in the 1980s), or Putin will be defeated, and Russian energy (one way or another) will find a way to get into global markets. China will -inevitably and eventually- abandon its ruinous zero Covid strategy.
And the world will be in a better place; quite possibly quite a lot better place.
The Western boom of the 80s and 90s was at least partly a consequence of countries weaning themselves off cheap Saudi oil, and replacing it with North Sea or Alaska or nuclear. Why shouldn't we see similar this time around?
Quite so.
Truss' mistake was to axe the top tax rate, and the cap on bankers' bonuses.
The rest is basically a lot of hysteria over very little. Interest rates can't remain at 2% or thereabouts, for ever. If you've borrowed money that you can't repay, at normal rates of interest, that's on you, not the government. Not that anyone will think that it's on them.
Yep, it’s 45p and bankers that has done for her. If she was facing these headwinds because she’d reversed NI and cut the basic rate she’d be getting some flak but she could say she wanted to make things easier for everyday families/workers etc (appreciate that the economics wouldn’t necessarily of borne that out but the man on the street probably wouldn’t have gone into the intricacies of that: they’d just have thought “oh good on her lowering my taxes.”)
As it is it’s just “you’re helping the very rich not me” and she has NO way of countering that.
Back in 1992, I was paying 15% on a flat, whose market value had declined from £80,000 to £42,000. I'd have thought that a 4% mortgage rate was something out of the Arabian Nights.
And, your view is representative of a lot of Daily Mail readers today.
My mortgage is almost £380k - you'll the principal is 8-10 times than then. For many homes in London and the South-East this will be similar. The alternative I had on the table was not buying a home for my family. No-one is going to do that.
I will thank no-one for any ideological dogma that leads my payments to balloon by over £1,000 pcm and leads me to be forced to sell at a loss and lose my home.
This dilemma is why the previous low interest rate policies were so pernicious. They effectively coerced people into buying into a bubble and loading up on debt.
You can certainly make an argument that people are being irresponsible, for example overstretching themselves on a 105-110% mortgage and living beyond their means, but I don't think you can when it applies to virtually anyone who wants to buy and get on who isn't fantastically wealthy.
That's exactly the point. Successive governments created market conditions where instead of rewarding prudence and hard work, people were almost forced to be reckless if they wanted to live a normal life.
George Osborne's biggest mistake was continuing with policies designed purely to prop up the housing market by getting people to take on levels of debt that would be unaffordable at normal interest rates.
And can you blame people for being desperate to join the property circus at almost any price? What's the alternative, working until you drop down dead of exhaustion to keep paying the rent?
For most households, the most onerous financial burden isn't food or fuel, it's rent or mortgage. Outright owner-occupiers have reached the promised land in this society.
As an aside, I think pretty much all governing parties are going to be hit by pretty serious headwinds right now.
Across the developed world - the UK, the US, Germany, Japan, etc. - you are seeing a combination rising energy prices, scarcity of parts for products, and rising interest rates.
It's a cocktail pretty much guaranteed to guaranteed to squeeze disposable incomes and lead to recessions. Even the US, despite being a (slight) energy exporters is likely to see one. While those countries that are large energy importers are being hit even harder.
But you know who's really getting screwed? People in poor countries, which simply can't afford to outbid the West for coal or gas supplies. The riots you are seeing in Pakistan and other places are because that cocktail might make us in the West feel slightly queezy, but it's disastrous for people in poorer places. (And it really doesn't matter how little you rely on Russian energy, the impact is much the same.)
In time, the world will adjust. Either we'll find alternative energy sources to Russia (as we did to OPEC in the 1980s), or Putin will be defeated, and Russian energy (one way or another) will find a way to get into global markets. China will -inevitably and eventually- abandon its ruinous zero Covid strategy.
And the world will be in a better place; quite possibly quite a lot better place.
The Western boom of the 80s and 90s was at least partly a consequence of countries weaning themselves off cheap Saudi oil, and replacing it with North Sea or Alaska or nuclear. Why shouldn't we see similar this time around?
Quite so.
Truss' mistake was to axe the top tax rate, and the cap on bankers' bonuses.
The rest is basically a lot of hysteria over very little. Interest rates can't remain at 2% or thereabouts, for ever. If you've borrowed money that you can't repay, at normal rates of interest, that's on you, not the government. Not that anyone will think that it's on them.
Yep, it’s 45p and bankers that has done for her. If she was facing these headwinds because she’d reversed NI and cut the basic rate she’d be getting some flak but she could say she wanted to make things easier for everyday families/workers etc (appreciate that the economics wouldn’t necessarily of borne that out but the man on the street probably wouldn’t have gone into the intricacies of that: they’d just have thought “oh good on her lowering my taxes.”)
As it is it’s just “you’re helping the very rich not me” and she has NO way of countering that.
Back in 1992, I was paying 15% on a flat, whose market value had declined from £80,000 to £42,000. I'd have thought that a 4% mortgage rate was something out of the Arabian Nights.
And, your view is representative of a lot of Daily Mail readers today.
My mortgage is almost £380k - you'll the principal is 8-10 times than then. For many homes in London and the South-East this will be similar. The alternative I had on the table was not buying a home for my family. No-one is going to do that.
I will thank no-one for any ideological dogma that leads my payments to balloon by over £1,000 pcm and leads me to be forced to sell at a loss and lose my home.
This dilemma is why the previous low interest rate policies were so pernicious. They effectively coerced people into buying into a bubble and loading up on debt.
You can certainly make an argument that people are being irresponsible, for example overstretching themselves on a 105-110% mortgage and living beyond their means, but I don't think you can when it applies to virtually anyone who wants to buy and get on who isn't fantastically wealthy.
That's exactly the point. Successive governments created market conditions where instead of rewarding prudence and hard work, people were almost forced to be reckless if they wanted to live a normal life.
George Osborne's biggest mistake was continuing with policies designed purely to prop up the housing market by getting people to take on levels of debt that would be unaffordable at normal interest rates.
And can you blame people for being desperate to join the property circus at almost any price? What's the alternative, working until you drop down dead of exhaustion to keep paying the rent?
For most households, the most onerous financial burden isn't food or fuel, it's rent or mortgage. Outright owner-occupiers have reached the promised land in this society.
Amazing that house prices reached stupid levels in 2004 and stayed that way for 18 years....incredible
There seems to have been little mention of the Kantar poll putting the Tories within 4 points of Labour. Did I miss the discussion, or are we just ignoring it?
Is that the one where the fieldwork was done prior to the mini-budget?
Was Liz really a Lib-Dem sleeper agent all the way along?
Or just as thick as shit?
I won´t quote what Paddy Ashdown once said about her, but suffice it to say it was not flattering and I expect Paddy would be laughing out loud if he is watching the current predicament.
This is another reason why the markets have lost faith in Truss and Kwarteng.
OBR confirms on record my story from 9 days ago that it prepared a draft forecast for new Chancellor waiting for him on first day at Treasury 6th September, and that an offer for a legally compliant forecast to accompany the mini-budget was rejected.
* We sent a draft economic and fiscal forecast to the new Chancellor on 6 September, his first day in office. We offered, at the time, to update that forecast
But 'I fucked up on an epochal scale, and I hereby resign, disclaim my pension and recuse myself from future public sector roles' would be more satisfying.
As an aside, I think pretty much all governing parties are going to be hit by pretty serious headwinds right now.
Across the developed world - the UK, the US, Germany, Japan, etc. - you are seeing a combination rising energy prices, scarcity of parts for products, and rising interest rates.
It's a cocktail pretty much guaranteed to guaranteed to squeeze disposable incomes and lead to recessions. Even the US, despite being a (slight) energy exporters is likely to see one. While those countries that are large energy importers are being hit even harder.
But you know who's really getting screwed? People in poor countries, which simply can't afford to outbid the West for coal or gas supplies. The riots you are seeing in Pakistan and other places are because that cocktail might make us in the West feel slightly queezy, but it's disastrous for people in poorer places. (And it really doesn't matter how little you rely on Russian energy, the impact is much the same.)
In time, the world will adjust. Either we'll find alternative energy sources to Russia (as we did to OPEC in the 1980s), or Putin will be defeated, and Russian energy (one way or another) will find a way to get into global markets. China will -inevitably and eventually- abandon its ruinous zero Covid strategy.
And the world will be in a better place; quite possibly quite a lot better place.
The Western boom of the 80s and 90s was at least partly a consequence of countries weaning themselves off cheap Saudi oil, and replacing it with North Sea or Alaska or nuclear. Why shouldn't we see similar this time around?
Quite so.
Truss' mistake was to axe the top tax rate, and the cap on bankers' bonuses.
The rest is basically a lot of hysteria over very little. Interest rates can't remain at 2% or thereabouts, for ever. If you've borrowed money that you can't repay, at normal rates of interest, that's on you, not the government. Not that anyone will think that it's on them.
