Howdy, Stranger!

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

It’s very hard to see Truss doing a U-Turn – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited October 9 in General
It’s very hard to see Truss doing a U-Turn – politicalbetting.com

People are saying Wednesday’s speech is the most difficult of Liz Truss’ life. It’s actually the easiest. She either dumps the 45p tax cut, or her and her party are finished > Mail on Sunday > https://t.co/fSWi9mNJHh

Read the full story here

«13

Comments

  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,576
    TM dropped the social care policy but went on to insist that nothing had changed. So far the LT administration operates on similar levels of doublethink.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,033
    edited October 2
    Second. After having been out most of the day.

    Easi Easi .... !
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,154
    if i had advised her or KK on the budget I woudl not have done the 45p thing or the bankers bonus cap lift - the rest (actually what costs by far the most ) was ok - the pound and gilts woudl still have been sold as the debt woudl still pile up but support for it would have been greater . Trouble now is if she reverses the 45p thing it will not help the forecast debt (a drop in the ocean this bit actually cost ) but make her look stupid and weak for a sudden u turn.- I think she is better of resigning and letting somebody else do it
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,620

    if i had advised her or KK on the budget I woudl not have done the 45p thing or the bankers bonus cap lift - the rest (actually what costs by far the most ) was ok - the pound and gilts woudl still have been sold as the debt woudl still pile up but support for it would have been greater . Trouble now is if she reverses the 45p thing it will not help the forecast debt (a drop in the ocean this bit actually cost ) but make her look stupid and weak for a sudden u turn.- I think she is better of resigning and letting somebody else do it

    She should swallow her pride, sack Kwasi and install Sunak in his place. That would restore confidence in the markets.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,225
    Economist Gerard Lyons who advised Liz Truss warns against trying to do austerity at the same time as cutting top rate of tax - says the government needs to be mindful of the social contract and selling its reforms to the public
    https://twitter.com/rowenamason/status/1576576694168694787


    So, the advisors thinks it's bad, MPs think it's bad, the markets think it's bad and voters think it's bad.

    That leaves Truss...
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,033
    edited October 2
    FPT:
    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Conservative MP, who was last week giving the PM and Chancellor the benefit of the doubt:

    “It’s a cult. And will have to be gotten out somehow.”


    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1576550638283997186

    Any British person who says 'gotten' is quite clearly a prick.
    It has rather dropped from usage this side of the pond, but was considered correct usage here in the past.

    https://www.sarahwoodbury.com/on-the-use-of-the-word-gotten/
    A lot of things that were the done thing 300 years ago have been retired, thankfully, but are preserved in the USA, sadly.

    eg Grand Juries.

    Now back on the roof for me.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,863
    I disagree with Hodges, there is nothing she can do now
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 2,965
    Leon said:

    I disagree with Hodges, there is nothing she can do now

    Then the destruction of the Conservative Party is assured. Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch!
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,322
    Scott_xP said:

    Economist Gerard Lyons who advised Liz Truss warns against trying to do austerity at the same time as cutting top rate of tax - says the government needs to be mindful of the social contract and selling its reforms to the public
    https://twitter.com/rowenamason/status/1576576694168694787


    So, the advisors thinks it's bad, MPs think it's bad, the markets think it's bad and voters think it's bad.

    That leaves Truss...

    Who does not think..... :wink:
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,697
    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,977

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    He could do a non-U-turn U-turn by revising his plan to take account of the criticism but keep the same general direction.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819
    Foxy said:

    if i had advised her or KK on the budget I woudl not have done the 45p thing or the bankers bonus cap lift - the rest (actually what costs by far the most ) was ok - the pound and gilts woudl still have been sold as the debt woudl still pile up but support for it would have been greater . Trouble now is if she reverses the 45p thing it will not help the forecast debt (a drop in the ocean this bit actually cost ) but make her look stupid and weak for a sudden u turn.- I think she is better of resigning and letting somebody else do it

    She should swallow her pride, sack Kwasi and install Sunak in his place. That would restore confidence in the markets.
    Why would Sunak (or anyone else) come in to rescue a dying regime
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,863
    murali_s said:

    Leon said:

    I disagree with Hodges, there is nothing she can do now

    Then the destruction of the Conservative Party is assured. Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch!
    The next election is lost. All the Tories can do is save as many seats as possible, so they still have a chance at the elections after THAT
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,154

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    she has hardly got a good record on Ukraine given her absurd and dangerous urge to brits to go and fight at the start of the conflict - not as a mere MP but as British Foreign Secretary FGS
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,225

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    I said last week Truss would sacrifice Kwasi to save her job.

    Now I am not so sure. I think she is daring Tory MPs to VONC her. Then her narrative will not be "I folded under pressure" but "I was betrayed"

    Truly, continuity BoZo...
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 27,620
    FPT

    glw said:

    kle4 said:

    which is not a good thing . The Uk is likely to be a big target if this escalates thanks to Johnson wanting to be Churchill. Truss was stupid as well at the start with her urging of Brits to go and fight

    Fighting fascism is always a good thing.
    inane comment that was applicable 80 years ago before nukes - you have to be more realpolitik today of course
    The realpolitik is that if you aren't prepared to defend democracy against authoritarianism then you will lose democracy.

    Not much chance of the state leaving you alone when it's a dictatorship.
    Russia was not a threat to the Uk before this - it is now- its hard to tell on here but in the real Uk not many give a toss about Ukraine at all save to worry about the Uk becoming a target. There are a lot of military and war obsessives on here (witness the glee of retweeting twitter when a tank or helicoptor was blown up ) , in reality people care much more about their own families and indeed thousands of years of british civilisation and culture to want to risk it in inane visions of fighting dictators etc
    "A small country far away about which we know little"

    Remind me, how did that work out last time?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,148
    Scott_xP said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    I said last week Truss would sacrifice Kwasi to save her job.

    Now I am not so sure. I think she is daring Tory MPs to VONC her. Then her narrative will not be "I folded under pressure" but "I was betrayed"

    Truly, continuity BoZo...
    Truss has now boxed herself into ideological libertarian government. If that goes, so does she
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,322

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,154

    FPT

    glw said:

    kle4 said:

    which is not a good thing . The Uk is likely to be a big target if this escalates thanks to Johnson wanting to be Churchill. Truss was stupid as well at the start with her urging of Brits to go and fight

    Fighting fascism is always a good thing.
    inane comment that was applicable 80 years ago before nukes - you have to be more realpolitik today of course
    The realpolitik is that if you aren't prepared to defend democracy against authoritarianism then you will lose democracy.

