There is no doubt that the hyperbolic responses of our press have made things very difficult for Truss. We had the collapse of sterling....where the Pound finished the week at a higher level against the dollar, we had the horrendous recession...which turned out not to be a recession at all because the economy was still growing... we had the collapse of our pension industry...which turned out to be a relatively simple and predictable cash flow issue that even the Governor of the BoE could fix.
But we also had the self inflicted stupidity of tax cuts for the wealthy at a time when huge unfunded spending commitments were being made on fuel, we had a tone deaf statement and then confused silence by both Kwarteng and Truss for much of the week and we have this obstinate refusal to bring forward the OBR report which will be needed to assuage the City (a further problem is that it will only do this if the government announces lots of unpopular cuts in spending which, in turn, will make the promises on extra growth seem laughable).
The old saying is that you only get one chance to make a first impression. Truss arguably had 2, before HMQ and after it. But she has blown both, making no attempt to bring the country together in difficult times but choosing to be divisive and incoherent. I think she cannot recover from this but whether the Tories would be better or worse off trying yet again to find a competent leader is hard to say. That is what the Tories really have to debate at their conference and its not going to be a fun decision.
Are you watching this? The last time I saw a leader interview this bad it was Jezbollah on the morning of his failed putch against his deputy leader.
I can’t see how she could ever enthuse anyone to vote for her. Dreadful speaker.
Ukraine might not have so long to win this war. If the Republicans take either the House or the Senate, the ability of the administration to provide further financial and military support could be severely curtailed.
Trump's burning priority for this 2nd/3rd (delete according to level of MAGAmania) term is to impeach Biden. If the Ukrainians find some evidence to support this noble goal on 7th January 2024 they will be just fine.
The appalling tone / smirking / wooden plank presentation The utter denial about it "all being "putin's fault" She confirmed the triple lock stays but repeatedly refused to commit to public services or the welfare state - so was rightly accused that she intends to cut them The casual "we didn't discuss in cabinet" - who is in her loop? The casual "the chancellor made the decision" on 45p which was then not discussed in cabinet When asked "who voted for this" looks puzzled, goes quiet then says "what do you mean"
Then Gove says he won't vote for the "fiscal operation"
This makes things worse. A lot worse. How on earth can she be this bad? And think she is this good?
Truss now saying the reason the OBR forecast wasn't published was because they didn't have time to make one. "that isn't true" points out LK. Says she won't publish the forecast as "it isn't ready".
But it is ready. According to the OBR. So when she says "it isn't ready" its clear that "ready" means "saying what we want it to say"
Truss will not confirm benefits to rise with inflation but pensions will
The reduction in 45% rate was not done with cabinet approval
Truss will not review it
This is shocking and the conservatives must replace her now
Remember that this is "boring" because we're just "bashing the Tories".
The only people bashing the Tories are the Tories. This is politically insane. Literally insane. LK is now backed up all the way to gently suggesting to LT that political optics matter to people Truss has only committed to the triple lock and refused to commit to protecting anyone else.
And Truss just laughs at her. "I don't control the Chancellor's diary" giggle giggle.
IT's not as if the Tories have anyone else to blame for choosing Ms Truss. Edit: Not even the electorate (the wider public one at GE).
Premiership is dead and buried. Only question now is how long it takes Tories to realise it and whether they try to remove her.
I don’t think she’ll still be PM by Christmas.
Isn't it a bit early to be saying this?
Christmas gets earlier every year.
Politics happens so fast these days, the Tories might be ahead again by Christmas due to some unforeseen event.
You are correct that it is too early to write Ms Truss's obitury.
But at the same time, first impressions matter. And things like - like Black Wednesday - stick in voters minds. In this case, the impression (rightly or wrongly) that will be cemented in minds is that while disposable incomes for the 80% were getting squeezed, the richest 2% were getting a big tax cut.
Based on recent years it would be a tax cut of around £20m for Denise Coates, head of b365, alone. Enough to fund a week of the school dinners over the summer for the whole country that the government spent ages telling Rashford we could not afford before u-turning.
It’s a little unfair to highlight Denise Coates.
As I understand it she is very straightforward in being paid dividends. Consequently she pays a huge amount of tax which she could legally have minimised but chose not to.
There are good arguments to do this type of tax cut. Once you get to 60-70% levels of marginal tax, there is no point in earning money by working, so people stop generating wealth this way. You are basically working for charitable purposes to support the British state, which is generally not something that motivates people. This all disincentivises work and productivity. Explain this to people, and they will get it. But Truss and Kwarteng are incapable of explaining it. The attempt to explain it (attending champagne receptions of hedge fund managers) seems like they are going for a Mandelson style approach which is politically suicidal.
I never quite understand the line of argument that there's "no point" working if marginal tax rates are high at the top end. Say I earn loads of money already, and any more I earn is taxed at 70%. I earn an extra £100k, so I 'only' get £30k. That's still £2,500 a month - more than many people get in total. Or I earn an extra £1m, but only get £300k - £25K a month. That's a lot of money - hardly "working for charitable purposes".
Premiership is dead and buried. Only question now is how long it takes Tories to realise it and whether they try to remove her.
I don’t think she’ll still be PM by Christmas.
Isn't it a bit early to be saying this?
Christmas gets earlier every year.
Politics happens so fast these days, the Tories might be ahead again by Christmas due to some unforeseen event.
You are correct that it is too early to write Ms Truss's obitury.
But at the same time, first impressions matter. And things like - like Black Wednesday - stick in voters minds. In this case, the impression (rightly or wrongly) that will be cemented in minds is that while disposable incomes for the 80% were getting squeezed, the richest 2% were getting a big tax cut.
Based on recent years it would be a tax cut of around £20m for Denise Coates, head of b365, alone. Enough to fund a week of the school dinners over the summer for the whole country that the government spent ages telling Rashford we could not afford before u-turning.
It’s a little unfair to highlight Denise Coates.
As I understand it she is very straightforward in being paid dividends. Consequently she pays a huge amount of tax which she could legally have minimised but chose not to.
There are good arguments to do this type of tax cut. Once you get to 60-70% levels of marginal tax, there is no point in earning money by working, so people stop generating wealth this way. You are basically working for charitable purposes to support the British state, which is generally not something that motivates people. This all disincentivises work and productivity. Explain this to people, and they will get it. But Truss and Kwarteng are incapable of explaining it. The attempt to explain it (attending champagne receptions of hedge fund managers) seems like they are going for a Mandelson style approach which is politically suicidal.
45% is not 70%. If you’re referring to the marginal rate at £100k, then Truss didn’t do anything about it.
And @darkage is talking bollocks anyway. I personally was lucky enough to go up through that marginal tax period during my final few years in employment (I'm nowhere near now just to be clear!).
My pay was never about the number of hours I worked, of course, nor, directly, the amount of effort I put in - it was determined by the success or otherwise of the things I did and managed (and to be fair the vagaries of the stock market due to share options).
Does @darkage think at some point that I had the debate with myself over whether I should bother making such a success of the projects I delivered in case it took me into that 70% marginal band?
It just does not work that way.
When I was a single Dad I was on then tax credits, which came with a very high effective tax rate due to the combination of the tax credit taper, Income Tax and National Insurance. The result of this, which I was very grateful for at the time, was that I was able to reduce my working hours from 37 hours a week to 30 hours a week, and suffer only a very modest reduction in net income. This was great for me, as it meant I could get my daughter home from school earlier, and so had time to cook her a proper dinner, and do school-directed reading time together with her before she was half asleep.
There are more important things in life than money, and I think it was better for my daughter that I was able to spend those extra seven hours a week with her, but the corollary is that the financial reward for increasing my hours simply wasn't there.
Premiership is dead and buried. Only question now is how long it takes Tories to realise it and whether they try to remove her.