Yep, it’s 45p and bankers that has done for her. If she was facing these headwinds because she’d reversed NI and cut the basic rate she’d be getting some flak but she could say she wanted to make things easier for everyday families/workers etc (appreciate that the economics wouldn’t necessarily of borne that out but the man on the street probably wouldn’t have gone into the intricacies of that: they’d just have thought “oh good on her lowering my taxes.”)
As it is it’s just “you’re helping the very rich not me” and she has NO way of countering that.
Back in 1992, I was paying 15% on a flat, whose market value had declined from £80,000 to £42,000. I'd have thought that a 4% mortgage rate was something out of the Arabian Nights.
And, your view is representative of a lot of Daily Mail readers today.
My mortgage is almost £380k - you'll the principal is 8-10 times than then. For many homes in London and the South-East this will be similar. The alternative I had on the table was not buying a home for my family. No-one is going to do that.
I will thank no-one for any ideological dogma that leads my payments to balloon by over £1,000 pcm and leads me to be forced to sell at a loss and lose my home.
This dilemma is why the previous low interest rate policies were so pernicious. They effectively coerced people into buying into a bubble and loading up on debt.
You can certainly make an argument that people are being irresponsible, for example overstretching themselves on a 105-110% mortgage and living beyond their means, but I don't think you can when it applies to virtually anyone who wants to buy and get on who isn't fantastically wealthy.
That's exactly the point. Successive governments created market conditions where instead of rewarding prudence and hard work, people were almost forced to be reckless if they wanted to live a normal life.
George Osborne's biggest mistake was continuing with policies designed purely to prop up the housing market by getting people to take on levels of debt that would be unaffordable at normal interest rates.
george osborne did it after 2012...you may forget the economy was in the doldrums then...osborne with low interest rates and help to buy won the tories the 2015 election...if he hadnt done that the tories would likely have lost in 2015
That's debatable. Remember the fall in the oil price and the promise of the Brexit vote.
I notice those shrugging their shoulders - Sean F, William G and Barth - are not mentioning the intervention by the Bank of England to stop pension funds collapsing. As for interest rates, we now have inflation. Of course interest are going to go up. It has already started. But the essential argument was whether the Bank should have gone 0.25% higher on Thursday, which now feels rather academic.
My sense is that certain people cannot accept that whilst Sunak's tax rises were in place the markets had confidence in UK borrowing. Once they were reversed and then some, the markets took fright. It goes against everything believed by people of a certain obsessive ideology. That tax cuts equal economic nirvana and tax rises equals economic doom. Reality is a bit more complicated.
I did mention the Bank's action actually. The Bank chose to engage in QT and that is when the markets took fright, but the mini budget got the blame.
The tax cuts are an irrelevant side show to be honest, though they get the political headlines and will carry the news. The Bank selling rather than buying £80bn of gilts while the State had to borrow to pay for energy support etc would have tipped over the market either way, with or without the taxes.
The Bank reversed their decision to engage in QT and the markets stabilised.
🔴 YouGov: Labour 33pt lead 🔴 Survation: Labour 21pt lead 🔴 Deltapoll: Labour 19pt lead 🔴 Redfield & Wilton: Labour 17pt lead
Time for Con MPs to do what they do best! Panic!
Could it be that that Yougov poll has much more recent fieldwork ? It's very out of line with the others, and yet Yougov has its understandably strong reputation.
Either it's very out of line, or any results from after yesterday afternoon changed dramatically, as I was thinking might happen yestreday. The psychological step-change idea I mentioned.
As an aside, I think pretty much all governing parties are going to be hit by pretty serious headwinds right now.
Across the developed world - the UK, the US, Germany, Japan, etc. - you are seeing a combination rising energy prices, scarcity of parts for products, and rising interest rates.
It's a cocktail pretty much guaranteed to guaranteed to squeeze disposable incomes and lead to recessions. Even the US, despite being a (slight) energy exporters is likely to see one. While those countries that are large energy importers are being hit even harder.
But you know who's really getting screwed? People in poor countries, which simply can't afford to outbid the West for coal or gas supplies. The riots you are seeing in Pakistan and other places are because that cocktail might make us in the West feel slightly queezy, but it's disastrous for people in poorer places. (And it really doesn't matter how little you rely on Russian energy, the impact is much the same.)
In time, the world will adjust. Either we'll find alternative energy sources to Russia (as we did to OPEC in the 1980s), or Putin will be defeated, and Russian energy (one way or another) will find a way to get into global markets. China will -inevitably and eventually- abandon its ruinous zero Covid strategy.
And the world will be in a better place; quite possibly quite a lot better place.
The Western boom of the 80s and 90s was at least partly a consequence of countries weaning themselves off cheap Saudi oil, and replacing it with North Sea or Alaska or nuclear. Why shouldn't we see similar this time around?
Quite so.
Truss' mistake was to axe the top tax rate, and the cap on bankers' bonuses.
The rest is basically a lot of hysteria over very little. Interest rates can't remain at 2% or thereabouts, for ever. If you've borrowed money that you can't repay, at normal rates of interest, that's on you, not the government. Not that anyone will think that it's on them.
I think you've got this wrong.
@MaxPB had it right when he said there'd been a market reaction to the UK government making £45bn in unfunded tax cuts and bringing into question the state's ability to pay its way.
Truss has almost certainly directly contributed to the pound sinking further and inflation climbing higher than it otherwise would have done, which will cost a lot of people a lot of money.
Max also pointed out that the Dynamic Duo had lost credibilty in the eyes of the financial community. That may not be the be-all and end-all, but it sure doesn't help.
The government sidelining the OBR was a fundamental mistake when announcing widespread tax cuts and spending increases.
It removed all credibility from the package and so ruined any chance of it succeeding.
Agreed. It also failed to prepare the City for what was coming.
One of the more useful aphorisms I heard when working in the Square Mile was that business can cope with good news, and bad news, but struggles to cope with uncertainty.
Truss and Kwarteng have definitely created a lot of uncertainty.
Undoubtedly the 'budget' was a catalyst for a disastrous week, but I think the seeds of government unpopularity have been festering for a while. In my humble opinion, with all the high-flying and generally prosperous intellectuals on here, there's a tendency to over-complicate stuff. Most people haven't a clue what 'gilts' or 'bonds' are.
What they do know is that they have less disposable income and the cost of living is a nightmare. When Truss and Kwarteng use their 'energy support scheme' as a defence (ludicrously) and talk about 'saving on energy', they forget that even with the £2.5k cap most people are paying double what they were paying a year ago. Voters don't do gratitude. Add on high rents, the prospect of higher mortgages, higher food and fuel prices, combined with the toxic decision to give the rich more money, and it gets worse.
Here's my little example from today. I bought a bottle of vegetable oil from the Co-op (own range). £2.40. One year ago, the same oil was £1.09. Now, multiply that inflation by dozens of other basics and your weekly shopping bills have risen immensely - unlike your wages. I'm lucky enough to be able to withstand it. But we need to look at it from the point of view of the tens of milions of people who don't have much disposable income. They're pissed off, and blaming the government. That's what people do.
This is another reason why the markets have lost faith in Truss and Kwarteng.
OBR confirms on record my story from 9 days ago that it prepared a draft forecast for new Chancellor waiting for him on first day at Treasury 6th September, and that an offer for a legally compliant forecast to accompany the mini-budget was rejected.
* We sent a draft economic and fiscal forecast to the new Chancellor on 6 September, his first day in office. We offered, at the time, to update that forecast
But 'I fucked up on an epochal scale, and I hereby resign, disclaim my pension and recuse myself from future public sector roles' would be more satisfying.
Take on the dragons. Make the difficult policy choices. Be damned with the immediate term popularity contests. Those are for next year, as policy begins to pay off.
I’ve just split my sides laughing..
Tbf, we should look for a route to LizT's recovery. An England World Cup win; the NIC rise reversal hitting people's pay packets; ok, I'm struggling here.
Team Truss needs to devise a plan for growth rather than just hoping for it.
But 'I fucked up on an epochal scale, and I hereby resign, disclaim my pension and recuse myself from future public sector roles' would be more satisfying.
Yep. No danger of her reappearing as my TA then.
Even in your current staffing situation - would you want her?
There seems to have been little mention of the Kantar poll putting the Tories within 4 points of Labour. Did I miss the discussion, or are we just ignoring it?
Most fieldwork done before the Special Fiscal Operation.
Wrong! Truss called it a "Budget" this morning on BBC Radio.
Of course it's an outlier, but outliers only ever stray so far from the underlying levels of public support. The largest outlier in Jeremy Corbyn's favour was either the one that gave Labour a 10% poll lead, or the one that put Labour on 46%. Starmer is some way ahead of either of those, so fair to conclude that the underlying level of public support is consequently more in his favour.
I wonder what the poll would currently show if the Labour leadership were Corbyn and McDonnell?
Tories have lost the next GE. They need to focus now on damage limitation and doing what's best for the country in the short term. Happily, both of those objectives align by getting rid of Truss.
By what mechanism?