    Not much chance of the state leaving you alone when it's a dictatorship.
    Russia was not a threat to the Uk before this - it is now- its hard to tell on here but in the real Uk not many give a toss about Ukraine at all save to worry about the Uk becoming a target. There are a lot of military and war obsessives on here (witness the glee of retweeting twitter when a tank or helicoptor was blown up ) , in reality people care much more about their own families and indeed thousands of years of british civilisation and culture to want to risk it in inane visions of fighting dictators etc
    "A small country far away about which we know little"

    Remind me, how did that work out last time?
    yeah remind me who had nuclear weapons in 1939? We cannot rely on historical precedents before a time of nuclear warfare
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,245
    Sinn Féin 37% (+1)
    Fine Gael 21% (nc)
    Fianna Fáil 17% (+1)
    Greens 4% (+2)
    People Before Profit/Solidarity 4% (-1)
    Labour 3% (nc)
    Aontú 3% (nc)
    Social Democrats 3% (-1)
    others/independents 8% (-3)

    (Ireland Thinks/Sunday Independent; 1,254; 1 October)
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,977

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,863

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    It's not the rate, it's the timing, the optics and the context
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    I said last week Truss would sacrifice Kwasi to save her job.

    Now I am not so sure. I think she is daring Tory MPs to VONC her. Then her narrative will not be "I folded under pressure" but "I was betrayed"

    Truly, continuity BoZo...
    Truss has now boxed herself into ideological libertarian government. If that goes, so does she
    However this ends, it aint gonna be pretty.

  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,819
    edited October 2
    Foxy said:

    if i had advised her or KK on the budget I woudl not have done the 45p thing or the bankers bonus cap lift - the rest (actually what costs by far the most ) was ok - the pound and gilts woudl still have been sold as the debt woudl still pile up but support for it would have been greater . Trouble now is if she reverses the 45p thing it will not help the forecast debt (a drop in the ocean this bit actually cost ) but make her look stupid and weak for a sudden u turn.- I think she is better of resigning and letting somebody else do it

    She should swallow her pride, sack Kwasi and install Sunak in his place. That would restore confidence in the markets.
    How could she appoint Sunak? She ran against him on a completely opposite platform, her out-riders trashed him personally and his economic plans. She would have to also get rid of people like JRM and probably others to balance the cabinet.

    “You elected me leader to carry out these policies not the policies of back-stabbing Sunak which I entirely disagree with but actually he’s right and I was full of shit and I’m delighted to have the back-stabber trying to save my premiership.”

    If she had to appoint the man to rescue her to impose the policies he proposed during the leadership campaign it would make her election as leader completely morally invalid and would make Verstappen’s championship win last season seem like a fair result.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,977
    Leon said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    It's not the rate, it's the timing, the optics and the context
    I get that, but the political damage is done now.

    They might as well try the line of, "We can't allow the UK to become uncompetitive, otherwise the opportunities we want for your children won't be there." At the moment the problem is that people think they just want to give a bung to the rich rather than there being any strategic thinking behind it (even if people disagree with the logic).
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,150
    If anything, the threat of taking the whip seems to have emboldened Tory MPs today…

    https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1576586712519962624
  • Bozo has achieved his much-coveted dream. By comparison, he looks like Churchil.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,450
    There is one overwhelming reason why she won't change course. She believes she's right.
    Tax cuts produce growth. She holds that truth to be self-evident.
    So much so that she hasn't evinced a single argument as to HOW this happens. It just does.
  • TresTres Posts: 1,362
    I see our new Home Secretary is now slagging off international students, despite herself benefiting from two years of study in Europe via Erasmus.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,148
    Getting rid of the 45p cut will make very little difference to the overall package. I fail to see why this will get the confidence of the markets. She needs to disown the idea that tax cuts will pay for themselves. And what about inflation and interest rates?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,863

    Leon said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    It's not the rate, it's the timing, the optics and the context
    I get that, but the political damage is done now.

    They might as well try the line of, "We can't allow the UK to become uncompetitive, otherwise the opportunities we want for your children won't be there." At the moment the problem is that people think they just want to give a bung to the rich rather than there being any strategic thinking behind it (even if people disagree with the logic).
    Yes, I agree

    Truss's only hope - from her perspective - is to persist, and pray that her policies pay off. The chances of that are slender to zero, because the markets have lost confidence in her, so she will have to pay too much to borrow, and so on, and so forth. Of course if she does succeed, yay for UK PLC

    However, because she is 98% likely to fail badly, the Tories - from their perspective - should probably get rid of her, install Sunak (or whoever) and try and minimise their defeat in 2024
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,036
    Apart from ideological reasons, I fail to see why the government is allowing the energy companies to profit from this supply emergency. Removing the 45p income tax rate cut would be good for the optics, but temporarily banning (most of the) profits of the energy companies would be good for the exchequer.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 7,304
    edited October 2
    His moment of Churchilian calling has arrived, for Boris. He could do a one-off "broadcast for national unity". or statement to the HOc, channelling Chamberlain on the eve of conflict too.

    "I must tell the house that I have asked Ms Truss for a number of guarantees, for both the unity of our great party and country, and such that our great nation continues to enjoy the confidence of financial markets, and the economic security and well-being, of us all, is protected. I must tell you now that no such guarantees have been received, and that consequently the Conservative Party is at war with itself".
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,977
    Dadge said:

    Apart from ideological reasons, I fail to see why the government is allowing the energy companies to profit from this supply emergency. Removing the 45p income tax rate cut would be good for the optics, but temporarily banning (most of the) profits of the energy companies would be good for the exchequer.