I don’t think she’ll still be PM by Christmas.
Isn't it a bit early to be saying this?
Christmas gets earlier every year.
Politics happens so fast these days, the Tories might be ahead again by Christmas due to some unforeseen event.
You are correct that it is too early to write Ms Truss's obitury.
But at the same time, first impressions matter. And things like - like Black Wednesday - stick in voters minds. In this case, the impression (rightly or wrongly) that will be cemented in minds is that while disposable incomes for the 80% were getting squeezed, the richest 2% were getting a big tax cut.
Based on recent years it would be a tax cut of around £20m for Denise Coates, head of b365, alone. Enough to fund a week of the school dinners over the summer for the whole country that the government spent ages telling Rashford we could not afford before u-turning.
It’s a little unfair to highlight Denise Coates.
As I understand it she is very straightforward in being paid dividends. Consequently she pays a huge amount of tax which she could legally have minimised but chose not to.
There are good arguments to do this type of tax cut. Once you get to 60-70% levels of marginal tax, there is no point in earning money by working, so people stop generating wealth this way. You are basically working for charitable purposes to support the British state, which is generally not something that motivates people. This all disincentivises work and productivity. Explain this to people, and they will get it. But Truss and Kwarteng are incapable of explaining it. The attempt to explain it (attending champagne receptions of hedge fund managers) seems like they are going for a Mandelson style approach which is politically suicidal.
45% is not 70%. If you’re referring to the marginal rate at £100k, then Truss didn’t do anything about it.
And @darkage is talking bollocks anyway. I personally was lucky enough to go up through that marginal tax period during my final few years in employment (I'm nowhere near now just to be clear!).
My pay was never about the number of hours I worked, of course, nor, directly, the amount of effort I put in - it was determined by the success or otherwise of the things I did and managed (and to be fair the vagaries of the stock market due to share options).
Does @darkage think at some point that I had the debate with myself over whether I should bother making such a success of the projects I delivered in case it took me into that 70% marginal band?
It just does not work that way.
Fair enough. People are different.
But if you are in Coates position, the company is paying 25% (potentially) in corporation tax, plus 39.35% in dividends. So that all adds up to 64.35% tax on income. That is in addition to all the VAT that you have potentially collected for the government.
So my question is, quite seriously, what is the point of doing anything if you take on all the risk yourself, and then give away 65% of the rewards to the government?
If I own a small, successful business, with low overheads, and can earn about 100K in a very tax efficient way (between dividends, SJPP contributions etc), whats the point of trying to grow beyond that?
I am as critical as everyone of Truss, but on this I think her instincts are correct.
Truss now saying the reason the OBR forecast wasn't published was because they didn't have time to make one. "that isn't true" points out LK. Says she won't publish the forecast as "it isn't ready".
But it is ready. According to the OBR. So when she says "it isn't ready" its clear that "ready" means "saying what we want it to say"
aka as "lying".
We got rid of Boris for lying. Just saying.....
And even if it were true... the obvious answer is "why didn't you damn well wait until it was ready?"
There was nothing so "urgent" that couldn't wait a few weeks, other than Truss's stupid promises made during the leadership campaign.
Truss now saying the reason the OBR forecast wasn't published was because they didn't have time to make one. "that isn't true" points out LK. Says she won't publish the forecast as "it isn't ready".
But it is ready. According to the OBR. So when she says "it isn't ready" its clear that "ready" means "saying what we want it to say"
aka as Liz "lying".
We got rid of Boris for lying. Just saying.....
We know Boris was lying. He said things didn't happen that he knew happened because he was there. I'm not sure Truss thinks she is lying - "it isn't ready" is factually wrong. But mentally I can see that she genuinely thinks it isn't ready.
Thats the problem. She is deluded and disconnected from reality.
Premiership is dead and buried. Only question now is how long it takes Tories to realise it and whether they try to remove her.
I don’t think she’ll still be PM by Christmas.
Isn't it a bit early to be saying this?
Christmas gets earlier every year.
Politics happens so fast these days, the Tories might be ahead again by Christmas due to some unforeseen event.
You are correct that it is too early to write Ms Truss's obitury.
But at the same time, first impressions matter. And things like - like Black Wednesday - stick in voters minds. In this case, the impression (rightly or wrongly) that will be cemented in minds is that while disposable incomes for the 80% were getting squeezed, the richest 2% were getting a big tax cut.
Based on recent years it would be a tax cut of around £20m for Denise Coates, head of b365, alone. Enough to fund a week of the school dinners over the summer for the whole country that the government spent ages telling Rashford we could not afford before u-turning.
It’s a little unfair to highlight Denise Coates.
As I understand it she is very straightforward in being paid dividends. Consequently she pays a huge amount of tax which she could legally have minimised but chose not to.
There are good arguments to do this type of tax cut. Once you get to 60-70% levels of marginal tax, there is no point in earning money by working, so people stop generating wealth this way. You are basically working for charitable purposes to support the British state, which is generally not something that motivates people. This all disincentivises work and productivity. Explain this to people, and they will get it. But Truss and Kwarteng are incapable of explaining it. The attempt to explain it (attending champagne receptions of hedge fund managers) seems like they are going for a Mandelson style approach which is politically suicidal.
I never quite understand the line of argument that there's "no point" working if marginal tax rates are high at the top end. Say I earn loads of money already, and any more I earn is taxed at 70%. I earn an extra £100k, so I 'only' get £30k. That's still £2,500 a month - more than many people get in total. Or I earn an extra £1m, but only get £300k - £25K a month. That's a lot of money - hardly "working for charitable purposes".
You're right - it's bollocks. People on those incomes don't think that way, nor are they in the a position where they can directly influence an increase in their income by, for example, doing more overtime. At those levels it just does not work that way.
I love it when people say mid term polls are meaningless.
Yes, they are themselves generally not a prediction that that will be the final shares come election time. Oppositions should lead, possibly by quite a bit.
But there's a difference between simply being behind and being massively behind. With ratings on the economy etc in the toilet.
Premiership is dead and buried. Only question now is how long it takes Tories to realise it and whether they try to remove her.
I don’t think she’ll still be PM by Christmas.
Isn't it a bit early to be saying this?
Christmas gets earlier every year.
Politics happens so fast these days, the Tories might be ahead again by Christmas due to some unforeseen event.
You are correct that it is too early to write Ms Truss's obitury.
But at the same time, first impressions matter. And things like - like Black Wednesday - stick in voters minds. In this case, the impression (rightly or wrongly) that will be cemented in minds is that while disposable incomes for the 80% were getting squeezed, the richest 2% were getting a big tax cut.
Based on recent years it would be a tax cut of around £20m for Denise Coates, head of b365, alone. Enough to fund a week of the school dinners over the summer for the whole country that the government spent ages telling Rashford we could not afford before u-turning.
It’s a little unfair to highlight Denise Coates.
As I understand it she is very straightforward in being paid dividends. Consequently she pays a huge amount of tax which she could legally have minimised but chose not to.
There are good arguments to do this type of tax cut. Once you get to 60-70% levels of marginal tax, there is no point in earning money by working, so people stop generating wealth this way. You are basically working for charitable purposes to support the British state, which is generally not something that motivates people. This all disincentivises work and productivity. Explain this to people, and they will get it. But Truss and Kwarteng are incapable of explaining it. The attempt to explain it (attending champagne receptions of hedge fund managers) seems like they are going for a Mandelson style approach which is politically suicidal.
How do you get a figure of 70%?!
If earning an extra £1000 gets me an extra £300, then there is an incentive to earn more. Given how Denise Coates and others do earn more than the top threshold, clearly they think so too.
Not everyone thinks the same. I know people who would rather not pay 60% plus of the hourly wage to the government for working extra hours. Not everyone is driven by earning as much as possible.