Under 1922 rules she cannot face a VOC for twelve months.
So either the 1922 change the rules or she resigns.
Johnson resigned when he couldn't form a cabinet - Truss has a cabinet full of her supporters.
How?
Is that true, though? If 50 MPs force you to seek a vote of confidence in the Parliamentary Party and you win, they can't do it again for a year. But that doesn't apply to a newly-elected leader, does it? They can put 50 letters in, and remove Truss in the subsequent vote.
Of course, an election under normal rules follows, and the membership would probably then elect Rees-Mogg .
this could all go another way if as the economy starts to fall apart in the next month the Fed is forced to pivot or face total economic collapse. We could then move towards hyperinflation with soaring stock markets and house prices also stabilising
Wise words my old china, but I must advise our newer followers that far from being hopeless at backing racehorses, or indeed other creatures, you are one of the Site's more dependable shrewdies.
Can't be having false modesty, Sunshine.
I've managed to scrounge off some time for some autumnal Flat racing - hoping to get to Brighton, Windsor and Newmarket before it's off for some jumping.
🔴 YouGov: Labour 33pt lead 🔴 Survation: Labour 21pt lead 🔴 Deltapoll: Labour 19pt lead 🔴 Redfield & Wilton: Labour 17pt lead
It's all over.
Even a new leader wouldn't help now. The Tories need a couple of terms in opposition to sort themselves out.
Hopefully Starmer can deliver once in office.
If the Tories are on their way out anyway, then hopefully everything that needs to be done now is done now. Lets see house prices fall back to a 3x multiple in the North and a 4x multiple in the South/London, just as it was at the turn of the century. People often say "but you'll lose the next election", well if the election's lost anyway, this is the right thing to happen for the good of the country.
Fix the problems that we have, or the Tories don't deserve to be in office anyway if they're just going to keep kicking the can and fuelling the problems instead.
During the leadership election, the 'Boris Derangement Syndrome' conspiracy theory was that Liz Truss was a plant who would be so bad that Boris could make a comeback before the next election. Maybe it could come true by accident.
There seems to have been little mention of the Kantar poll putting the Tories within 4 points of Labour. Did I miss the discussion, or are we just ignoring it?
First day of field work was before the Not-A-Budget.
Thanks, Al, but it is still a strikingly low number.
I think Kantar have a reputaution for being a bit maverick, which is not to say they are necessarily wrong, just different.
I have a feeling she'll try and do a "ladies not for turning" moment...
I hope she does because it would be so plagaristic and empty that it would utterly destroy whatever credibility she has left. Then maybe we can have someone more in touch with political reality in charge after she has been moved on.
I notice those shrugging their shoulders - Sean F, William G and Barth - are not mentioning the intervention by the Bank of England to stop pension funds collapsing. As for interest rates, we now have inflation. Of course interest are going to go up. It has already started. But the essential argument was whether the Bank should have gone 0.25% higher on Thursday, which now feels rather academic.
My sense is that certain people cannot accept that whilst Sunak's tax rises were in place the markets had confidence in UK borrowing. Once they were reversed and then some, the markets took fright. It goes against everything believed by people of a certain obsessive ideology. That tax cuts equal economic nirvana and tax rises equals economic doom. Reality is a bit more complicated.
I did mention the Bank's action actually. The Bank chose to engage in QT and that is when the markets took fright, but the mini budget got the blame.
The tax cuts are an irrelevant side show to be honest, though they get the political headlines and will carry the news. The Bank selling rather than buying £80bn of gilts while the State had to borrow to pay for energy support etc would have tipped over the market either way, with or without the taxes.
The Bank reversed their decision to engage in QT and the markets stabilised.
Any proof for that?
I mean on a timeline it was the statement that caused the reaction in the markets and I don't know exactly what you are basing this on. Which high level voices in the financial world have been saying that.
Undoubtedly the 'budget' was a catalyst for a disastrous week, but I think the seeds of government unpopularity have been festering for a while. In my humble opinion, with all the high-flying and generally prosperous intellectuals on here, there's a tendency to over-complicate stuff. Most people haven't a clue what 'gilts' or 'bonds' are.
What they do know is that they have less disposable income and the cost of living is a nightmare. When Truss and Kwarteng use their 'energy support scheme' as a defence (ludicrously) and talk about 'saving on energy', they forget that even with the £2.5k cap most people are paying double what they were paying a year ago. Voters don't do gratitude. Add on high rents, the prospect of higher mortgages, higher food and fuel prices, combined with the toxic decision to give the rich more money, and it gets worse.
Here's my little example from today. I bought a bottle of vegetable oil from the Co-op (own range). £2.40. One year ago, the same oil was £1.09. Now, multiply that inflation by dozens of other basics and your weekly shopping bills have risen immensely - unlike your wages. I'm lucky enough to be able to withstand it. But we need to look at it from the point of view of the tens of milions of people who don't have much disposable income. They're pissed off, and blaming the government. That's what people do.
Great post, and a very useful reminder of how little of what is discussed on here is relevant to most voters.
However, I would add that, whilst 'gilts' and 'bonds' won't stick, most people will have picked up on the sense of incredulity and uncertainty and will feel the rug has been pulled out from under them. To give one example, the weekly MSE email, which is absurdly popular, basically says you're f*cked if you mortgage is coming to an end. That's a disastrous look for any government.
I notice those shrugging their shoulders - Sean F, William G and Barth - are not mentioning the intervention by the Bank of England to stop pension funds collapsing. As for interest rates, we now have inflation. Of course interest are going to go up. It has already started. But the essential argument was whether the Bank should have gone 0.25% higher on Thursday, which now feels rather academic.
My sense is that certain people cannot accept that whilst Sunak's tax rises were in place the markets had confidence in UK borrowing. Once they were reversed and then some, the markets took fright. It goes against everything believed by people of a certain obsessive ideology. That tax cuts equal economic nirvana and tax rises equals economic doom. Reality is a bit more complicated.
I did mention the Bank's action actually. The Bank chose to engage in QT and that is when the markets took fright, but the mini budget got the blame.
The tax cuts are an irrelevant side show to be honest, though they get the political headlines and will carry the news. The Bank selling rather than buying £80bn of gilts while the State had to borrow to pay for energy support etc would have tipped over the market either way, with or without the taxes.
The Bank reversed their decision to engage in QT and the markets stabilised.
Any proof for that?
I mean on a timeline it was the statement that caused the reaction in the markets and I don't know exactly what you are basing this on. Which high level voices in the financial world have been saying that.
You're dealing with the chap who insisted for days that Owen Paterson had no appellate process, despite everybody telling him he was talking shite.
Anyway looking on the bright side Liz Truss has assured us several times today that after her intervention NO household will pay more than £2500 a year on energy bills. Wow! That is good news, I live in a six bedroom house and was already paying more than that last year...
Wise words my old china, but I must advise our newer followers that far from being hopeless at backing racehorses, or indeed other creatures, you are one of the Site's more dependable shrewdies.
Can't be having false modesty, Sunshine.
I've managed to scrounge off some time for some autumnal Flat racing - hoping to get to Brighton, Windsor and Newmarket before it's off for some jumping.
Nothing wrong with the flat of course, but not as good as the real thing. Glad to note you limbering up nicely for the serious stuff.
As an aside, I think pretty much all governing parties are going to be hit by pretty serious headwinds right now.
Across the developed world - the UK, the US, Germany, Japan, etc. - you are seeing a combination rising energy prices, scarcity of parts for products, and rising interest rates.
It's a cocktail pretty much guaranteed to guaranteed to squeeze disposable incomes and lead to recessions. Even the US, despite being a (slight) energy exporters is likely to see one. While those countries that are large energy importers are being hit even harder.
But you know who's really getting screwed? People in poor countries, which simply can't afford to outbid the West for coal or gas supplies. The riots you are seeing in Pakistan and other places are because that cocktail might make us in the West feel slightly queezy, but it's disastrous for people in poorer places. (And it really doesn't matter how little you rely on Russian energy, the impact is much the same.)
In time, the world will adjust. Either we'll find alternative energy sources to Russia (as we did to OPEC in the 1980s), or Putin will be defeated, and Russian energy (one way or another) will find a way to get into global markets. China will -inevitably and eventually- abandon its ruinous zero Covid strategy.
And the world will be in a better place; quite possibly quite a lot better place.
The Western boom of the 80s and 90s was at least partly a consequence of countries weaning themselves off cheap Saudi oil, and replacing it with North Sea or Alaska or nuclear. Why shouldn't we see similar this time around?
Quite so.
Truss' mistake was to axe the top tax rate, and the cap on bankers' bonuses.
The rest is basically a lot of hysteria over very little. Interest rates can't remain at 2% or thereabouts, for ever. If you've borrowed money that you can't repay, at normal rates of interest, that's on you, not the government. Not that anyone will think that it's on them.
I think you've got this wrong.
@MaxPB had it right when he said there'd been a market reaction to the UK government making £45bn in unfunded tax cuts and bringing into question the state's ability to pay its way.