    There’s already a 65% windfall tax that lasts until 2025.
  • northern_monkeynorthern_monkey Posts: 1,146
    There’s a lot of fucking morons out there, some very well educated, that will just not stop voting Conservative no matter how much the Party bends them over and gives them the reluctant Turkish conscript treatment. There’s fucking millions of them out there:

    ‘…One exception is Leanne Stratford, a teacher who rooted for Truss over Sunak. She estimates that her mortgage payments could double, but doesn’t think that will stop her voting Tory again…’

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/02/ive-lost-confidence-in-them-but-i-dont-know-if-i-can-switch-tories-in-west-midlands-face-voting-dilemma
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,036

    Dadge said:

    Apart from ideological reasons, I fail to see why the government is allowing the energy companies to profit from this supply emergency. Removing the 45p income tax rate cut would be good for the optics, but temporarily banning (most of the) profits of the energy companies would be good for the exchequer.

    There’s already a 65% windfall tax that lasts until 2025.
    During periods when the government is having to intervene to help people and businesses keep the lights on, the windfall tax should be 100%.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 592
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    It's not the rate, it's the timing, the optics and the context
    I get that, but the political damage is done now.

    They might as well try the line of, "We can't allow the UK to become uncompetitive, otherwise the opportunities we want for your children won't be there." At the moment the problem is that people think they just want to give a bung to the rich rather than there being any strategic thinking behind it (even if people disagree with the logic).
    Yes, I agree

    Truss's only hope - from her perspective - is to persist, and pray that her policies pay off. The chances of that are slender to zero, because the markets have lost confidence in her, so she will have to pay too much to borrow, and so on, and so forth. Of course if she does succeed, yay for UK PLC

    However, because she is 98% likely to fail badly, the Tories - from their perspective - should probably get rid of her, install Sunak (or whoever) and try and minimise their defeat in 2024
    "Is to persist, and pray that her policies pay off.. the chances of that are slender to zero"

    This could be called "The Putin dynamic". It's also the situation the Japanese military regime faced in the 1940s, where they continued to persist at ever greater cost, not feeling they could reverse course and survive politically. But inevitably it results in catastrophe.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 592
    Dadge said:

    Dadge said:

    Apart from ideological reasons, I fail to see why the government is allowing the energy companies to profit from this supply emergency. Removing the 45p income tax rate cut would be good for the optics, but temporarily banning (most of the) profits of the energy companies would be good for the exchequer.

    There’s already a 65% windfall tax that lasts until 2025.
    During periods when the government is having to intervene to help people and businesses keep the lights on, the windfall tax should be 100%.
    If it was 100% they would keep the oil in the ground.
  • There’s a lot of fucking morons out there, some very well educated, that will just not stop voting Conservative no matter how much the Party bends them over and gives them the reluctant Turkish conscript treatment. There’s fucking millions of them out there:

    ‘…One exception is Leanne Stratford, a teacher who rooted for Truss over Sunak. She estimates that her mortgage payments could double, but doesn’t think that will stop her voting
    Tory again…’
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2
    022/oct/02/ive-lost-confidence-in-them-but-i-dont-know-if-i-can-switch-tories-in-west-midlands-face-voting-dilemma

    Interest rates are set by the Bank of England.

    In addition, the need for the BoE to put up interest rates so far is not because of the Government's actions, it is because of the Fed putting up interest rates and thus driving everyone to raise them, as well as rising inflation, which is a factor amongst other things of the BoE QE programme.

    If you are going to call people fucking morons, actually get it right what is the Government's fault and what isn't.

  • WillGWillG Posts: 592
    Tres said:

    I see our new Home Secretary is now slagging off international students, despite herself benefiting from two years of study in Europe via Erasmus.

    International students are like family or work migrants. It's stupid to talk as an aggregate. There is a spectrum between contributors and drains.
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,036
    WillG said:

    Dadge said:

    Dadge said:

    Apart from ideological reasons, I fail to see why the government is allowing the energy companies to profit from this supply emergency. Removing the 45p income tax rate cut would be good for the optics, but temporarily banning (most of the) profits of the energy companies would be good for the exchequer.

    There’s already a 65% windfall tax that lasts until 2025.
    During periods when the government is having to intervene to help people and businesses keep the lights on, the windfall tax should be 100%.
    If it was 100% they would keep the oil in the ground.
    Don't be silly. You do understand that we're talking about profits, not income, don't you.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 592

    There’s a lot of fucking morons out there, some very well educated, that will just not stop voting Conservative no matter how much the Party bends them over and gives them the reluctant Turkish conscript treatment. There’s fucking millions of them out there:

    ‘…One exception is Leanne Stratford, a teacher who rooted for Truss over Sunak. She estimates that her mortgage payments could double, but doesn’t think that will stop her voting
    Tory again…’
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2
    022/oct/02/ive-lost-confidence-in-them-but-i-dont-know-if-i-can-switch-tories-in-west-midlands-face-voting-dilemma

    Interest rates are set by the Bank of England.

    In addition, the need for the BoE to put up interest rates so far is not because of the Government's actions, it is because of the Fed putting up interest rates and thus driving everyone to raise them, as well as rising inflation, which is a factor amongst other things of the BoE QE programme.

    If you are going to call people fucking morons, actually get it right what is the Government's fault and what isn't.

    The Government has just announced an inflationary budget in an inflationary environment.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,245
    Liz Truss Conservative leader at next UK GE?

    No 1.62
    Yes 2.37
  • WillGWillG Posts: 592
    Dadge said:

    WillG said:

    Dadge said:

    Dadge said:

    Apart from ideological reasons, I fail to see why the government is allowing the energy companies to profit from this supply emergency. Removing the 45p income tax rate cut would be good for the optics, but temporarily banning (most of the) profits of the energy companies would be good for the exchequer.

    There’s already a 65% windfall tax that lasts until 2025.
    During periods when the government is having to intervene to help people and businesses keep the lights on, the windfall tax should be 100%.
    If it was 100% they would keep the oil in the ground.
    Don't be silly. You do understand that we're talking about profits, not income, don't you.
    Yes, and they would keep the marginal oil in the ground.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 592
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    It's not the rate, it's the timing, the optics and the context
    I get that, but the political damage is done now.

    They might as well try the line of, "We can't allow the UK to become uncompetitive, otherwise the opportunities we want for your children won't be there." At the moment the problem is that people think they just want to give a bung to the rich rather than there being any strategic thinking behind it (even if people disagree with the logic).
    Yes, I agree

    Truss's only hope - from her perspective - is to persist, and pray that her policies pay off. The chances of that are slender to zero, because the markets have lost confidence in her, so she will have to pay too much to borrow, and so on, and so forth. Of course if she does succeed, yay for UK PLC

    However, because she is 98% likely to fail badly, the Tories - from their perspective - should probably get rid of her, install Sunak (or whoever) and try and minimise their defeat in 2024
    The Tories have also suffered the reputational hit as a brand even if they ditch Truss. So they need to make sure they choose someone with enough charisma to give a break from that brand.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,245
    Result independence referendum

    Yes 8/11
    No Evs
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,968
    Leon said:

    I disagree with Hodges, there is nothing she can do now

    Probably not.