I know people who would rather not do an extra hour even if they get 100% of their wage. We’re all different.
Also, who’s paying 60%? darkage says 70%, you say 60%, but the top rate of tax was 45%.
The brutal reality that the Tories need to grasp very quickly is that Truss doesn’t have a problem that she needs to fix. Truss is the problem. In short, they have made a mistake.
They need to get rid. The longer they leave it. The worse it will be.
Uh-huh.....
Not often we are in complete agreement! And it is not a save the party thing. It's a save the country thing.
Truss now saying the reason the OBR forecast wasn't published was because they didn't have time to make one. "that isn't true" points out LK. Says she won't publish the forecast as "it isn't ready".
But it is ready. According to the OBR. So when she says "it isn't ready" its clear that "ready" means "saying what we want it to say"
aka as Liz "lying".
We got rid of Boris for lying. Just saying.....
He lied to Parliament, so an order of magnitude higher, but it only seems a matter of time before Truss does same thing.
Good! 1. Truss insists she has a mandate for her "polar opposite of what people voted for" platform 2. Gove leads a sizeable rebellion against the "fiscal event" 3. 40 MPs lose the whip, government loses its majority 4. Early election. Tories in absolute disarray. "one nation Conservatives" stand for their existing seats vs Trussite mouth-foamer 5. E.L.E.
Some serious hostage to fortune from Rachel Reeves there. The market doesn’t think the government is credible. It’s not about the scale of the borrowing. Labour need to have a credible plan or they’ll be in exactly the same position.
Premiership is dead and buried. Only question now is how long it takes Tories to realise it and whether they try to remove her.
I don’t think she’ll still be PM by Christmas.
Isn't it a bit early to be saying this?
Christmas gets earlier every year.
Politics happens so fast these days, the Tories might be ahead again by Christmas due to some unforeseen event.
You are correct that it is too early to write Ms Truss's obitury.
But at the same time, first impressions matter. And things like - like Black Wednesday - stick in voters minds. In this case, the impression (rightly or wrongly) that will be cemented in minds is that while disposable incomes for the 80% were getting squeezed, the richest 2% were getting a big tax cut.
Based on recent years it would be a tax cut of around £20m for Denise Coates, head of b365, alone. Enough to fund a week of the school dinners over the summer for the whole country that the government spent ages telling Rashford we could not afford before u-turning.
It’s a little unfair to highlight Denise Coates.
As I understand it she is very straightforward in being paid dividends. Consequently she pays a huge amount of tax which she could legally have minimised but chose not to.
There are good arguments to do this type of tax cut. Once you get to 60-70% levels of marginal tax, there is no point in earning money by working, so people stop generating wealth this way. You are basically working for charitable purposes to support the British state, which is generally not something that motivates people. This all disincentivises work and productivity. Explain this to people, and they will get it. But Truss and Kwarteng are incapable of explaining it. The attempt to explain it (attending champagne receptions of hedge fund managers) seems like they are going for a Mandelson style approach which is politically suicidal.
45% is not 70%. If you’re referring to the marginal rate at £100k, then Truss didn’t do anything about it.
And @darkage is talking bollocks anyway. I personally was lucky enough to go up through that marginal tax period during my final few years in employment (I'm nowhere near now just to be clear!).
My pay was never about the number of hours I worked, of course, nor, directly, the amount of effort I put in - it was determined by the success or otherwise of the things I did and managed (and to be fair the vagaries of the stock market due to share options).
Does @darkage think at some point that I had the debate with myself over whether I should bother making such a success of the projects I delivered in case it took me into that 70% marginal band?
It just does not work that way.
Fair enough. People are different.
But if you are in Coates position, the company is paying 25% (potentially) in corporation tax, plus 39.35% in dividends. So that all adds up to 64.35% tax on income. That is in addition to all the VAT that you have potentially collected for the government.
So my question is, quite seriously, what is the point of doing anything if you take on all the risk yourself, and then give away 65% of the rewards to the government?
If I own a small, successful business, with low overheads, and can earn about 100K in a very tax efficient way (between dividends, SJPP contributions etc), whats the point of trying to grow beyond that?
I am as critical as everyone of Truss, but on this I think her instincts are correct.
This is not how the people who build billion dollar companies think.
- ”What is significant about Opinium is that it was the top poster at the last election”
Indeed Mike, and considering that your last thread was about the NOM/Lab Maj market - a topic occupying many recent threads - please forgive me a little PB nostalgia.
Lab Maj buyers may be slightly concerned by Opinium’s Scottish subsample, which basically shows Scottish voting sentiment unchanged from 6 months ago:
SNP 45% SLab 23% SCon 20% SLD 6% oth 7%
Note that the above is almost identical to the last proper Scottish poll by Panelbase and the Sunday Times on 17-19 August:
SNP 44% SLab 23% SCon 20% SLD 8% oth 5%
If the Truss premiership has not shifted the Scottish dial then Starmer can forget Maj.
Previously you've been on here lauding YouGov but deriding all other pollsters for failing to properly weight their Scottish subsamples.
So it's worth recalling I think that YouGov poll with a 33% lead had a Scottish subsample as follows:
SNP 44% SLab 38% SCon 10% SLD 2% oth 6%
I'm sure that you noticed that. Did you post the result on here though, and if not, why not?
Yes I did. More than once. And repeatedly drew attention to it.
She’s obviously been coached to speak very slowly and deliberately. She should sack those feckers for a start, it sounds like she’s recovering from a stroke.
Premiership is dead and buried. Only question now is how long it takes Tories to realise it and whether they try to remove her.
I don’t think she’ll still be PM by Christmas.
Isn't it a bit early to be saying this?
Christmas gets earlier every year.
Politics happens so fast these days, the Tories might be ahead again by Christmas due to some unforeseen event.
You are correct that it is too early to write Ms Truss's obitury.
But at the same time, first impressions matter. And things like - like Black Wednesday - stick in voters minds. In this case, the impression (rightly or wrongly) that will be cemented in minds is that while disposable incomes for the 80% were getting squeezed, the richest 2% were getting a big tax cut.
Based on recent years it would be a tax cut of around £20m for Denise Coates, head of b365, alone. Enough to fund a week of the school dinners over the summer for the whole country that the government spent ages telling Rashford we could not afford before u-turning.
It’s a little unfair to highlight Denise Coates.
As I understand it she is very straightforward in being paid dividends. Consequently she pays a huge amount of tax which she could legally have minimised but chose not to.
There are good arguments to do this type of tax cut. Once you get to 60-70% levels of marginal tax, there is no point in earning money by working, so people stop generating wealth this way. You are basically working for charitable purposes to support the British state, which is generally not something that motivates people. This all disincentivises work and productivity. Explain this to people, and they will get it. But Truss and Kwarteng are incapable of explaining it. The attempt to explain it (attending champagne receptions of hedge fund managers) seems like they are going for a Mandelson style approach which is politically suicidal.
I never quite understand the line of argument that there's "no point" working if marginal tax rates are high at the top end. Say I earn loads of money already, and any more I earn is taxed at 70%. I earn an extra £100k, so I 'only' get £30k. That's still £2,500 a month - more than many people get in total. Or I earn an extra £1m, but only get £300k - £25K a month. That's a lot of money - hardly "working for charitable purposes".
Also if they don't do it it creates jobs for other people.
Good! 1. Truss insists she has a mandate for her "polar opposite of what people voted for" platform 2. Gove leads a sizeable rebellion against the "fiscal event" 3. 40 MPs lose the whip, government loses its majority 4. Early election. Tories in absolute disarray. "one nation Conservatives" stand for their existing seats vs Trussite mouth-foamer 5. E.L.E.