Truss has almost certainly directly contributed to the pound sinking further and inflation climbing higher than it otherwise would have done, which will cost a lot of people a lot of money.
Max also pointed out that the Dynamic Duo had lost credibilty in the eyes of the financial community. That may not be the be-all and end-all, but it sure doesn't help.
The government sidelining the OBR was a fundamental mistake when announcing widespread tax cuts and spending increases.
It removed all credibility from the package and so ruined any chance of it succeeding.
Agreed. It also failed to prepare the City for what was coming.
One of the more useful aphorisms I heard when working in the Square Mile was that business can cope with good news, and bad news, but struggles to cope with uncertainty.
Truss and Kwarteng have definitely created a lot of uncertainty.
We always used to say to customers "Give us a yes or a no, but please do not waste our time with a maybe"
I notice those shrugging their shoulders - Sean F, William G and Barth - are not mentioning the intervention by the Bank of England to stop pension funds collapsing. As for interest rates, we now have inflation. Of course interest are going to go up. It has already started. But the essential argument was whether the Bank should have gone 0.25% higher on Thursday, which now feels rather academic.
My sense is that certain people cannot accept that whilst Sunak's tax rises were in place the markets had confidence in UK borrowing. Once they were reversed and then some, the markets took fright. It goes against everything believed by people of a certain obsessive ideology. That tax cuts equal economic nirvana and tax rises equals economic doom. Reality is a bit more complicated.
I did mention the Bank's action actually. The Bank chose to engage in QT and that is when the markets took fright, but the mini budget got the blame.
The tax cuts are an irrelevant side show to be honest, though they get the political headlines and will carry the news. The Bank selling rather than buying £80bn of gilts while the State had to borrow to pay for energy support etc would have tipped over the market either way, with or without the taxes.
The Bank reversed their decision to engage in QT and the markets stabilised.
Any proof for that?
I mean on a timeline it was the statement that caused the reaction in the markets and I don't know exactly what you are basing this on. Which high level voices in the financial world have been saying that.
On a timeline, the Bank announced it would begin QT only last week.
Though it took some time for people to fully comprehend just what that meant, the sell off of Sterling began immediately, before the Chancellor even began to speak on Friday it had already started falling. Yes the markets overreacted to the Chancellor's statement, but missing what the Bank did is missing a critical piece of the puzzle.
The Bank reversing their QT decision has brought some measure of stability back to the markets.
There seems to have been little mention of the Kantar poll putting the Tories within 4 points of Labour. Did I miss the discussion, or are we just ignoring it?
First day of field work was before the Not-A-Budget.
Thanks, Al, but it is still a strikingly low number.
I think Kantar have a reputaution for being a bit maverick, which is not to say they are necessarily wrong, just different.
It is. Fieldwork was entirely before Monday though. Which is when the market turmoil hit. Still an outlier on what preceded that however.
There seems to have been little mention of the Kantar poll putting the Tories within 4 points of Labour. Did I miss the discussion, or are we just ignoring it?
Is that the one where the fieldwork was done prior to the mini-budget?
22-26 Sept, Doug.
Doesn't Kantar anticipate a lot of swingback in their polls, so not really a nowcast like the other pollsters so much as a forecast?
These polls are funny. But they are also a little scary
This is not a mood shift, it feels more like voter panic. Like the British electorate can sense deep deep trouble ahead. Existential trouble
This is Ask The Audience and the reply is OMFG AAAAAAAGH
The British public are sensing that truss is shit. We all knew it apart from the usual loons on here. Even HFUYD didn’t support her - that should have been a massive red flag
We also all knew that Johnson was a feckless, lazy, lying charlatan but the Tory members ignored that too until it became impossible to ignore. Left to their own devices the members would probably put Mogg in next.
“It’s like she was buffering. When politicians are asked a question they don’t have an answer for, they usually have a stock phrase to buy them a moment. Liz Truss doesn’t have that. She only has the spinning pinwheel of doom.” 😵💫 Cracking line from @lewis_goodall on #newsagents https://twitter.com/juliamacfarlane/status/1575571747675308033
There seems to have been little mention of the Kantar poll putting the Tories within 4 points of Labour. Did I miss the discussion, or are we just ignoring it?
First day of field work was before the Not-A-Budget.
Thanks, Al, but it is still a strikingly low number.
I think Kantar have a reputaution for being a bit maverick, which is not to say they are necessarily wrong, just different.
It is. Fieldwork was entirely before Monday though. Which is when the market turmoil hit. Still an outlier on what preceded that.
Just a movement of 3 from Kantor, not wildly different from their previous poll.
I notice those shrugging their shoulders - Sean F, William G and Barth - are not mentioning the intervention by the Bank of England to stop pension funds collapsing. As for interest rates, we now have inflation. Of course interest are going to go up. It has already started. But the essential argument was whether the Bank should have gone 0.25% higher on Thursday, which now feels rather academic.
My sense is that certain people cannot accept that whilst Sunak's tax rises were in place the markets had confidence in UK borrowing. Once they were reversed and then some, the markets took fright. It goes against everything believed by people of a certain obsessive ideology. That tax cuts equal economic nirvana and tax rises equals economic doom. Reality is a bit more complicated.
I did mention the Bank's action actually. The Bank chose to engage in QT and that is when the markets took fright, but the mini budget got the blame.
The tax cuts are an irrelevant side show to be honest, though they get the political headlines and will carry the news. The Bank selling rather than buying £80bn of gilts while the State had to borrow to pay for energy support etc would have tipped over the market either way, with or without the taxes.
The Bank reversed their decision to engage in QT and the markets stabilised.
Any proof for that?
I mean on a timeline it was the statement that caused the reaction in the markets and I don't know exactly what you are basing this on. Which high level voices in the financial world have been saying that.
You're dealing with the chap who insisted for days that Owen Paterson had no appellate process, despite everybody telling him he was talking shite.
Completely untrue. I didn't say it for days, for just one day I said that he'd said he had no appellate process, and that there should be one. I was just going off what he'd said, and took his word for it.
By the end of the day, I stopped saying that.
Taking people at their word, at first, is not unreasonable normally. And when people said it wasn't true, I dropped it, within 24 hours.
Undoubtedly the 'budget' was a catalyst for a disastrous week, but I think the seeds of government unpopularity have been festering for a while. In my humble opinion, with all the high-flying and generally prosperous intellectuals on here, there's a tendency to over-complicate stuff. Most people haven't a clue what 'gilts' or 'bonds' are.
What they do know is that they have less disposable income and the cost of living is a nightmare. When Truss and Kwarteng use their 'energy support scheme' as a defence (ludicrously) and talk about 'saving on energy', they forget that even with the £2.5k cap most people are paying double what they were paying a year ago. Voters don't do gratitude. Add on high rents, the prospect of higher mortgages, higher food and fuel prices, combined with the toxic decision to give the rich more money, and it gets worse.
Here's my little example from today. I bought a bottle of vegetable oil from the Co-op (own range). £2.40. One year ago, the same oil was £1.09. Now, multiply that inflation by dozens of other basics and your weekly shopping bills have risen immensely - unlike your wages. I'm lucky enough to be able to withstand it. But we need to look at it from the point of view of the tens of milions of people who don't have much disposable income. They're pissed off, and blaming the government. That's what people do.
Great post, and a very useful reminder of how little of what is discussed on here is relevant to most voters.
However, I would add that, whilst 'gilts' and 'bonds' won't stick, most people will have picked up on the sense of incredulity and uncertainty and will feel the rug has been pulled out from under them. To give one example, the weekly MSE email, which is absurdly popular, basically says you're f*cked if you mortgage is coming to an end. That's a disastrous look for any government.
Thanks, and I agree; though I did mention the prospect of higher mortgages in my post. We're all (including me) a bit esoteric on here. Ordinary folk with not much spare income think they're being shafted at the moment, and blame the Tory government. As do I.
SCOOP: In an unexpected turn of events, the UK today told its EU partners that PM Liz Truss is not only willing to attend the first meeting of the European Political Community in Prague next week, but that she is also offering to host the next summit in London.
Wise words my old china, but I must advise our newer followers that far from being hopeless at backing racehorses, or indeed other creatures, you are one of the Site's more dependable shrewdies.
Can't be having false modesty, Sunshine.
I've managed to scrounge off some time for some autumnal Flat racing - hoping to get to Brighton, Windsor and Newmarket before it's off for some jumping.
Nothing wrong with the flat of course, but not as good as the real thing. Glad to note you limbering up nicely for the serious stuff.
I shall be frequenting Plumpton, Lingfield, Kempton, Sandown and Fontwell before Christmas, sir.
I have already warned Mrs Stodge it may be a bleak Christmas this year.