    O/T but this is even better than Jewish space lasers. Hurricane Ian was apparently caused by the Deep State, using Weather Manipulation.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/far-right-pundits-baselessly-claim-hurricane-ian-was-created-by-the-deep-state-to-target-gov-ron-desantis-and-other-red-states-they-are-angry-with-us/ar-AA12tIY9?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=9172466c80d24d82aeafea621a28b3fb#comments
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,225
    Damian Green, chair of the One Nation Group of Conservative MPs, tells a rally if the Tories support the “already rich” then “ppl will stop voting for us”. He calls for moderate Tories to have a “strong” voice & says many “conversations” with govt must be had “before the next GE”
    https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1576593570924236800
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    Rigby on the whip withdrawal threat.

    https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1576555310982266886
    This has gone down very very badly with some MPs, who remind me that Truss only won the support of 50 MPs in the first round, and never won majority support despite being nailed onto win. So her base already wobbly on parliamentary party. Has she the authority to threaten MPs?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,968
    Dadge said:

    Dadge said:

    Apart from ideological reasons, I fail to see why the government is allowing the energy companies to profit from this supply emergency. Removing the 45p income tax rate cut would be good for the optics, but temporarily banning (most of the) profits of the energy companies would be good for the exchequer.

    There’s already a 65% windfall tax that lasts until 2025.
    During periods when the government is having to intervene to help people and businesses keep the lights on, the windfall tax should be 100%.
    What would that achieve?
  • WillG said:

    Tres said:

    I see our new Home Secretary is now slagging off international students, despite herself benefiting from two years of study in Europe via Erasmus.

    International students are like family or work migrants. It's stupid to talk as an aggregate. There is a spectrum between contributors and drains.
    As a whole, though, they're a golden goose.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,225
    I am told that one of the most powerful jobs in the country, permanent secretary at HM Treasury, is going to Antonia Romeo, and there'll be an announcement this week. It's the first time there will be a woman in that job. But it's a very difficult time to take over, given...
    https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1576590418879225857
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,670
    F1: if Perez gets a penalty worse than 5s then I'm going to stuff the stewards and race director into the space cannon and introduce them to the heart of the sun.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    Three-quarters of UK voters - including a staggering 71% of those who backed Tories at last election - believe Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng have “lost control” of economy
    https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1576303576581914625
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,322

    WillG said:

    Tres said:

    I see our new Home Secretary is now slagging off international students, despite herself benefiting from two years of study in Europe via Erasmus.

    International students are like family or work migrants. It's stupid to talk as an aggregate. There is a spectrum between contributors and drains.
    As a whole, though, they're a golden goose.
    It is not the lunatics that are running the asylum, it is the self-harmers and the delusional.

    These idiots should put paid to the idea that Libertarianism is worth trying...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    UK is reportedly the only G7 economy to not quite have recovered to pre-pandemic levels of GDP.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,361
    One thing Starmer has done is wrest back control of his party. At one point I was sure it had to split into Socialist/Social Democrat parties. Who’s going to do that for the Tories? In retrospect Johnson was the only thing holding them together.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,322

    There’s a lot of fucking morons out there, some very well educated, that will just not stop voting Conservative no matter how much the Party bends them over and gives them the reluctant Turkish conscript treatment. There’s fucking millions of them out there:

    ‘…One exception is Leanne Stratford, a teacher who rooted for Truss over Sunak. She estimates that her mortgage payments could double, but doesn’t think that will stop her voting
    Tory again…’
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2
    022/oct/02/ive-lost-confidence-in-them-but-i-dont-know-if-i-can-switch-tories-in-west-midlands-face-voting-dilemma

    Interest rates are set by the Bank of England.

    In addition, the need for the BoE to put up interest rates so far is not because of the Government's actions, it is because of the Fed putting up interest rates and thus driving everyone to raise them, as well as rising inflation, which is a factor amongst other things of the BoE QE programme.

    If you are going to call people fucking morons, actually get it right what is the Government's fault and what isn't.

    The Government caused the recent BoE intervention. It was after the Chancellor's statement that mortgage companies went into meltdown, not beforehand.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 2,963
    Nigelb said:

    UK is reportedly the only G7 economy to not quite have recovered to pre-pandemic levels of GDP.

    I don't think that can be true, surely - I seem to remember announcements some time ago now that in GDP terms we'd gone back past where we were before covid?
  • MJWMJW Posts: 774

    Getting rid of the 45p cut will make very little difference to the overall package. I fail to see why this will get the confidence of the markets. She needs to disown the idea that tax cuts will pay for themselves. And what about inflation and interest rates?

    Yes. I think fretting about the 45p understates the scale of the calamity because it views it as an optics problem. Now, that's not to say cutting taxes specifically for the wealthiest when threatening to cut help for the poorest isn't a terrible look. But the bigger problem is a vast package of unfunded tax cuts whose efficacy is unproven at a time when we're borrowing loads to solve two crises and the economic outlook is, to put it generously, pretty bleak, and with inflation high, which will have to be balanced out with interest rate rises that swallow up the benefit for many ordinary people. It's complete madness.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,225
    “The only sort of leader more dangerous than the rogue the UK used to have is the zealot it has now.” @martinwolf_, not holding back https://www.ft.com/content/510948e9-3c33-42c5-929e-b97c953dc767 https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1576596047941447680/photo/1


  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,863

    Nigelb said:

    UK is reportedly the only G7 economy to not quite have recovered to pre-pandemic levels of GDP.

    I don't think that can be true, surely - I seem to remember announcements some time ago now that in GDP terms we'd gone back past where we were before covid?
    They’ve gone back and adjusted earlier figures. It is true
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 11,232
    edited October 2
    dixiedean said:

    There is one overwhelming reason why she won't change course. She believes she's right.
    Tax cuts produce growth. She holds that truth to be self-evident.
    So much so that she hasn't evinced a single argument as to HOW this happens. It just does.