On top of Truss 2022 exit being value, I think it quite likely the Tory party can't sustain this parliament through to 2024. It is too divided and incompetent.
There is no doubt that the hyperbolic responses of our press have made things very difficult for Truss. We had the collapse of sterling....where the Pound finished the week at a higher level against the dollar, we had the horrendous recession...which turned out not to be a recession at all because the economy was still growing... we had the collapse of our pension industry...which turned out to be a relatively simple and predictable cash flow issue that even the Governor of the BoE could fix.
But we also had the self inflicted stupidity of tax cuts for the wealthy at a time when huge unfunded spending commitments were being made on fuel, we had a tone deaf statement and then confused silence by both Kwarteng and Truss for much of the week and we have this obstinate refusal to bring forward the OBR report which will be needed to assuage the City (a further problem is that it will only do this if the government announces lots of unpopular cuts in spending which, in turn, will make the promises on extra growth seem laughable).
The old saying is that you only get one chance to make a first impression. Truss arguably had 2, before HMQ and after it. But she has blown both, making no attempt to bring the country together in difficult times but choosing to be divisive and incoherent. I think she cannot recover from this but whether the Tories would be better or worse off trying yet again to find a competent leader is hard to say. That is what the Tories really have to debate at their conference and its not going to be a fun decision.
Your first sentence is disappointing - blaming press hyperbole, indeed. You then outline the reasons why such 'hyperbole' is hardly a surprise.
I cannot stress enough how UNPOPULAR slashing taxes and cutting spending on public services is. It is an utterly toxic combination. Here is the latest British Social Attitudes survey. It's a 6% position ... https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1576480862857592833/photo/1
6% seems quite a decent floor for the Tory vote...
She’s obviously been coached to speak very slowly and deliberately. She should sack those feckers for a start, it sounds like she’s recovering from a stroke.
Good! 1. Truss insists she has a mandate for her "polar opposite of what people voted for" platform 2. Gove leads a sizeable rebellion against the "fiscal event" 3. 40 MPs lose the whip, government loses its majority 4. Early election. Tories in absolute disarray. "one nation Conservatives" stand for their existing seats vs Trussite mouth-foamer 5. E.L.E.
Premiership is dead and buried. Only question now is how long it takes Tories to realise it and whether they try to remove her.
I don’t think she’ll still be PM by Christmas.
Isn't it a bit early to be saying this?
Christmas gets earlier every year.
Politics happens so fast these days, the Tories might be ahead again by Christmas due to some unforeseen event.
You are correct that it is too early to write Ms Truss's obitury.
But at the same time, first impressions matter. And things like - like Black Wednesday - stick in voters minds. In this case, the impression (rightly or wrongly) that will be cemented in minds is that while disposable incomes for the 80% were getting squeezed, the richest 2% were getting a big tax cut.
Based on recent years it would be a tax cut of around £20m for Denise Coates, head of b365, alone. Enough to fund a week of the school dinners over the summer for the whole country that the government spent ages telling Rashford we could not afford before u-turning.
It’s a little unfair to highlight Denise Coates.
As I understand it she is very straightforward in being paid dividends. Consequently she pays a huge amount of tax which she could legally have minimised but chose not to.
There are good arguments to do this type of tax cut. Once you get to 60-70% levels of marginal tax, there is no point in earning money by working, so people stop generating wealth this way. You are basically working for charitable purposes to support the British state, which is generally not something that motivates people. This all disincentivises work and productivity. Explain this to people, and they will get it. But Truss and Kwarteng are incapable of explaining it. The attempt to explain it (attending champagne receptions of hedge fund managers) seems like they are going for a Mandelson style approach which is politically suicidal.
I never quite understand the line of argument that there's "no point" working if marginal tax rates are high at the top end. Say I earn loads of money already, and any more I earn is taxed at 70%. I earn an extra £100k, so I 'only' get £30k. That's still £2,500 a month - more than many people get in total. Or I earn an extra £1m, but only get £300k - £25K a month. That's a lot of money - hardly "working for charitable purposes".
I think the trouble is that you are looking at this from the perspective of someone who is being paid a salary. I've worked in the public sector for much of my career and find that the people who get 150k salaries aren't really motivated by money anyway. And, if truth be told, neither am I; although I've never got near that kind of salary.
But if you think about it from the point of view of someone who owns a growing business, it is a bit different, because these very high levels of marginal tax act as a barrier to growth. You grow the business, take on more responsibility and risk, but then hand over 65% of the reward to the government.
There is no doubt that the hyperbolic responses of our press have made things very difficult for Truss. We had the collapse of sterling....where the Pound finished the week at a higher level against the dollar, we had the horrendous recession...which turned out not to be a recession at all because the economy was still growing... we had the collapse of our pension industry...which turned out to be a relatively simple and predictable cash flow issue that even the Governor of the BoE could fix.
But we also had the self inflicted stupidity of tax cuts for the wealthy at a time when huge unfunded spending commitments were being made on fuel, we had a tone deaf statement and then confused silence by both Kwarteng and Truss for much of the week and we have this obstinate refusal to bring forward the OBR report which will be needed to assuage the City (a further problem is that it will only do this if the government announces lots of unpopular cuts in spending which, in turn, will make the promises on extra growth seem laughable).
The old saying is that you only get one chance to make a first impression. Truss arguably had 2, before HMQ and after it. But she has blown both, making no attempt to bring the country together in difficult times but choosing to be divisive and incoherent. I think she cannot recover from this but whether the Tories would be better or worse off trying yet again to find a competent leader is hard to say. That is what the Tories really have to debate at their conference and its not going to be a fun decision.
Your first sentence is disappointing - blaming press hyperbole, indeed. You then outline the reasons why such 'hyperbole' is hardly a surprise.
Quite. When the DM doesn't highlight a major threat to pensions and house prices on its front page ...
Premiership is dead and buried. Only question now is how long it takes Tories to realise it and whether they try to remove her.
I don’t think she’ll still be PM by Christmas.
Isn't it a bit early to be saying this?
Christmas gets earlier every year.
Politics happens so fast these days, the Tories might be ahead again by Christmas due to some unforeseen event.
You are correct that it is too early to write Ms Truss's obitury.
But at the same time, first impressions matter. And things like - like Black Wednesday - stick in voters minds. In this case, the impression (rightly or wrongly) that will be cemented in minds is that while disposable incomes for the 80% were getting squeezed, the richest 2% were getting a big tax cut.
Based on recent years it would be a tax cut of around £20m for Denise Coates, head of b365, alone. Enough to fund a week of the school dinners over the summer for the whole country that the government spent ages telling Rashford we could not afford before u-turning.
It’s a little unfair to highlight Denise Coates.
As I understand it she is very straightforward in being paid dividends. Consequently she pays a huge amount of tax which she could legally have minimised but chose not to.
There are good arguments to do this type of tax cut. Once you get to 60-70% levels of marginal tax, there is no point in earning money by working, so people stop generating wealth this way. You are basically working for charitable purposes to support the British state, which is generally not something that motivates people. This all disincentivises work and productivity. Explain this to people, and they will get it. But Truss and Kwarteng are incapable of explaining it. The attempt to explain it (attending champagne receptions of hedge fund managers) seems like they are going for a Mandelson style approach which is politically suicidal.
I never quite understand the line of argument that there's "no point" working if marginal tax rates are high at the top end. Say I earn loads of money already, and any more I earn is taxed at 70%. I earn an extra £100k, so I 'only' get £30k. That's still £2,500 a month - more than many people get in total. Or I earn an extra £1m, but only get £300k - £25K a month. That's a lot of money - hardly "working for charitable purposes".
But you have the alternative of only working for four days a week, and having more time to spend the money you already earn, or spending more time with your family.