🗳 Rebel Tories are preparing to vote down sections of the Finance Bill to block the abolition of the 45p rate by supporting amendments that would see it struck out, The Telegraph understands
These polls are funny. But they are also a little scary
This is not a mood shift, it feels more like voter panic. Like the British electorate can sense deep deep trouble ahead. Existential trouble
This is Ask The Audience and the reply is OMFG AAAAAAAGH
The British public are sensing that truss is shit. We all knew it apart from the usual loons on here. Even HFUYD didn’t support her - that should have been a massive red flag
We all knew that Johnson was a feckless, lazy, lying charlatan but the Tory members ignored that too until it became impossible to ignore. Left to their own devices the members would probably put Mogg in next.
It should be clear by now that the average Conservative party member is an active threat to the UK. Has anyone checked the membership for a history of Communist sympathies?
There seems to have been little mention of the Kantar poll putting the Tories within 4 points of Labour. Did I miss the discussion, or are we just ignoring it?
First day of field work was before the Not-A-Budget.
Thanks, Al, but it is still a strikingly low number.
I think Kantar have a reputaution for being a bit maverick, which is not to say they are necessarily wrong, just different.
It is. Fieldwork was entirely before Monday though. Which is when the market turmoil hit. Still an outlier on what preceded that.
Just a movement of 3 from Kantor, not wildly different from their previous poll.
What I'm really interested in is whether, as I suspect it might have, that Yougov poll had later fieldwork than the others. More after yesterday afternoon / lunchtime.
Well, if Truss does somehow make it to the election, she's going to make Theresa May look as effective an election campaigner as Tony Blair judging on today's efforts. She's done for. Even if she u-turns now on abolishing the 45p tax rate, she'll just look like a complete joke.
Anyway looking on the bright side Liz Truss has assured us several times today that after her intervention NO household will pay more than £2500 a year on energy bills. Wow! That is good news, I live in a six bedroom house and was already paying more than that last year...
Did she say who does pay for the freeze policy Pete?
I notice those shrugging their shoulders - Sean F, William G and Barth - are not mentioning the intervention by the Bank of England to stop pension funds collapsing. As for interest rates, we now have inflation. Of course interest are going to go up. It has already started. But the essential argument was whether the Bank should have gone 0.25% higher on Thursday, which now feels rather academic.
My sense is that certain people cannot accept that whilst Sunak's tax rises were in place the markets had confidence in UK borrowing. Once they were reversed and then some, the markets took fright. It goes against everything believed by people of a certain obsessive ideology. That tax cuts equal economic nirvana and tax rises equals economic doom. Reality is a bit more complicated.
I did mention the Bank's action actually. The Bank chose to engage in QT and that is when the markets took fright, but the mini budget got the blame.
The tax cuts are an irrelevant side show to be honest, though they get the political headlines and will carry the news. The Bank selling rather than buying £80bn of gilts while the State had to borrow to pay for energy support etc would have tipped over the market either way, with or without the taxes.
The Bank reversed their decision to engage in QT and the markets stabilised.
Any proof for that?
I mean on a timeline it was the statement that caused the reaction in the markets and I don't know exactly what you are basing this on. Which high level voices in the financial world have been saying that.
On a timeline, the Bank announced it would begin QT only last week.
Though it took some time for people to fully comprehend just what that meant, the sell off of Sterling began immediately, before the Chancellor even began to speak on Friday it had already started falling. Yes the markets overreacted to the Chancellor's statement, but missing what the Bank did is missing a critical piece of the puzzle.
The Bank reversing their QT decision has brought some measure of stability back to the markets.
QE combined with raising interest rates is not a stable policy combination.
The fact that the BoE was forced into it in order to prevent insolvency of pension funds is not a triumph of policy, nor one that can last. The clock is ticking on it already.
A week ago I asked Liz Truss what she made of those within her own party who were already whispering Gordon Brown’s words from 2008 - that now is not the time for a novice. Her response? ‘We have the calibre of people to cope’, including “a very good chancellor”: https://twitter.com/thenewsdesk/status/1572560477732864001
Of course it's an outlier, but outliers only ever stray so far from the underlying levels of public support. The largest outlier in Jeremy Corbyn's favour was either the one that gave Labour a 10% poll lead, or the one that put Labour on 46%. Starmer is some way ahead of either of those, so fair to conclude that the underlying level of public support is consequently more in his favour.
I wonder what the poll would currently show if the Labour leadership were Corbyn and McDonnell?
I notice those shrugging their shoulders - Sean F, William G and Barth - are not mentioning the intervention by the Bank of England to stop pension funds collapsing. As for interest rates, we now have inflation. Of course interest are going to go up. It has already started. But the essential argument was whether the Bank should have gone 0.25% higher on Thursday, which now feels rather academic.
My sense is that certain people cannot accept that whilst Sunak's tax rises were in place the markets had confidence in UK borrowing. Once they were reversed and then some, the markets took fright. It goes against everything believed by people of a certain obsessive ideology. That tax cuts equal economic nirvana and tax rises equals economic doom. Reality is a bit more complicated.
I did mention the Bank's action actually. The Bank chose to engage in QT and that is when the markets took fright, but the mini budget got the blame.
The tax cuts are an irrelevant side show to be honest, though they get the political headlines and will carry the news. The Bank selling rather than buying £80bn of gilts while the State had to borrow to pay for energy support etc would have tipped over the market either way, with or without the taxes.
The Bank reversed their decision to engage in QT and the markets stabilised.
Any proof for that?
I mean on a timeline it was the statement that caused the reaction in the markets and I don't know exactly what you are basing this on. Which high level voices in the financial world have been saying that.
On a timeline, the Bank announced it would begin QT only last week.
Though it took some time for people to fully comprehend just what that meant, the sell off of Sterling began immediately, before the Chancellor even began to speak on Friday it had already started falling. Yes the markets overreacted to the Chancellor's statement, but missing what the Bank did is missing a critical piece of the puzzle.
The Bank reversing their QT decision has brought some measure of stability back to the markets.
QE combined with raising interest rates is not a stable policy combination.
The fact that the BoE was forced into it in order to prevent insolvency of pension funds is not a triumph of policy, nor one that can last. The clock is ticking on it already.
There is no stable policy combination though, and you were in favour of Covid lockdowns, this is the end result.
You don't get to spend hundreds of billions for Covid, then hundreds of billions for gas, put it on a national credit card bought off by the Bank of England printing money, then expect that to be unwound without it causing turmoil.
Had the Bank not engaged in QE in the first place, we'd never have been able to afford lockdown, and this reckoning would have happened years ago. You can only kick the can so far.
As well as the opinion polls we have real votes tonight in local by-elections. In the wards up the party share last time was Lab 30.4, Con 27.1, Ind 12.9, LD 12.8, Green 7.4, SNP 0.5, and PC 0.4. Let's see what the changes are.
While there's no doubt that the Tories have been the authors of their own misfortune, I would like to put in a word for Starmer. Corbyn wouldn't be getting these sort of opinion poll leads.
Starmer has been much derided by most on here (until recently), of all political shades, for being dull, being a remainer and a lefty lawyer, metropolitan elite baggage etc. etc. However, he's only been leader for 2.5 years. What he's managed to achieve internally in the LP has been hugely impressive, as witnessed at Conference this week. He's won the vast majority of the membership (I am one) over. And, slowly but surely, he's getting a hearing, appearing statesmanlike, and increasingly appealing to the public. The number of PB Tories considering voting for him as a safe pair of hands is testament to that. And he hasn't put a foot wrong in the chaos of this week. He's had a good couple of years, and it looks like he'll be rewarded by being the next PM.
I notice those shrugging their shoulders - Sean F, William G and Barth - are not mentioning the intervention by the Bank of England to stop pension funds collapsing. As for interest rates, we now have inflation. Of course interest are going to go up. It has already started. But the essential argument was whether the Bank should have gone 0.25% higher on Thursday, which now feels rather academic.
My sense is that certain people cannot accept that whilst Sunak's tax rises were in place the markets had confidence in UK borrowing. Once they were reversed and then some, the markets took fright. It goes against everything believed by people of a certain obsessive ideology. That tax cuts equal economic nirvana and tax rises equals economic doom. Reality is a bit more complicated.
I did mention the Bank's action actually. The Bank chose to engage in QT and that is when the markets took fright, but the mini budget got the blame.
The tax cuts are an irrelevant side show to be honest, though they get the political headlines and will carry the news. The Bank selling rather than buying £80bn of gilts while the State had to borrow to pay for energy support etc would have tipped over the market either way, with or without the taxes.
The Bank reversed their decision to engage in QT and the markets stabilised.
Any proof for that?
I mean on a timeline it was the statement that caused the reaction in the markets and I don't know exactly what you are basing this on. Which high level voices in the financial world have been saying that.
On a timeline, the Bank announced it would begin QT only last week.
Though it took some time for people to fully comprehend just what that meant, the sell off of Sterling began immediately, before the Chancellor even began to speak on Friday it had already started falling. Yes the markets overreacted to the Chancellor's statement, but missing what the Bank did is missing a critical piece of the puzzle.
The Bank reversing their QT decision has brought some measure of stability back to the markets.