    You are partly there, Dixie.

    The bit you are missing is that she hasn't the depth or understanding of economics to see why her 'theories' are so shaky. She is in no position to debate a topic she doesn't understand. All she can do is parrot what she's been told and say that it is just a question of believing and sticking to one's guns. She is of moderate intellect, and apt to substitute obstinacy for understanding, hoping to pass it off as 'principle'.

    On an entirely different and much more important subject, are we going to see your hero's longstanding goalscoring record beaten at last? This kid Haarland....he's a bit useful! :)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,465
    algarkirk said:

    TM dropped the social care policy but went on to insist that nothing had changed. So far the LT administration operates on similar levels of doublethink.

    Quite. U-turns happen, but those doing them usually attempt to delay a little, so they can claim it was a rethink and not a retreat, or they will just claim black is white and no change occurred.

    Since Truss needs to reassure people that her plans a) work, and b) she has put in the work to make it work, that regular option may be quite difficult, since they've had to admit to, in essence, phoning it in thus far.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 2,963
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    UK is reportedly the only G7 economy to not quite have recovered to pre-pandemic levels of GDP.

    I don't think that can be true, surely - I seem to remember announcements some time ago now that in GDP terms we'd gone back past where we were before covid?
    They’ve gone back and adjusted earlier figures. It is true
    Oh fair enough. I'll have to go check out the data.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,465
    Scott_xP said:

    “The only sort of leader more dangerous than the rogue the UK used to have is the zealot it has now.” @martinwolf_, not holding back https://www.ft.com/content/510948e9-3c33-42c5-929e-b97c953dc767 https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1576596047941447680/photo/1


    That's what I don't get about their thinking. They're supposed to have some reason they think it, but anything that would prove they know what they are talking about has not materialised, yet they are undaunted.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 11,232
    MJW said:

    Getting rid of the 45p cut will make very little difference to the overall package. I fail to see why this will get the confidence of the markets. She needs to disown the idea that tax cuts will pay for themselves. And what about inflation and interest rates?

    Yes. I think fretting about the 45p understates the scale of the calamity because it views it as an optics problem. Now, that's not to say cutting taxes specifically for the wealthiest when threatening to cut help for the poorest isn't a terrible look. But the bigger problem is a vast package of unfunded tax cuts whose efficacy is unproven at a time when we're borrowing loads to solve two crises and the economic outlook is, to put it generously, pretty bleak, and with inflation high, which will have to be balanced out with interest rate rises that swallow up the benefit for many ordinary people. It's complete madness.
    Briefly and elegantly put, MJW.

    We're getting some decent new posters here lately. Where have they been hiding?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,225
    kle4 said:

    That's what I don't get about their thinking. They're supposed to have some reason they think it, but anything that would prove they know what they are talking about has not materialised, yet they are undaunted.

    It's magical thinking.

    The benefits will appear. Eventually. If you just believe hard enough.

    Like Brexit...
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,968
    edited October 2
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    UK is reportedly the only G7 economy to not quite have recovered to pre-pandemic levels of GDP.

    I don't think that can be true, surely - I seem to remember announcements some time ago now that in GDP terms we'd gone back past where we were before covid?
    They’ve gone back and adjusted earlier figures. It is true
    The economy is ahead of where it was in February 2020, but a shade below where it was for the quarter ending June 2022, compared to the quarter ending December 2019. That said, GDP growth is always revised upwards over the long term.

    For example, initial estimates were that the economy contracted by 7.2% in 2009. That's now revised up to a contraction of 4.2%. And, remember tim's glee at the "recession" of 2012, well, it never happened. In fact, the economy grew by 1.5% that year, not stellar, but a long way from a recession.

    Looking at the longer term, GDP per head grew by 1% per annum, from 2000-09, and 1.2% per annum from 2010-19, which is not terrible by rich world standards over that period, but very poor compared to the whole period 1970-99, where the average was 2.5% per annum.

    Contrary to what was believed at the time, the Seventies and Eighties were a time of fast economic growth. It slowed a bit in the Nineties, but was still a decent 2.1% per head, per annum.

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locations=GB
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,150
    Biden possibly a little cruel, but the rest:

    Nobody is better at impersonating how presidents and PMs walk than Stefan Leonhardsberger.

    His Macron, Johnson, Trudeau and Zelensky are all on point.


    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1576534616382447617
  • PedestrianRockPedestrianRock Posts: 49
    edited October 2

    MJW said:

    Getting rid of the 45p cut will make very little difference to the overall package. I fail to see why this will get the confidence of the markets. She needs to disown the idea that tax cuts will pay for themselves. And what about inflation and interest rates?

    Yes. I think fretting about the 45p understates the scale of the calamity because it views it as an optics problem. Now, that's not to say cutting taxes specifically for the wealthiest when threatening to cut help for the poorest isn't a terrible look. But the bigger problem is a vast package of unfunded tax cuts whose efficacy is unproven at a time when we're borrowing loads to solve two crises and the economic outlook is, to put it generously, pretty bleak, and with inflation high, which will have to be balanced out with interest rate rises that swallow up the benefit for many ordinary people. It's complete madness.
    Briefly and elegantly put, MJW.

    We're getting some decent new posters here lately. Where have they been hiding?
    Fwiw I think there is far more ‘happening’ at the moment to talk about, the threads on here seem a lot more about the current issues than 12 months ago where they could descend into irrelevant mudslinging more. Perhaps the realistic prospect of Labour actually coming back into power also makes it all the more interesting to talk about more, too.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,465
    Nigelb said:

    Rigby on the whip withdrawal threat.

    https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1576555310982266886
    This has gone down very very badly with some MPs, who remind me that Truss only won the support of 50 MPs in the first round, and never won majority support despite being nailed onto win. So her base already wobbly on parliamentary party. Has she the authority to threaten MPs?

    I would never have predicted Truss to be so tone deaf, and have no ability to weigh up different situations. I regarded her as basically competent.

    Thatcher had political capital and an economy to back up what she wanted (apparently, I wasn't there) when she held firm. Boris was coming in at a moment when the public wanted Brexit done, he was promising he could do that, and the polls backed up that the party would win an election if they followed through with him - so his withdrawing the whip was because, despite lack of majority, he was in a position of personal strength.