If you had the choice between working four days a week, with net take home pay of £5,000 per month, or five days a week, with net take home pay of £5,500 per month, would you really choose to work +25% extra time for only +10% extra take home pay? (I've made these figures up, but the principle is sound)
I cannot stress enough how UNPOPULAR slashing taxes and cutting spending on public services is. It is an utterly toxic combination. Here is the latest British Social Attitudes survey. It's a 6% position ... https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1576480862857592833/photo/1
If she's lost Goodwin, the Tories are really fucked, aren't they?
Premiership is dead and buried. Only question now is how long it takes Tories to realise it and whether they try to remove her.
I don’t think she’ll still be PM by Christmas.
Isn't it a bit early to be saying this?
Christmas gets earlier every year.
Politics happens so fast these days, the Tories might be ahead again by Christmas due to some unforeseen event.
You are correct that it is too early to write Ms Truss's obitury.
But at the same time, first impressions matter. And things like - like Black Wednesday - stick in voters minds. In this case, the impression (rightly or wrongly) that will be cemented in minds is that while disposable incomes for the 80% were getting squeezed, the richest 2% were getting a big tax cut.
Based on recent years it would be a tax cut of around £20m for Denise Coates, head of b365, alone. Enough to fund a week of the school dinners over the summer for the whole country that the government spent ages telling Rashford we could not afford before u-turning.
It’s a little unfair to highlight Denise Coates.
As I understand it she is very straightforward in being paid dividends. Consequently she pays a huge amount of tax which she could legally have minimised but chose not to.
There are good arguments to do this type of tax cut. Once you get to 60-70% levels of marginal tax, there is no point in earning money by working, so people stop generating wealth this way. You are basically working for charitable purposes to support the British state, which is generally not something that motivates people. This all disincentivises work and productivity. Explain this to people, and they will get it. But Truss and Kwarteng are incapable of explaining it. The attempt to explain it (attending champagne receptions of hedge fund managers) seems like they are going for a Mandelson style approach which is politically suicidal.
45% is not 70%. If you’re referring to the marginal rate at £100k, then Truss didn’t do anything about it.
And @darkage is talking bollocks anyway. I personally was lucky enough to go up through that marginal tax period during my final few years in employment (I'm nowhere near now just to be clear!).
My pay was never about the number of hours I worked, of course, nor, directly, the amount of effort I put in - it was determined by the success or otherwise of the things I did and managed (and to be fair the vagaries of the stock market due to share options).
Does @darkage think at some point that I had the debate with myself over whether I should bother making such a success of the projects I delivered in case it took me into that 70% marginal band?
It just does not work that way.
Fair enough. People are different.
But if you are in Coates position, the company is paying 25% (potentially) in corporation tax, plus 39.35% in dividends. So that all adds up to 64.35% tax on income. That is in addition to all the VAT that you have potentially collected for the government.
So my question is, quite seriously, what is the point of doing anything if you take on all the risk yourself, and then give away 65% of the rewards to the government?
If I own a small, successful business, with low overheads, and can earn about 100K in a very tax efficient way (between dividends, SJPP contributions etc), whats the point of trying to grow beyond that?
I am as critical as everyone of Truss, but on this I think her instincts are correct.
Fair point, and that's a different perspective I have not experienced. It's clearly complicated.
Apologies for my 'talking bollocks' slur ;-)
In any event any tax and benefits system that has out of kilter marginal rates should be fixed (see also the 55p taper rate for UC).
The OBR forecast is going to be dire. Can only be the reason she won’t publish it
The problem the Trussite loons have is that they think their plans will double the economic growth rate. But no credible person believes that and so the OBR forecast will show dire economic growth and dire public finances. The whole purpose of the OBR is to prevent the Treasury engaging in fantasy economic projections. I am guessing that Kwarteng is piling intense pressure on the OBR to come up with a friendlier set of forecasts, and if they won't then the government will pencil in some brutal and implausible spending cuts from FY25 onwards so that the forecasts show them balancing the books.
Premiership is dead and buried. Only question now is how long it takes Tories to realise it and whether they try to remove her.
I don’t think she’ll still be PM by Christmas.
Isn't it a bit early to be saying this?
Christmas gets earlier every year.
Politics happens so fast these days, the Tories might be ahead again by Christmas due to some unforeseen event.
You are correct that it is too early to write Ms Truss's obitury.
But at the same time, first impressions matter. And things like - like Black Wednesday - stick in voters minds. In this case, the impression (rightly or wrongly) that will be cemented in minds is that while disposable incomes for the 80% were getting squeezed, the richest 2% were getting a big tax cut.
Based on recent years it would be a tax cut of around £20m for Denise Coates, head of b365, alone. Enough to fund a week of the school dinners over the summer for the whole country that the government spent ages telling Rashford we could not afford before u-turning.
It’s a little unfair to highlight Denise Coates.
As I understand it she is very straightforward in being paid dividends. Consequently she pays a huge amount of tax which she could legally have minimised but chose not to.
There are good arguments to do this type of tax cut. Once you get to 60-70% levels of marginal tax, there is no point in earning money by working, so people stop generating wealth this way. You are basically working for charitable purposes to support the British state, which is generally not something that motivates people. This all disincentivises work and productivity. Explain this to people, and they will get it. But Truss and Kwarteng are incapable of explaining it. The attempt to explain it (attending champagne receptions of hedge fund managers) seems like they are going for a Mandelson style approach which is politically suicidal.
How do you get a figure of 70%?!
If earning an extra £1000 gets me an extra £300, then there is an incentive to earn more. Given how Denise Coates and others do earn more than the top threshold, clearly they think so too.
Not everyone thinks the same. I know people who would rather not pay 60% plus of the hourly wage to the government for working extra hours. Not everyone is driven by earning as much as possible.
I know people who would rather not do an extra hour even if they get 100% of their wage. We’re all different.
Also, who’s paying 60%? darkage says 70%, you say 60%, but the top rate of tax was 45%.
62% including NI between £105-125k
Do we have evidence that people stop their hours when they tip over into the 62% rate?
Good! 1. Truss insists she has a mandate for her "polar opposite of what people voted for" platform 2. Gove leads a sizeable rebellion against the "fiscal event" 3. 40 MPs lose the whip, government loses its majority 4. Early election. Tories in absolute disarray. "one nation Conservatives" stand for their existing seats vs Trussite mouth-foamer 5. E.L.E.
Following the Gove comments, it's pretty clear that Truss is not going to get her budget through the Commons without significant and humiliating changes that will make her a lame duck. So, her choice is PM in name only or not PM at all.
I cannot stress enough how UNPOPULAR slashing taxes and cutting spending on public services is. It is an utterly toxic combination. Here is the latest British Social Attitudes survey. It's a 6% position ... https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1576480862857592833/photo/1
If she's lost Goodwin, the Tories are really fucked, aren't they?
I cannot stress enough how UNPOPULAR slashing taxes and cutting spending on public services is. It is an utterly toxic combination. Here is the latest British Social Attitudes survey. It's a 6% position ... https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1576480862857592833/photo/1
If she's lost Goodwin, the Tories are really fucked, aren't they?
Good! 1. Truss insists she has a mandate for her "polar opposite of what people voted for" platform 2. Gove leads a sizeable rebellion against the "fiscal event" 3. 40 MPs lose the whip, government loses its majority 4. Early election. Tories in absolute disarray. "one nation Conservatives" stand for their existing seats vs Trussite mouth-foamer 5. E.L.E.
E.L.E.?
Extinction Level Event.
Thanks. It can mean Everyone Loves Everyone, but I didn't think that applied here!
Premiership is dead and buried. Only question now is how long it takes Tories to realise it and whether they try to remove her.
I don’t think she’ll still be PM by Christmas.
Isn't it a bit early to be saying this?
Christmas gets earlier every year.