QE combined with raising interest rates is not a stable policy combination.
The fact that the BoE was forced into it in order to prevent insolvency of pension funds is not a triumph of policy, nor one that can last. The clock is ticking on it already.
There is no stable policy combination though, and you were in favour of Covid lockdowns, this is the end result.
You don't get to spend hundreds of billions for Covid, then hundreds of billions for gas, put it on a national credit card bought off by the Bank of England printing money, then expect that to be unwound without it causing turmoil.
Had the Bank not engaged in QE in the first place, we'd never have been able to afford lockdown, and this reckoning would have happened years ago. You can only kick the can so far.
i see our future as hyperinflation sadly...the bofE and Fed will be forced to pivot with inflation at 10%. This will lead to hyper inflation and an even bigger economic collapse
I notice those shrugging their shoulders - Sean F, William G and Barth - are not mentioning the intervention by the Bank of England to stop pension funds collapsing. As for interest rates, we now have inflation. Of course interest are going to go up. It has already started. But the essential argument was whether the Bank should have gone 0.25% higher on Thursday, which now feels rather academic.
My sense is that certain people cannot accept that whilst Sunak's tax rises were in place the markets had confidence in UK borrowing. Once they were reversed and then some, the markets took fright. It goes against everything believed by people of a certain obsessive ideology. That tax cuts equal economic nirvana and tax rises equals economic doom. Reality is a bit more complicated.
I did mention the Bank's action actually. The Bank chose to engage in QT and that is when the markets took fright, but the mini budget got the blame.
The tax cuts are an irrelevant side show to be honest, though they get the political headlines and will carry the news. The Bank selling rather than buying £80bn of gilts while the State had to borrow to pay for energy support etc would have tipped over the market either way, with or without the taxes.
The Bank reversed their decision to engage in QT and the markets stabilised.
Any proof for that?
I mean on a timeline it was the statement that caused the reaction in the markets and I don't know exactly what you are basing this on. Which high level voices in the financial world have been saying that.
On a timeline, the Bank announced it would begin QT only last week.
Though it took some time for people to fully comprehend just what that meant, the sell off of Sterling began immediately, before the Chancellor even began to speak on Friday it had already started falling. Yes the markets overreacted to the Chancellor's statement, but missing what the Bank did is missing a critical piece of the puzzle.
The Bank reversing their QT decision has brought some measure of stability back to the markets.
QE combined with raising interest rates is not a stable policy combination.
The fact that the BoE was forced into it in order to prevent insolvency of pension funds is not a triumph of policy, nor one that can last. The clock is ticking on it already.
There is no stable policy combination though, and you were in favour of Covid lockdowns, this is the end result.
You don't get to spend hundreds of billions for Covid, then hundreds of billions for gas, put it on a national credit card bought off by the Bank of England printing money, then expect that to be unwound without it causing turmoil.
Had the Bank not engaged in QE in the first place, we'd never have been able to afford lockdown, and this reckoning would have happened years ago. You can only kick the can so far.
I don't think that I was posting in favour of covid lockdowns, though neither was I ideologically against them. I merely complied with them.
We all talked about what Boris would do next to rake in millions, but Truss can walk off now and have the nuts of a programme - think “Loose Women” but her, Elizabeth Holmes and Anna Delvey. Just call it “Fake it till you make it”.
While there's no doubt that the Tories have been the authors of their own misfortune, I would like to put in a word for Starmer. Corbyn wouldn't be getting these sort of opinion poll leads.
Starmer has been much derided by most on here (until recently), of all political shades, for being dull, being a remainer and a lefty lawyer, metropolitan elite baggage etc. etc. However, he's only been leader for 2.5 years. What he's managed to achieve internally in the LP has been hugely impressive, as witnessed at Conference this week. He's won the vast majority of the membership (I am one) over. And, slowly but surely, he's getting a hearing, appearing statesmanlike, and increasingly appealing to the public. The number of PB Tories considering voting for him as a safe pair of hands is testament to that. And he hasn't put a foot wrong in the chaos of this week. He's had a good couple of years, and it looks like he'll be rewarded by being the next PM.
And he has assembled a Cabinet that looks like a decent Government-in-waiting.
While there's no doubt that the Tories have been the authors of their own misfortune, I would like to put in a word for Starmer. Corbyn wouldn't be getting these sort of opinion poll leads.
Starmer has been much derided by most on here (until recently), of all political shades, for being dull, being a remainer and a lefty lawyer, metropolitan elite baggage etc. etc. However, he's only been leader for 2.5 years. What he's managed to achieve internally in the LP has been hugely impressive, as witnessed at Conference this week. He's won the vast majority of the membership (I am one) over. And, slowly but surely, he's getting a hearing, appearing statesmanlike, and increasingly appealing to the public. The number of PB Tories considering voting for him as a safe pair of hands is testament to that. And he hasn't put a foot wrong in the chaos of this week. He's had a good couple of years, and it looks like he'll be rewarded by being the next PM.
And he has assembled a Cabinet that looks like a decent Government-in-waiting.
Thanks - yes, I should have added that. Very important.
🚨 The IEA and @the_tpa are delighted to announce that we will be hosting Chancellor of the Exchequer, @KwasiKwarteng, for an In Conversation at this year's Conservative Party Conference!
While there's no doubt that the Tories have been the authors of their own misfortune, I would like to put in a word for Starmer. Corbyn wouldn't be getting these sort of opinion poll leads.
Starmer has been much derided my most on here for his boring demeanour etc. etc. However, he's only been leader for 2.5 years. What he's managed to achieve internally in the LP has been hugely impressive, as witnessed at Conference this week. And, slowly but surely, he's getting a hearing, appearing statesmanlike, and increasingly appealing to the public. The number of PB Tories considering voting for him as a safe pair of hands is testament to that. And he hasn't put a foot wrong in the chaos of this week.
After seeing the results of "personality politicians", I would look forward to a dull, boring politician who maybe does serious stuff instead of sliding down zip-wires waving union jacks or doing Maggie photo-shoots on top of tanks. You know, somebody who actually does the job!
🗳 Rebel Tories are preparing to vote down sections of the Finance Bill to block the abolition of the 45p rate by supporting amendments that would see it struck out, The Telegraph understands
That is a way out for her. I wonder if she is not actually guiding them behind the scenes. No u-turn, the MPs made me turn etc etc.
"MPs have told how they are getting “shouted at in the street” about the tax cut for top earners while their inboxes are flooded with correspondence from constituents angry about the move."
SCOOP: In an unexpected turn of events, the UK today told its EU partners that PM Liz Truss is not only willing to attend the first meeting of the European Political Community in Prague next week, but that she is also offering to host the next summit in London.
Between this, the economic performance, and the story about new potential relaxations on immigration to boost growth, the fun conspiracy would be “Truss is trying to tank things so badly that a supermajority of the country will want to rejoin the EU in a few years’ time”, and using new immigrants to fix a crisis she created herself, thereby making them be seen as the saviours of Britain is part of that
🗳 Rebel Tories are preparing to vote down sections of the Finance Bill to block the abolition of the 45p rate by supporting amendments that would see it struck out, The Telegraph understands
That is a way out for her. I wonder if she is not actually guiding them behind the scenes. No u-turn, the MPs made me turn etc etc.
She can't keep a chancellor if his budget gets gutted
Of course it's an outlier, but outliers only ever stray so far from the underlying levels of public support. The largest outlier in Jeremy Corbyn's favour was either the one that gave Labour a 10% poll lead, or the one that put Labour on 46%. Starmer is some way ahead of either of those, so fair to conclude that the underlying level of public support is consequently more in his favour.
I wonder what the poll would currently show if the Labour leadership were Corbyn and McDonnell?
I suspect lots of people like me would be in the LibDem column rather than in the Labour one I am in now.
These polls are funny. But they are also a little scary
This is not a mood shift, it feels more like voter panic. Like the British electorate can sense deep deep trouble ahead. Existential trouble
This is Ask The Audience and the reply is OMFG AAAAAAAGH
The British public are sensing that truss is shit. We all knew it apart from the usual loons on here. Even HFUYD didn’t support her - that should have been a massive red flag
We all knew that Johnson was a feckless, lazy, lying charlatan but the Tory members ignored that too until it became impossible to ignore. Left to their own devices the members would probably put Mogg in next.
It should be clear by now that the average Conservative party member is an active threat to the UK. Has anyone checked the membership for a history of Communist sympathies?
I think Conservative Party sympathies would be sufficient at this rate. We have at least one poster who wants to cancel democratic votes of legitimately elected members of parliament in favour of commercial opinion polling, or the decisions made by alien polities. Seriously subversive IMO.
There seems to have been little mention of the Kantar poll putting the Tories within 4 points of Labour. Did I miss the discussion, or are we just ignoring it?
First day of field work was before the Not-A-Budget.
Thanks, Al, but it is still a strikingly low number.
I think Kantar have a reputaution for being a bit maverick, which is not to say they are necessarily wrong, just different.