    Truss has an economy already in the shitter, made worse by her plans, and MPs have no reason at this point to think she is the one to save them all were there an election, in fact quite the opposite.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,450

    dixiedean said:

    There is one overwhelming reason why she won't change course. She believes she's right.
    Tax cuts produce growth. She holds that truth to be self-evident.
    So much so that she hasn't evinced a single argument as to HOW this happens. It just does.

    You are partly there, Dixie.

    The bit you are missing is that she hasn't the depth or understanding of economics to see why her 'theories' are so shaky. She is in no position to debate a topic she doesn't understand. All she can do is parrot what she's been told and say that it is just a question of believing and sticking to one's guns. She is of moderate intellect, and apt to substitute obstinacy for understanding, hoping to pass it off as 'principle'.

    On an entirely different and much more important subject, are we going to see your hero's longstanding goalscoring record beaten at last? This kid Haarland....he's a bit useful! :)
    It's one term of economics at Oxford and you think you've cracked it.
    And yes. He's right on pace. A record I never thought I'd see threatened. He's not in the World Cup either.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,449
    Congrats on the tip. Which sadly I didn't follow.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,465

    Biden possibly a little cruel, but the rest:

    Nobody is better at impersonating how presidents and PMs walk than Stefan Leonhardsberger.

    His Macron, Johnson, Trudeau and Zelensky are all on point.


    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1576534616382447617

    Great physical acting! The Macron was excellent.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,453
    Leon said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    It's not the rate, it's the timing, the optics and the context
    Look, I'd benefit massively (on my return to the UK) from the dropping of the tax rate.

    But I think it's madness to be cutting my taxes, while reducing benefits in real terms, during the middle of a cost of living crisis.

    If I was going to do something for higher earners, it would be getting rid of the ridiculous stuff around £100k with the removal of the tax free allowance, etc.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,091
    Talking about housing costs, Westmnster Toris have still been trying to exclude the poor.

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/oct/02/luxury-flats-richest-people-social-housing-hinduja-old-war-office

    '"The Hinduja brothers, named by the Sunday Times as the wealthiest people in Britain with a £28.5bn fortune, won approval to develop the historic Old War Office near Downing Street into 85 luxury flats and a 120-room five-star Raffles hotel.

    The Guardian can reveal that the OWO development – in which one four bedroom flat has sold for more than £40m – should under planning rules contain 8,000 square metres of affordable housing – enough for 98 flats.

    However, Westminster city council agreed to allow the Hindujas to develop the building with no affordable housing after their agents claimed that it would “not be economically feasible” to do so. [...]

    The documents show that the OWO development on Whitehall has a “7870.75sqm shortfall in affordable housing” and “the policy compliant payment generated by the scheme is £39.6m”.

    However, the Hindujas’ agent offered only a “£10m contribution” to the affordable housing fund. At the time of the application in 2017, the then Conservative-run council’s “viability consultant” said the suggested donation was “generous”.'
  • dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    There is one overwhelming reason why she won't change course. She believes she's right.
    Tax cuts produce growth. She holds that truth to be self-evident.
    So much so that she hasn't evinced a single argument as to HOW this happens. It just does.

    You are partly there, Dixie.

    The bit you are missing is that she hasn't the depth or understanding of economics to see why her 'theories' are so shaky. She is in no position to debate a topic she doesn't understand. All she can do is parrot what she's been told and say that it is just a question of believing and sticking to one's guns. She is of moderate intellect, and apt to substitute obstinacy for understanding, hoping to pass it off as 'principle'.

    On an entirely different and much more important subject, are we going to see your hero's longstanding goalscoring record beaten at last? This kid Haarland....he's a bit useful! :)
    It's one term of economics at Oxford and you think you've cracked it.
    And yes. He's right on pace. A record I never thought I'd see threatened. He's not in the World Cup either.
    This is putting it kindly. I see a ton of people online and in real life who clearly did maybe an AS Level in Economics, and think what they’ve learnt about supply and demand curves explains everything in life.

    They don’t have any interest in the subject in any more depth than that. Rather, there comes a sort of moral superiority with thinking “Hmm, you say you want society to be fairer, and I agree, but these two lines on this graph show why it can’t be.” It makes certain people feel like they’re in an ‘in-group’.

    It’s akin to the moralising atheists that were far more annoying online than any religious people in the earlier days of the internet. And I say this as a non-religious person myself. Thinking you’ve cracked the secret to everything when in reality you’re barely scratching the surface.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 11,232

    MJW said:

    Getting rid of the 45p cut will make very little difference to the overall package. I fail to see why this will get the confidence of the markets. She needs to disown the idea that tax cuts will pay for themselves. And what about inflation and interest rates?

    Yes. I think fretting about the 45p understates the scale of the calamity because it views it as an optics problem. Now, that's not to say cutting taxes specifically for the wealthiest when threatening to cut help for the poorest isn't a terrible look. But the bigger problem is a vast package of unfunded tax cuts whose efficacy is unproven at a time when we're borrowing loads to solve two crises and the economic outlook is, to put it generously, pretty bleak, and with inflation high, which will have to be balanced out with interest rate rises that swallow up the benefit for many ordinary people. It's complete madness.
    Briefly and elegantly put, MJW.

    We're getting some decent new posters here lately. Where have they been hiding?
    Fwiw I think there is far more ‘happening’ at the moment to talk about, the threads on here seem a lot more about the current issues than 12 months ago where they could descend into irrelevant mudslinging more. Perhaps the realistic prospect of Labour actually coming back into power also makes it all the more interesting to talk about more, too.
    Yes, we are certainly living in interesting times!

    When there are things going on, this has to be one of the best forums on the 'net.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,361
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    There is one overwhelming reason why she won't change course. She believes she's right.
    Tax cuts produce growth. She holds that truth to be self-evident.
    So much so that she hasn't evinced a single argument as to HOW this happens. It just does.

    You are partly there, Dixie.

    The bit you are missing is that she hasn't the depth or understanding of economics to see why her 'theories' are so shaky. She is in no position to debate a topic she doesn't understand. All she can do is parrot what she's been told and say that it is just a question of believing and sticking to one's guns. She is of moderate intellect, and apt to substitute obstinacy for understanding, hoping to pass it off as 'principle'.