Politics happens so fast these days, the Tories might be ahead again by Christmas due to some unforeseen event.
You are correct that it is too early to write Ms Truss's obitury.
But at the same time, first impressions matter. And things like - like Black Wednesday - stick in voters minds. In this case, the impression (rightly or wrongly) that will be cemented in minds is that while disposable incomes for the 80% were getting squeezed, the richest 2% were getting a big tax cut.
Based on recent years it would be a tax cut of around £20m for Denise Coates, head of b365, alone. Enough to fund a week of the school dinners over the summer for the whole country that the government spent ages telling Rashford we could not afford before u-turning.
It’s a little unfair to highlight Denise Coates.
As I understand it she is very straightforward in being paid dividends. Consequently she pays a huge amount of tax which she could legally have minimised but chose not to.
There are good arguments to do this type of tax cut. Once you get to 60-70% levels of marginal tax, there is no point in earning money by working, so people stop generating wealth this way. You are basically working for charitable purposes to support the British state, which is generally not something that motivates people. This all disincentivises work and productivity. Explain this to people, and they will get it. But Truss and Kwarteng are incapable of explaining it. The attempt to explain it (attending champagne receptions of hedge fund managers) seems like they are going for a Mandelson style approach which is politically suicidal.
I never quite understand the line of argument that there's "no point" working if marginal tax rates are high at the top end. Say I earn loads of money already, and any more I earn is taxed at 70%. I earn an extra £100k, so I 'only' get £30k. That's still £2,500 a month - more than many people get in total. Or I earn an extra £1m, but only get £300k - £25K a month. That's a lot of money - hardly "working for charitable purposes".
You're right - it's bollocks. People on those incomes don't think that way, nor are they in the a position where they can directly influence an increase in their income by, for example, doing more overtime. At those levels it just does not work that way.
No, clearly you are wrong on this. You might reasonably claim that people 'should not' think this way, but there is lots of evidence that they do. It is one of the factors (along with the pensions trap which is again a tax issue) driving the loss of GPs and other senior staff from the NHS.
Usually that extra income involves extra work such as overtime or taking on additional responsibilities and lots of people would look at that and say, it isn't worth it. I am happy with what I have or, now you have brought it to my attention, with even less if it means less work. The idea of working more for a lower rate of return simply doesn't appeal to a lot of people, particularly later in their careers when their commitments such as mortgages are probably a lot less.
Truss now saying the reason the OBR forecast wasn't published was because they didn't have time to make one. "that isn't true" points out LK. Says she won't publish the forecast as "it isn't ready".
But it is ready. According to the OBR. So when she says "it isn't ready" its clear that "ready" means "saying what we want it to say"
aka as Liz "lying".
We got rid of Boris for lying. Just saying.....
He lied to Parliament, so an order of magnitude higher, but it only seems a matter of time before Truss does same thing.
Out by Xmas.
Since last week I have been scratching my head at the "she'll be out next year" suggestion. She isn't going to make next year. Every single day makes their position worse either by economic damage by them or the markets reacting or political insanity.
It's absolutely clear now there will be a massive collision over the special budget event. Not only will we have a stack of MPs refusing to vote for it - or proposing massive amendments to it the government hate - but we have the confirmation that its a confidence vote.
We know the Trussites are stupid. They will think "Boris Johnsin took the whip from Ken Clarke and Churchill's grandson, so we can do the same to Michael Gove.
Except they can't. Becoming a minority government was in Johnson's favour. Denounce the 2017 parliament and demand an election which they rightly expected to win big. How does that work in 2022 when they are staring down the barrel of various demolitions?
Premiership is dead and buried. Only question now is how long it takes Tories to realise it and whether they try to remove her.
I don’t think she’ll still be PM by Christmas.
Isn't it a bit early to be saying this?
Christmas gets earlier every year.
Politics happens so fast these days, the Tories might be ahead again by Christmas due to some unforeseen event.
You are correct that it is too early to write Ms Truss's obitury.
But at the same time, first impressions matter. And things like - like Black Wednesday - stick in voters minds. In this case, the impression (rightly or wrongly) that will be cemented in minds is that while disposable incomes for the 80% were getting squeezed, the richest 2% were getting a big tax cut.
Based on recent years it would be a tax cut of around £20m for Denise Coates, head of b365, alone. Enough to fund a week of the school dinners over the summer for the whole country that the government spent ages telling Rashford we could not afford before u-turning.
It’s a little unfair to highlight Denise Coates.
As I understand it she is very straightforward in being paid dividends. Consequently she pays a huge amount of tax which she could legally have minimised but chose not to.
There are good arguments to do this type of tax cut. Once you get to 60-70% levels of marginal tax, there is no point in earning money by working, so people stop generating wealth this way. You are basically working for charitable purposes to support the British state, which is generally not something that motivates people. This all disincentivises work and productivity. Explain this to people, and they will get it. But Truss and Kwarteng are incapable of explaining it. The attempt to explain it (attending champagne receptions of hedge fund managers) seems like they are going for a Mandelson style approach which is politically suicidal.
How do you get a figure of 70%?!
If earning an extra £1000 gets me an extra £300, then there is an incentive to earn more. Given how Denise Coates and others do earn more than the top threshold, clearly they think so too.
Not everyone thinks the same. I know people who would rather not pay 60% plus of the hourly wage to the government for working extra hours. Not everyone is driven by earning as much as possible.
I know people who would rather not do an extra hour even if they get 100% of their wage. We’re all different.
Also, who’s paying 60%? darkage says 70%, you say 60%, but the top rate of tax was 45%.
62% including NI between £105-125k
Do we have evidence that people stop their hours when they tip over into the 62% rate?
I suspect that that does happen.
It's not the same thing, but the issue with pensions caps has definitely contributed to doctors going part time i would think.
I've had an idea this morning - assuming it gets in, sometime in its first term, or as a promise for a seond, Labour should well offer a referendum on rejoining the single market.
The script migt be :"You were sold an unclear and some would say false prospectus last time round. We will be straight with you and not sell unicorns this time. Do you want the benefits of higher economic growth as well as european free movement, which some might find more difficult, and others part of their own freedom, to return ? The choice is yours.
If the economy is still in the soup, yes would win easily. Hence probably better to try it sooner.
Premiership is dead and buried. Only question now is how long it takes Tories to realise it and whether they try to remove her.
I don’t think she’ll still be PM by Christmas.
Isn't it a bit early to be saying this?
Christmas gets earlier every year.
Politics happens so fast these days, the Tories might be ahead again by Christmas due to some unforeseen event.
You are correct that it is too early to write Ms Truss's obitury.
But at the same time, first impressions matter. And things like - like Black Wednesday - stick in voters minds. In this case, the impression (rightly or wrongly) that will be cemented in minds is that while disposable incomes for the 80% were getting squeezed, the richest 2% were getting a big tax cut.
Based on recent years it would be a tax cut of around £20m for Denise Coates, head of b365, alone. Enough to fund a week of the school dinners over the summer for the whole country that the government spent ages telling Rashford we could not afford before u-turning.
It’s a little unfair to highlight Denise Coates.
As I understand it she is very straightforward in being paid dividends. Consequently she pays a huge amount of tax which she could legally have minimised but chose not to.
There are good arguments to do this type of tax cut. Once you get to 60-70% levels of marginal tax, there is no point in earning money by working, so people stop generating wealth this way. You are basically working for charitable purposes to support the British state, which is generally not something that motivates people. This all disincentivises work and productivity. Explain this to people, and they will get it. But Truss and Kwarteng are incapable of explaining it. The attempt to explain it (attending champagne receptions of hedge fund managers) seems like they are going for a Mandelson style approach which is politically suicidal.
How do you get a figure of 70%?!