It is. Fieldwork was entirely before Monday though. Which is when the market turmoil hit. Still an outlier on what preceded that.
Just a movement of 3 from Kantor, not wildly different from their previous poll.
What I'm really interested in is whether, as I suspect it might have, that Yougov poll had later fieldwork than the others. More after yesterday afternoon / lunchtime.
Yougov methodology produces too much fluctuations. Things may have been working for them once, but not at the moment - it needs to go into the garage and poked around under the hood.
28th July they had a Labour lead of just 1. 22nd July they said 7. It’s like a broken cursor leaping inaccurately across a screen.
I have a feeling she'll try and do a "ladies not for turning" moment...
Her conference reception is going to be rapturous. She'll be able to say what she likes, but I'd be very surprised if 'not for turning' isn't there in some form, whether in the subtext, or the text.
🗳 Rebel Tories are preparing to vote down sections of the Finance Bill to block the abolition of the 45p rate by supporting amendments that would see it struck out, The Telegraph understands
That is a way out for her. I wonder if she is not actually guiding them behind the scenes. No u-turn, the MPs made me turn etc etc.
She can't keep a chancellor if his budget gets gutted
Yeah because Osborne resigned after the Omnishambles and his pasty tax got gutted.
UK Prime Minister Liz Truss will attend a new European political “club of nations,” the brainchild of French President Emmanuel Macron, early next month, according to a source https://trib.al/cnj9gPo
Will the headbangers put in their letters before the rest of the Tory MPS get a chance...
🗳 Rebel Tories are preparing to vote down sections of the Finance Bill to block the abolition of the 45p rate by supporting amendments that would see it struck out, The Telegraph understands
Ridiculous. That's a tiny part of the problem. The government has chosen to borrow very large amounts and won't provide the figures. Everyone knows the 45p rate is small change.
OBR confirms on record my story from 9 days ago that it prepared a draft forecast for new Chancellor waiting for him on first day at Treasury 6th September, and that an offer for a legally compliant forecast to accompany the mini-budget was rejected.
"MPs have told how they are getting “shouted at in the street” about the tax cut for top earners while their inboxes are flooded with correspondence from constituents angry about the move."
There seems to have been little mention of the Kantar poll putting the Tories within 4 points of Labour. Did I miss the discussion, or are we just ignoring it?
First day of field work was before the Not-A-Budget.
Thanks, Al, but it is still a strikingly low number.
I think Kantar have a reputaution for being a bit maverick, which is not to say they are necessarily wrong, just different.
It is. Fieldwork was entirely before Monday though. Which is when the market turmoil hit. Still an outlier on what preceded that.
Just a movement of 3 from Kantor, not wildly different from their previous poll.
What I'm really interested in is whether, as I suspect it might have, that Yougov poll had later fieldwork than the others. More after yesterday afternoon / lunchtime.
Yougov methodology produces too much fluctuations. Things may have been working for them once, but not at the moment - it needs to go into the garage and poked around under the hood.
28th July they had a Labour lead of 1. 22nd July 7. It’s like a broken cursor leaping inaccurately across a screen.
The fact that @TheScreamingEagles is polled almost every week should show that something isn't entirely random about the polls.
Polls tend to be dominated by people who are interested in politics and are happy to sit down and share their views, a bit like this site really. They tend to jump around more based on the news as a result.
Anyway looking on the bright side Liz Truss has assured us several times today that after her intervention NO household will pay more than £2500 a year on energy bills. Wow! That is good news, I live in a six bedroom house and was already paying more than that last year...
Did she say who does pay for the freeze policy Pete?
No but she was very pleased with herself, so excited in fact that she made the error to which I have hinted.
Anyway young Rabbit, like my children your tax pounds will be paying for this measure and the 45% tax reduction that won't trouble me, for years to come. I thank you in advance because I will be long dead by the time my debt to you is settled.
I don't know about 33 pts but it's looking baked in now. Labour government coming. I was just out in the Village and you can feel it. Not the usual Hampstead Thursday night, something more energised and joyful. Everywhere you looked, happy enlightened faces - including mine.
🗳 Rebel Tories are preparing to vote down sections of the Finance Bill to block the abolition of the 45p rate by supporting amendments that would see it struck out, The Telegraph understands
Ridiculous. That's a tiny part of the problem. The government has chosen to borrow very large amounts and won't provide the figures. Everyone knows the 45p rate is small change.
Yeh, but the politics of the 45p are so utterly awful and tin-eared that as Telegraph are reporting Tory MPs are being shouted at in the street that dropping it is base 1 of getting themselves out of the shit Truss has tipped them in.
Liz Truss will hold emergency talks with the head of Britain’s independent fiscal watchdog after failing to dampen panic in the financial markets or shore up support from Tory MPs on her radical economic plan.
In a highly unusual move, the prime minister will meet the Office of Budget Responsibility’s (OBR) Richard Hughes on Friday, along with her chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng, before being presented with a first draft of its full fiscal forecasts next week.
One government insider said the OBR meeting was “like trying to read the manual after you’ve broken the thing” after last week’s announcement of sweeping tax cuts triggered investor panic over the future health of the UK economy, prompting a sharp fall in the value of the pound and driving up government borrowing costs.
i think the pound may be rallying because the markets may be anticipating a fed pivot coming....that will change everything
it's rallying cos King Korma is gonna come to save us all
As the country now understands, You can present facts and try to reason with Liz all you want, but hermind is made up. There's naan so blind as those who will not see.
Despite a plethora of parties contesting the election for the 100-seat Saeima only nine look set to win seats.
The latest seat projection from Factum has the New Unity Party of the current Prime Minister winning 28 seats (+20 from the 2018 election). Its allies in the coalition Government, the National Alliance win 10 seats (-3) and the Development For! party 7 (-6). The Conservatives look set to be wiped out losing all 16 seats.
That leaves the coalition on 45 so six short of a majority.
United List look set to win 12 seats (+12 as didn't exist at the 2018 election), the Progressives 11 (+11) and Harmony, the social democratic party 10 (-13). The Union of Greens and Farmers are on 8 seats (-3).
So that's another 41 seats.
The Centrist For Stability! will enter the Saeima with 8 seats leaving Latvia First with 6. Neither grouping existed at the last election.
Is there a possible alternative to a coalition led by New Unity? You could cobble together a near majority with the five centre and centre-left parties but whether they could or would work together requires an expert in Latvian politics (which I'm not).
There's another poll by a group called SKDS which has the governing parties polling just 36.8%.
Only seven parties make the 5% threshold with both For Stability and Latvia First just missing out. That puts 14 seats into play but my take on the polling suggests the anti-coalition parties will win moat of them.
'Thérèse Coffey is ditching the government’s long-promised white paper on health inequalities, despite the 19-year gap in life expectancy between rich and poor, the Guardian has been told.
The health secretary has decided to not publish a document that was due to set out plans to address the stark inequalities in health that the Covid-19 pandemic exposed.
It was meant to appear by last spring and be a key part of then prime minister Boris Johnson’s declared mission to level up Britain.
It was due to set out “bold action” to narrow the wide inequalities in health outcomes that exist between deprived and well-off areas, between white and BAME populations, and between the north and south of England'
I have a feeling she'll try and do a "ladies not for turning" moment...
Her conference reception is going to be rapturous. She'll be able to say what she likes, but I'd be very surprised if 'not for turning' isn't there in some form, whether in the subtext, or the text.
Corbyn always got a rapturous reception at Labour Conference. They loved him. Voters? Not so much.
I don't know about 33 pts but it's looking baked in now. Labour government coming. I was just out in the Village and you can feel it. Not the usual Hampstead Thursday night, something more energised and joyful. Everywhere you looked, happy enlightened faces - including mine.
UK Prime Minister Liz Truss will attend a new European political “club of nations,” the brainchild of French President Emmanuel Macron, early next month, according to a source https://trib.al/cnj9gPo
Will the headbangers put in their letters before the rest of the Tory MPS get a chance...
Good. New collaborative political structures of nation states outside the EU is what I voted for.
Comments
My sense is that certain people cannot accept that whilst Sunak's tax rises were in place the markets had confidence in UK borrowing. Once they were reversed and then some, the markets took fright. It goes against everything believed by people of a certain obsessive ideology. That tax cuts equal economic nirvana and tax rises equals economic doom. Reality is a bit more complicated.
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1575564216467333120
I'd go for 'I resign'
OBR confirms on record my story from 9 days ago that it prepared a draft forecast for new Chancellor waiting for him on first day at Treasury 6th September, and that an offer for a legally compliant forecast to accompany the mini-budget was rejected.
In a letter from OBR chief Richard Hughes to SNP MPs
@alisonthewliss
and
@ianblackford_MP
* We sent a draft economic and fiscal forecast to the new Chancellor on 6 September, his first day in office. We offered, at the time, to update that forecast
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1575565395599261703
But 'I fucked up on an epochal scale, and I hereby resign, disclaim my pension and recuse myself from future public sector roles' would be more satisfying.