    On an entirely different and much more important subject, are we going to see your hero's longstanding goalscoring record beaten at last? This kid Haarland....he's a bit useful! :)
    It's one term of economics at Oxford and you think you've cracked it.
    And yes. He's right on pace. A record I never thought I'd see threatened. He's not in the World Cup either.
    Harland was at Oxford?

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,453

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    We could do that with literally every tax: if no sales tax is good enough for Nevada, why do we even have VAT? If vehicle duty of a flat $150/year works for Wyoming, why can't it work in the UK?

    We would, unfortunately, not raise enough tax to cover more than a fraction of spending.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,968
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    It's not the rate, it's the timing, the optics and the context
    Look, I'd benefit massively (on my return to the UK) from the dropping of the tax rate.

    But I think it's madness to be cutting my taxes, while reducing benefits in real terms, during the middle of a cost of living crisis.

    If I was going to do something for higher earners, it would be getting rid of the ridiculous stuff around £100k with the removal of the tax free allowance, etc.
    Yes, I scratch my head over the top tax rate reduction, and ending the cap on bankers' bonuses. You do that sort of thing when the economy is doing fine.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,571
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    It's not the rate, it's the timing, the optics and the context
    Look, I'd benefit massively (on my return to the UK) from the dropping of the tax rate.

    But I think it's madness to be cutting my taxes, while reducing benefits in real terms, during the middle of a cost of living crisis.

    If I was going to do something for higher earners, it would be getting rid of the ridiculous stuff around £100k with the removal of the tax free allowance, etc.
    Look here too though, right that you are thinking this ain’t Conservatism and it ain’t right, hence the police on, it’s also not the reason the markets reacted the way they did, is it?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,245
    36 Russian recruitment agencies have been subjected to fire attacks since the war against Ukraine started, the Telegram channel Populjarnaja politika reports.

    https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/Rr77qd/aftonbladet-direkt?pinnedEntry=963887
  • I am still truly stunned at the amount of aunts and uncles, cousins, friends etc in my life that normally barely speak about politics who are absolutely livid at the moment.

    It is far, far beyond anything I’ve seen in the last few years, even on issues like Brexit.

    These are the exact sort of people who either claim to be non-political (and vote Tory) or outwardly say they are Tories. If they vote elsewhere, or don’t vote at all, in the sort of numbers it seems like they are indicating right now, the stonking Labour majorities that this week’s polls have predicted might not look so crazy.

    And even if they ditch Truss, I’m really not sure what the Tories can offer under PM Sunak or PM Wallace to this group of voters. The culture war stuff is running dry. The ‘Coalition of Chaos’ doesn’t seem so scary after this…Chaos. Starmer looks far more attractive as a leader than Corbyn. And the Brexit divide isn’t as much of an issue as in 2019 anymore. It really doesn’t take much.
  • MJW said:

    Getting rid of the 45p cut will make very little difference to the overall package. I fail to see why this will get the confidence of the markets. She needs to disown the idea that tax cuts will pay for themselves. And what about inflation and interest rates?

    Yes. I think fretting about the 45p understates the scale of the calamity because it views it as an optics problem. Now, that's not to say cutting taxes specifically for the wealthiest when threatening to cut help for the poorest isn't a terrible look. But the bigger problem is a vast package of unfunded tax cuts whose efficacy is unproven at a time when we're borrowing loads to solve two crises and the economic outlook is, to put it generously, pretty bleak, and with inflation high, which will have to be balanced out with interest rate rises that swallow up the benefit for many ordinary people. It's complete madness.
    Briefly and elegantly put, MJW.

    We're getting some decent new posters here lately. Where have they been hiding?
    Fwiw I think there is far more ‘happening’ at the moment to talk about, the threads on here seem a lot more about the current issues than 12 months ago where they could descend into irrelevant mudslinging more. Perhaps the realistic prospect of Labour actually coming back into power also makes it all the more interesting to talk about more, too.
    Yes, we are certainly living in interesting times!

    When there are things going on, this has to be one of the best forums on the 'net.
    It’s currently my main news source! Very much more useful than just sitting on Twitter, at the moment.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 11,232
    DougSeal said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    There is one overwhelming reason why she won't change course. She believes she's right.
    Tax cuts produce growth. She holds that truth to be self-evident.
    So much so that she hasn't evinced a single argument as to HOW this happens. It just does.

    You are partly there, Dixie.

    The bit you are missing is that she hasn't the depth or understanding of economics to see why her 'theories' are so shaky. She is in no position to debate a topic she doesn't understand. All she can do is parrot what she's been told and say that it is just a question of believing and sticking to one's guns. She is of moderate intellect, and apt to substitute obstinacy for understanding, hoping to pass it off as 'principle'.

    On an entirely different and much more important subject, are we going to see your hero's longstanding goalscoring record beaten at last? This kid Haarland....he's a bit useful! :)
    It's one term of economics at Oxford and you think you've cracked it.
    And yes. He's right on pace. A record I never thought I'd see threatened. He's not in the World Cup either.
    Harland was at Oxford?

    Yeah, Oxford Utd, but they put him in goal so he left.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819
    Carnyx said:

    Talking about housing costs, Westmnster Toris have still been trying to exclude the poor.

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/oct/02/luxury-flats-richest-people-social-housing-hinduja-old-war-office

    '"The Hinduja brothers, named by the Sunday Times as the wealthiest people in Britain with a £28.5bn fortune, won approval to develop the historic Old War Office near Downing Street into 85 luxury flats and a 120-room five-star Raffles hotel.

    The Guardian can reveal that the OWO development – in which one four bedroom flat has sold for more than £40m – should under planning rules contain 8,000 square metres of affordable housing – enough for 98 flats.

    However, Westminster city council agreed to allow the Hindujas to develop the building with no affordable housing after their agents claimed that it would “not be economically feasible” to do so. [...]

    The documents show that the OWO development on Whitehall has a “7870.75sqm shortfall in affordable housing” and “the policy compliant payment generated by the scheme is £39.6m”.

    However, the Hindujas’ agent offered only a “£10m contribution” to the affordable housing fund. At the time of the application in 2017, the then Conservative-run council’s “viability consultant” said the suggested donation was “generous”.'