If earning an extra £1000 gets me an extra £300, then there is an incentive to earn more. Given how Denise Coates and others do earn more than the top threshold, clearly they think so too.
Not everyone thinks the same. I know people who would rather not pay 60% plus of the hourly wage to the government for working extra hours. Not everyone is driven by earning as much as possible.
I know people who would rather not do an extra hour even if they get 100% of their wage. We’re all different.
Also, who’s paying 60%? darkage says 70%, you say 60%, but the top rate of tax was 45%.
62% including NI between £105-125k
Do we have evidence that people stop their hours when they tip over into the 62% rate?
I suspect that that does happen.
Not sure about the 62% rate. But in my experience this happens where you can ask for flexible hours in the public sector, lots of people reducing hours and just taking the 50k to avoid going in to the 40% bracket. I worked at a place where about 50% of the workforce had done this.
NHS watch: district nurse caring for octogenarian mother-in-law called ambulance for her at 7:15pm last night. Ambulance arrived at 3am. As of two minutes ago, ambulance was still sat outside hospital with MIL in back of it, being fed tea and biscuits. She's not suffering an acute, immediately life-threatening condition, thank God, but it shows what an absolutely dire state these services are in.
This is before the annual epidemic of old people falling over in Winter, plus flu, plus Covid, plus the developing wave of untreated conditions left to worsen during lockdowns, and all those who'll be made sick by being forced to go cold and/or hungry. Plus, it would now seem, the additional burden of frozen budgets and working age benefits.
It's a matter of immediate necessity to get rid of this Government but the fact is that, unless enough Conservative turkeys vote for Christmas in the Commons, they'll be sat there, immovable, until January 2025. More likely than not we've got over two years of this acute dysfunction and systemic collapse left to come. There'll be nothing left for Labour to put back together again at this rate.
Premiership is dead and buried. Only question now is how long it takes Tories to realise it and whether they try to remove her.
I don’t think she’ll still be PM by Christmas.
Isn't it a bit early to be saying this?
Christmas gets earlier every year.
Politics happens so fast these days, the Tories might be ahead again by Christmas due to some unforeseen event.
You are correct that it is too early to write Ms Truss's obitury.
But at the same time, first impressions matter. And things like - like Black Wednesday - stick in voters minds. In this case, the impression (rightly or wrongly) that will be cemented in minds is that while disposable incomes for the 80% were getting squeezed, the richest 2% were getting a big tax cut.
Based on recent years it would be a tax cut of around £20m for Denise Coates, head of b365, alone. Enough to fund a week of the school dinners over the summer for the whole country that the government spent ages telling Rashford we could not afford before u-turning.
It’s a little unfair to highlight Denise Coates.
As I understand it she is very straightforward in being paid dividends. Consequently she pays a huge amount of tax which she could legally have minimised but chose not to.
There are good arguments to do this type of tax cut. Once you get to 60-70% levels of marginal tax, there is no point in earning money by working, so people stop generating wealth this way. You are basically working for charitable purposes to support the British state, which is generally not something that motivates people. This all disincentivises work and productivity. Explain this to people, and they will get it. But Truss and Kwarteng are incapable of explaining it. The attempt to explain it (attending champagne receptions of hedge fund managers) seems like they are going for a Mandelson style approach which is politically suicidal.
How do you get a figure of 70%?!
If earning an extra £1000 gets me an extra £300, then there is an incentive to earn more. Given how Denise Coates and others do earn more than the top threshold, clearly they think so too.
Not everyone thinks the same. I know people who would rather not pay 60% plus of the hourly wage to the government for working extra hours. Not everyone is driven by earning as much as possible.
I know people who would rather not do an extra hour even if they get 100% of their wage. We’re all different.
Also, who’s paying 60%? darkage says 70%, you say 60%, but the top rate of tax was 45%.
62% including NI between £105-125k
Do we have evidence that people stop their hours when they tip over into the 62% rate?
I suspect that that does happen.
My guess is that it would depend on the job. I doubt it is going to make much difference where work has to be done to target and to deadline.
But it was only a mini budget. i.e not even a real one. And you are going to remove the whip? Truss is declaring war on her own parliamentary party it would seem.
Following the Gove comments, it's pretty clear that Truss is not going to get her budget through the Commons without significant and humiliating changes that will make her a lame duck. So, her choice is PM in name only or not PM at all.
My guess is that they'll postpone abolition of the 45% for 2 years, and most critics will declare victory, for now.
But it was only a mini budget. i.e not even a real one. And you are going to remove the whip? Truss is declaring war on her own parliamentary party it would seem.
More likely. The Whips know they have the numbers to vote this down. Therefore it's the nuclear option. Rather than declare war, it's the only move to salvage her Premiership. After fewer than four weeks. With ten days of that scrubbed out. I haven't seen anything like it before.
I cannot stress enough how UNPOPULAR slashing taxes and cutting spending on public services is. It is an utterly toxic combination. Here is the latest British Social Attitudes survey. It's a 6% position ... https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1576480862857592833/photo/1
The damage was done by Andrew Neil decades back when he imported the American "tax and spend" meme to British journalism. In America, there is a large constituency for whom public spending is anathema. In Britain, even if we do not want to pay taxes, we largely support the public sector.
Good! 1. Truss insists she has a mandate for her "polar opposite of what people voted for" platform 2. Gove leads a sizeable rebellion against the "fiscal event" 3. 40 MPs lose the whip, government loses its majority 4. Early election. Tories in absolute disarray. "one nation Conservatives" stand for their existing seats vs Trussite mouth-foamer 5. E.L.E.
Ukraine might not have so long to win this war. If the Republicans take either the House or the Senate, the ability of the administration to provide further financial and military support could be severely curtailed.
I think it runs throughout 2022 and 2023 - plus the latest package of arms was laid out as a long term two year strategy.
Has something changed significantly?
The Lend-Lease Act was passed in May. The last financial package of assistance for Ukraine passed by a much narrower vote, something like 230-201. There has been a lot of rhetoric from those on the American Right about the large sums of money being wasted on Ukraine, the inevitability of Russian victory. One angle they are pushing is detailed oversight of the spending, which would be a way to block the spending without coming out explicitly in opposition to it.
If you look at the tweet I linked, it shows CPAC referring to the oblasts recently annexed by Russia as "Ukrainian-occupied" - this is the sort of language that would enable them to walk away from supporting Ukraine. I think the stakes in the mid-terms are very high, and this at a time when the British government's ability to borrow some extra billions to help plug the gap has been damaged.
Hmmm. I did look at her tweet - which is why I replied as I did.
The last package pivots the support from short term to long-term, and the vote was on a wider piece of legislation than support for Ukraine. Plus lend-lease authority for Mr Biden runs until March 2024 (if I have that right).
Following the Gove comments, it's pretty clear that Truss is not going to get her budget through the Commons without significant and humiliating changes that will make her a lame duck. So, her choice is PM in name only or not PM at all.
My guess is that they'll postpone abolition of the 45% for 2 years, and most critics will declare victory, for now.
You are probably right, but everyone in Westminster will know that Truss is a lame duck. And all the cuts will still happen, as will the mortgage rises.
“People are not that upset with the budget… we are angry because they are sh*t and cannot communicate the strategy so the public feel frightened instead of reassured” - MP who backed Truss.
"But I think it's a radical approach that was well-trailed. People have got to come to terms with that. "If anyone was surprised that this was a radical financial statement, they shouldn't be."
“Well-trailed” to the Conservative Party and it’s selectorate. Why this individual thought the country’s population spent the summer following a debate addressed only to the fee-paying members of the Tory Party is beyond me. Even if those that were following it outside his party were not being addressed directly.