Out of the fire and into the frying pan...so I guess that's a step up.
The tax cuts are an irrelevant side show to be honest, though they get the political headlines and will carry the news. The Bank selling rather than buying £80bn of gilts while the State had to borrow to pay for energy support etc would have tipped over the market either way, with or without the taxes.
The Bank reversed their decision to engage in QT and the markets stabilised.
Either it's very out of line, or any results from after yesterday afternoon changed dramatically, as I was thinking might happen yestreday. The psychological step-change idea I mentioned.
https://twitter.com/ayeshahazarika/status/1575536315176669184
https://twitter.com/thatdayin1992/status/1575530946899898369?s=20&t=SlJmnN0joV3i_liIBOOeHA
Given a choice between Truss and Gove - I'd vote with my feet and move to New Zealand.
One of the more useful aphorisms I heard when working in the Square Mile was that business can cope with good news, and bad news, but struggles to cope with uncertainty.
Truss and Kwarteng have definitely created a lot of uncertainty.
What they do know is that they have less disposable income and the cost of living is a nightmare. When Truss and Kwarteng use their 'energy support scheme' as a defence (ludicrously) and talk about 'saving on energy', they forget that even with the £2.5k cap most people are paying double what they were paying a year ago. Voters don't do gratitude. Add on high rents, the prospect of higher mortgages, higher food and fuel prices, combined with the toxic decision to give the rich more money, and it gets worse.
Here's my little example from today. I bought a bottle of vegetable oil from the Co-op (own range). £2.40. One year ago, the same oil was £1.09. Now, multiply that inflation by dozens of other basics and your weekly shopping bills have risen immensely - unlike your wages. I'm lucky enough to be able to withstand it. But we need to look at it from the point of view of the tens of milions of people who don't have much disposable income. They're pissed off, and blaming the government. That's what people do.
No danger of her reappearing as my TA then.
Team Truss needs to devise a plan for growth rather than just hoping for it.
Even a new leader wouldn't help now. The Tories need a couple of terms in opposition to sort themselves out.
Hopefully Starmer can deliver once in office.
Of course, an election under normal rules follows, and the membership would probably then elect Rees-Mogg
Fix the problems that we have, or the Tories don't deserve to be in office anyway if they're just going to keep kicking the can and fuelling the problems instead.
https://twitter.com/irgarner/status/1575565880335138817
I think Kantar have a reputaution for being a bit maverick, which is not to say they are necessarily wrong, just different.
I mean on a timeline it was the statement that caused the reaction in the markets and I don't know exactly what you are basing this on. Which high level voices in the financial world have been saying that.
However, I would add that, whilst 'gilts' and 'bonds' won't stick, most people will have picked up on the sense of incredulity and uncertainty and will feel the rug has been pulled out from under them. To give one example, the weekly MSE email, which is absurdly popular, basically says you're f*cked if you mortgage is coming to an end. That's a disastrous look for any government.
https://twitter.com/joeyfjones/status/1575564933403549696
Though it took some time for people to fully comprehend just what that meant, the sell off of Sterling began immediately, before the Chancellor even began to speak on Friday it had already started falling. Yes the markets overreacted to the Chancellor's statement, but missing what the Bank did is missing a critical piece of the puzzle.
The Bank reversing their QT decision has brought some measure of stability back to the markets.
Which is when the market turmoil hit.
Still an outlier on what preceded that however.
https://twitter.com/juliamacfarlane/status/1575571747675308033
By the end of the day, I stopped saying that.
Taking people at their word, at first, is not unreasonable normally. And when people said it wasn't true, I dropped it, within 24 hours.
SCOOP: In an unexpected turn of events, the UK today told its EU partners that PM Liz Truss is not only willing to attend the first meeting of the European Political Community in Prague next week, but that she is also offering to host the next summit in London.
More soon. 1/n
https://twitter.com/HankeVela/status/1575535378869538816
I have already warned Mrs Stodge it may be a bleak Christmas this year.
She's done for. Even if she u-turns now on abolishing the 45p tax rate, she'll just look like a complete joke.
The fact that the BoE was forced into it in order to prevent insolvency of pension funds is not a triumph of policy, nor one that can last. The clock is ticking on it already.
Labour 10%
Conservatives 10%
Lib Dems 80%
You don't get to spend hundreds of billions for Covid, then hundreds of billions for gas, put it on a national credit card bought off by the Bank of England printing money, then expect that to be unwound without it causing turmoil.
Had the Bank not engaged in QE in the first place, we'd never have been able to afford lockdown, and this reckoning would have happened years ago. You can only kick the can so far.
Starmer has been much derided by most on here (until recently), of all political shades, for being dull, being a remainer and a lefty lawyer, metropolitan elite baggage etc. etc. However, he's only been leader for 2.5 years. What he's managed to achieve internally in the LP has been hugely impressive, as witnessed at Conference this week. He's won the vast majority of the membership (I am one) over. And, slowly but surely, he's getting a hearing, appearing statesmanlike, and increasingly appealing to the public. The number of PB Tories considering voting for him as a safe pair of hands is testament to that. And he hasn't put a foot wrong in the chaos of this week. He's had a good couple of years, and it looks like he'll be rewarded by being the next PM.
Speaking with Jon Erlichman and Taylor Riggs on “Bloomberg Markets,” she also says Kwasi Kwarteng is working well with the Bank of England https://trib.al/slCZWUX https://twitter.com/BloombergTV/status/1575574509347753984/video/1
🚨 The IEA and @the_tpa are delighted to announce that we will be hosting Chancellor of the Exchequer, @KwasiKwarteng, for an In Conversation at this year's Conservative Party Conference!
🖥️ Tune in on Tuesday 4th October here!👇
Telegraph
28th July they had a Labour lead of just 1. 22nd July they said 7. It’s like a broken cursor leaping inaccurately across a screen.
Will the headbangers put in their letters before the rest of the Tory MPS get a chance...
Faisal Islam
@faisalislam
·
47m
NEW
OBR confirms on record my story from 9 days ago that it prepared a draft forecast for new Chancellor waiting for him on first day at Treasury 6th September, and that an offer for a legally compliant forecast to accompany the mini-budget was rejected.
Liquidising a kilo of onions in sympathy.
Polls tend to be dominated by people who are interested in politics and are happy to sit down and share their views, a bit like this site really. They tend to jump around more based on the news as a result.
Anyway young Rabbit, like my children your tax pounds will be paying for this measure and the 45% tax reduction that won't trouble me, for years to come. I thank you in advance because I will be long dead by the time my debt to you is settled.
In a highly unusual move, the prime minister will meet the Office of Budget Responsibility’s (OBR) Richard Hughes on Friday, along with her chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng, before being presented with a first draft of its full fiscal forecasts next week.
One government insider said the OBR meeting was “like trying to read the manual after you’ve broken the thing” after last week’s announcement of sweeping tax cuts triggered investor panic over the future health of the UK economy, prompting a sharp fall in the value of the pound and driving up government borrowing costs.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/29/liz-truss-to-hold-emergency-talks-with-obr-after-failing-to-calm-markets
Best thing she can do is stay silent and give her enough rope.
Despite a plethora of parties contesting the election for the 100-seat Saeima only nine look set to win seats.
The latest seat projection from Factum has the New Unity Party of the current Prime Minister winning 28 seats (+20 from the 2018 election). Its allies in the coalition Government, the National Alliance win 10 seats (-3) and the Development For! party 7 (-6). The Conservatives look set to be wiped out losing all 16 seats.
That leaves the coalition on 45 so six short of a majority.
United List look set to win 12 seats (+12 as didn't exist at the 2018 election), the Progressives 11 (+11) and Harmony, the social democratic party 10 (-13). The Union of Greens and Farmers are on 8 seats (-3).
So that's another 41 seats.
The Centrist For Stability! will enter the Saeima with 8 seats leaving Latvia First with 6. Neither grouping existed at the last election.
Is there a possible alternative to a coalition led by New Unity? You could cobble together a near majority with the five centre and centre-left parties but whether they could or would work together requires an expert in Latvian politics (which I'm not).
There's another poll by a group called SKDS which has the governing parties polling just 36.8%.
Only seven parties make the 5% threshold with both For Stability and Latvia First just missing out. That puts 14 seats into play but my take on the polling suggests the anti-coalition parties will win moat of them.
We'll know more or probably less on Saturday.
'Thérèse Coffey is ditching the government’s long-promised white paper on health inequalities, despite the 19-year gap in life expectancy between rich and poor, the Guardian has been told.
The health secretary has decided to not publish a document that was due to set out plans to address the stark inequalities in health that the Covid-19 pandemic exposed.
It was meant to appear by last spring and be a key part of then prime minister Boris Johnson’s declared mission to level up Britain.
It was due to set out “bold action” to narrow the wide inequalities in health outcomes that exist between deprived and well-off areas, between white and BAME populations, and between the north and south of England'
Voters? Not so much.