    And the consequences of that minor donation is that `Westminster council is labour held and will be forever going forward.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 27,620
    kyf_100 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    I said last week Truss would sacrifice Kwasi to save her job.

    Now I am not so sure. I think she is daring Tory MPs to VONC her. Then her narrative will not be "I folded under pressure" but "I was betrayed"

    Truly, continuity BoZo...
    Truss has now boxed herself into ideological libertarian government. If that goes, so does she
    I think you have hit the nail on the head here.

    Every one of us has an ideology - for what it's worth, mine is quite libertarian. By and large, I believe prosperity and freedom comes from a smaller state, with less intervention, and greater personal choice.

    But though I'm guided by my beliefs, I understand they have to be tempered by how those ideas work in reality. You have to be pragmatic - adapting your ideology to the problems facing the country today. My instincts are naturally free market, for example -- but free markets don't function properly in a wartime economy. So I look at other solutions. That's why I'm not averse to say a windfall tax, or even outright nationalisation of the energy industry.

    Truss and Co have walked into government as if they're fantasy football fanatics who have somehow miraculously been handed the top job at a premier league club. They've been salivating about their fantasy team for years, now they're going to play it out - consequences be damned.

    They are ideological zealots - and to a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail.

    They have only their ideology at their disposal - and they intend to beat us about the head with it, because it is the only tool they know.

    There is no compromise, no pragmatism, no common sense. That is why they are a terrible government, and have to go.

    The sort of policy decisions they're coming up with belong in an ideological think tank, not a pragmatic government that needs to accept compromise, and requires a democratic mandate.

    I think this is an excellent post from start to finish.

    I disagree with the windfall tax idea and nationalisation will do nothing to ease the energy crisis - both, in the medium term will exacerbate the issues - but in times of war and crisis sometimes you have to do things for short term survival that may have longer term negative effects.

    If nothing else, the fact that Truss and co see this as an opportunity to push their ideology irrespective of the cost shows how unfit for office they are.

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 27,620

    FPT

    glw said:

    kle4 said:

    which is not a good thing . The Uk is likely to be a big target if this escalates thanks to Johnson wanting to be Churchill. Truss was stupid as well at the start with her urging of Brits to go and fight

    Fighting fascism is always a good thing.
    inane comment that was applicable 80 years ago before nukes - you have to be more realpolitik today of course
    The realpolitik is that if you aren't prepared to defend democracy against authoritarianism then you will lose democracy.

    Not much chance of the state leaving you alone when it's a dictatorship.
    Russia was not a threat to the Uk before this - it is now- its hard to tell on here but in the real Uk not many give a toss about Ukraine at all save to worry about the Uk becoming a target. There are a lot of military and war obsessives on here (witness the glee of retweeting twitter when a tank or helicoptor was blown up ) , in reality people care much more about their own families and indeed thousands of years of british civilisation and culture to want to risk it in inane visions of fighting dictators etc
    "A small country far away about which we know little"

    Remind me, how did that work out last time?
    yeah remind me who had nuclear weapons in 1939? We cannot rely on historical precedents before a time of nuclear warfare
    An argument that completely ignores the fact we were facing an existential crisis just as severe as now. The only difference is the manner of the execution.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,968
    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    Talking about housing costs, Westmnster Toris have still been trying to exclude the poor.

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/oct/02/luxury-flats-richest-people-social-housing-hinduja-old-war-office

    '"The Hinduja brothers, named by the Sunday Times as the wealthiest people in Britain with a £28.5bn fortune, won approval to develop the historic Old War Office near Downing Street into 85 luxury flats and a 120-room five-star Raffles hotel.

    The Guardian can reveal that the OWO development – in which one four bedroom flat has sold for more than £40m – should under planning rules contain 8,000 square metres of affordable housing – enough for 98 flats.

    However, Westminster city council agreed to allow the Hindujas to develop the building with no affordable housing after their agents claimed that it would “not be economically feasible” to do so. [...]

    The documents show that the OWO development on Whitehall has a “7870.75sqm shortfall in affordable housing” and “the policy compliant payment generated by the scheme is £39.6m”.

    However, the Hindujas’ agent offered only a “£10m contribution” to the affordable housing fund. At the time of the application in 2017, the then Conservative-run council’s “viability consultant” said the suggested donation was “generous”.'

    And the consequences of that minor donation is that `Westminster council is labour held and will be forever going forward.
    That sounds potentially criminal.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,644
    pigeon said:

    Health service implosion update: 22 hours since the ambulance was originally summoned, and 14 hours since it actually arrived to collect her, mother-in-law is still sat in the back of it as it remains parked outside the hospital.

    The NHS is way past the creaking and groaning stage. It's a heap of rubble.

    How is she?
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 11,232
    kle4 said:

    Biden possibly a little cruel, but the rest:

    Nobody is better at impersonating how presidents and PMs walk than Stefan Leonhardsberger.

    His Macron, Johnson, Trudeau and Zelensky are all on point.


    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1576534616382447617

    Great physical acting! The Macron was excellent.
    Johnson was good, and I liked Trudeau too; the rest were a bit meh.

    Would like to see his Truss, but he'd better hurry.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,453
    Dadge said:

    WillG said:

    Dadge said:

    Dadge said:

    Apart from ideological reasons, I fail to see why the government is allowing the energy companies to profit from this supply emergency. Removing the 45p income tax rate cut would be good for the optics, but temporarily banning (most of the) profits of the energy companies would be good for the exchequer.

    There’s already a 65% windfall tax that lasts until 2025.
    During periods when the government is having to intervene to help people and businesses keep the lights on, the windfall tax should be 100%.
    If it was 100% they would keep the oil in the ground.
    Don't be silly. You do understand that we're talking about profits, not income, don't you.
    So, what you're saying is that the optimal strategy would be for an oil company to sell exactly the amount of oil/gas required to cover costs, but not a barrel more?

    Because why sell an additional barrel if it isn't going to add to your post tax profits?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,644
    pigeon said:

    Health service implosion update: 22 hours since the ambulance was originally summoned, and 14 hours since it actually arrived to collect her, mother-in-law is still sat in the back of it as it remains parked outside the hospital.

    The NHS is way past the creaking and groaning stage. It's a heap of rubble.

    I don’t really agree with this, but I understand your frustration. Sadly the system is under stress and your m-in-l is at one of the worst pinch points.
This discussion has been closed.