The manifesto that won over Tory members would not have made it in a general election. As I’ve said before, separating the choice of PM from the choice of the majority of the Commons is breaking the constitution. While there’s nothing unlawful about this manner of choosing the PM, its dangerous, for everyone, to assume the views of the Tory party membership reflect the views of the electorate.
It’s not unconstitutional at all. All you need to be PM is to command a majority of the house. How that person is identified is irrelevant.
It’s a bad system with significant weaknesses, but not “breaking the constitution”
It is “breaking” - it has significantly weakened the link. It is constitutional but barely and it can’t take much of this strain.
Comments
https://twitter.com/SeanJonesKC/status/1576484540721156096
This isn't about making things better- just stopping them getting worse.
“To have as your principle decision cutting tax on the wealthiest shows the wrong values."
Sounds like he can’t vote for the measures.
A Tory MP messages, “Well if Gove ain’t going to vote for the budget, says it all”.
#BBCLauraK
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1576484946730160130
The appalling tone / smirking / wooden plank presentation
The utter denial about it "all being "putin's fault"
She confirmed the triple lock stays but repeatedly refused to commit to public services or the welfare state - so was rightly accused that she intends to cut them
The casual "we didn't discuss in cabinet" - who is in her loop?
The casual "the chancellor made the decision" on 45p which was then not discussed in cabinet
When asked "who voted for this" looks puzzled, goes quiet then says "what do you mean"
Then Gove says he won't vote for the "fiscal operation"
This makes things worse. A lot worse. How on earth can she be this bad? And think she is this good?
She genuinely believes she inherited BoZo's mandate
And now there are rumours spreading like wildfire on social media that Credit Suisse is on the verge of going bust.
I'm almost starting to wonder if he's actually been set up!
We got rid of Boris for lying. Just saying.....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live https://twitter.com/JulianSmithUK/status/1576484558677032960
https://twitter.com/louisehector/status/1576485082382028800
There are more important things in life than money, and I think it was better for my daughter that I was able to spend those extra seven hours a week with her, but the corollary is that the financial reward for increasing my hours simply wasn't there.
So who can take out Truss and Kwarteng? Govey’s been uncharacteristically quiet.
Edit: I see Gove has awoken!
But now it's on record from the Tory chairman...
MP rebels who vote down Truss's mini-Budget will no longer be allowed to sit as Tories.
https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1576479767947116544?s=20&t=Afa9alr32YScoc1DvwbaAw
But if you are in Coates position, the company is paying 25% (potentially) in corporation tax, plus 39.35% in dividends. So that all adds up to 64.35% tax on income. That is in addition to all the VAT that you have potentially collected for the government.
So my question is, quite seriously, what is the point of doing anything if you take on all the risk yourself, and then give away 65% of the rewards to the government?
If I own a small, successful business, with low overheads, and can earn about 100K in a very tax efficient way (between dividends, SJPP contributions etc), whats the point of trying to grow beyond that?
I am as critical as everyone of Truss, but on this I think her instincts are correct.
https://twitter.com/gabyhinsliff/status/1576486745582862336
https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1576479767947116544
There was nothing so "urgent" that couldn't wait a few weeks, other than Truss's stupid promises made during the leadership campaign.
Time to end the Ukipped Tory party and replace it with a sane right of centre party.
Thats the problem. She is deluded and disconnected from reality.
Yes, they are themselves generally not a prediction that that will be the final shares come election time. Oppositions should lead, possibly by quite a bit.
But there's a difference between simply being behind and being massively behind. With ratings on the economy etc in the
toilet.
She’s finished.
Not often we are in complete agreement! And it is not a save the party thing. It's a save the country thing.
Out by Xmas.
1. Truss insists she has a mandate for her "polar opposite of what people voted for" platform
2. Gove leads a sizeable rebellion against the "fiscal event"
3. 40 MPs lose the whip, government loses its majority
4. Early election. Tories in absolute disarray. "one nation Conservatives" stand for their existing seats vs Trussite mouth-foamer
5. E.L.E.
https://twitter.com/askaudreylike/status/1575393692575158272?s=21&t=OA4C9SS-h7toDC2FnX2mFw
I have never “derided” other pollsters.
You are deep into Straw Man territory.
Beware the ides of November.
You then outline the reasons why such 'hyperbole' is hardly a surprise.
But if you think about it from the point of view of someone who owns a growing business, it is a bit different, because these very high levels of marginal tax act as a barrier to growth. You grow the business, take on more responsibility and risk, but then hand over 65% of the reward to the government.
If you had the choice between working four days a week, with net take home pay of £5,000 per month, or five days a week, with net take home pay of £5,500 per month, would you really choose to work +25% extra time for only +10% extra take home pay? (I've made these figures up, but the principle is sound)
Told by Laura K the PM is not going to change course, Gove adds: “But I think reality bites.”
Insists he is trying to be helpful
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1576489147170054145
Apologies for my 'talking bollocks' slur ;-)
In any event any tax and benefits system that has out of kilter marginal rates should be fixed (see also the 55p taper rate for UC).
I suspect that that does happen.
The party needs to agree a coronation candidate and remove Truss asap
Usually that extra income involves extra work such as overtime or taking on additional responsibilities and lots of people would look at that and say, it isn't worth it. I am happy with what I have or, now you have brought it to my attention, with even less if it means less work. The idea of working more for a lower rate of return simply doesn't appeal to a lot of people, particularly later in their careers when their commitments such as mortgages are probably a lot less.
It's absolutely clear now there will be a massive collision over the special budget event. Not only will we have a stack of MPs refusing to vote for it - or proposing massive amendments to it the government hate - but we have the confirmation that its a confidence vote.
We know the Trussites are stupid. They will think "Boris Johnsin took the whip from Ken Clarke and Churchill's grandson, so we can do the same to Michael Gove.
Except they can't. Becoming a minority government was in Johnson's favour. Denounce the 2017 parliament and demand an election which they rightly expected to win big. How does that work in 2022 when they are staring down the barrel of various demolitions?
The script migt be :"You were sold an unclear and some would say false prospectus last time round. We will be straight with you and not sell unicorns this time. Do you want the benefits of higher economic growth as well as european free movement, which some might find more difficult, and others part of their own freedom, to return ? The choice is yours.
If the economy is still in the soup, yes would win easily. Hence probably better to try it sooner.
But in my experience this happens where you can ask for flexible hours in the public sector, lots of people reducing hours and just taking the 50k to avoid going in to the 40% bracket. I worked at a place where about 50% of the workforce had done this.
Sunak leads a group who walk away and sit as separate group?
The fact that this is now not utterly inconceivable is incredible.
This is before the annual epidemic of old people falling over in Winter, plus flu, plus Covid, plus the developing wave of untreated conditions left to worsen during lockdowns, and all those who'll be made sick by being forced to go cold and/or hungry. Plus, it would now seem, the additional burden of frozen budgets and working age benefits.
It's a matter of immediate necessity to get rid of this Government but the fact is that, unless enough Conservative turkeys vote for Christmas in the Commons, they'll be sat there, immovable, until January 2025. More likely than not we've got over two years of this acute dysfunction and systemic collapse left to come. There'll be nothing left for Labour to put back together again at this rate.
Osokorivka and Zolota Balka have fallen to the Ukrainian forces overnight, with Dudchany next in their sights. Areas to the NE of Kherson.
She will burn through what little loyalty she has very quickly with this technique.
https://twitter.com/rafaelbehr/status/1576491966870659073
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1576482042124324864
The Whips know they have the numbers to vote this down.
Therefore it's the nuclear option. Rather than declare war, it's the only move to salvage her Premiership.
After fewer than four weeks. With ten days of that scrubbed out. I haven't seen anything like it before.
The last package pivots the support from short term to long-term, and the vote was on a wider piece of legislation than support for Ukraine. Plus lend-lease authority for Mr Biden runs until March 2024 (if I have that right).