What an absolute shambles. A struggle to take anything any of them say seriously. We have been humiliated on the world stage and pretty much every household is now worse off. This once proud nation deserves better. https://twitter.com/IsabelOakeshott/status/1581979473473572865
Right getting very paranoid now. This is Tim Stanley in the telegraph
As for the Tories, Truss will be gone within days – weeks at the most – perhaps replaced by Hunt himself, who has none of Rishi Sunak’s baggage and does a good impression of a safe pair of hands. I am not saying there is a conspiracy afoot. There’s no need. Our system is ancient, sophisticated and surprisingly transparent. We have a way of doing things, old bean, and we make it gently inconceivable to do it any other way. This is the dictatorship of consensus.
So who will November's chancellor be? Back to Rishi again? Or someone exciting and new?
Gov source: "I don't see how she has the authority to govern. Whips are rendered pointless. But can't poss change leader AGAIN without going to the country. If we go to the country, I genuinely believe my as yet not conceived children will be at uni before we're in power again" https://twitter.com/hoffman_noa/status/1581982067071496193
Newsflash... the tories are going to lose the next election no matter what. They need to go into opposition to renew and reform.
The expectation is we get over 150 letters to Sir Graham, and the resignations push it to over the 179 magic figure.
How do they ever expect to get to 150 letters, when Sir Graham is bound to declare when he has received 57(?) letters, and hold a vote of the PCP at the earliest opportunity?
Gov source: "I don't see how she has the authority to govern. Whips are rendered pointless. But can't poss change leader AGAIN without going to the country. If we go to the country, I genuinely believe my as yet not conceived children will be at uni before we're in power again" https://twitter.com/hoffman_noa/status/1581982067071496193
They can change leader again without going to the country immediately, but if they want to try and neutralise that attack line they need to pre-announce the date of the next GE (probably in May - autumn 2023).
“Incumbent on us to give a period of stability / travel the country listening to the electorate and what they’d like our GE offering to be.”
If Truss does go our politics will be getting as ruthless as Australia. No worries about dumping leaders over there.
Will she even qualify for a picture on the Downing Street staircase?
It will be one to explain to future generations, certainly. "May was 2017-2019, Johnson was 2019-2022, Truss was for a few weeks in 2022, then Sunak* was 2022..." "Hold on, what happened to Truss?" "Well she wasn't very good. Anyway, yes, Sunak*..."
*To pluck a name out of thin air for illustrative processes. I still think he'll manage to peak too soon again.
Quite right too.
Even if the circumstances were rum, and her achievements in office will be minimal, she has been PM.
And one of the things the Downing Street gallery does is act as a momento mori; "We too thought we were all-powerful, now we only exist as still photographs. The same fate awaits you, new Prime Minister..."
The expectation is we get over 150 letters to Sir Graham, and the resignations push it to over the 179 magic figure.
How do they ever expect to get to 150 letters, when Sir Graham is bound to declare when he has received 57(?) letters, and hold a vote of the PCP at the earliest opportunity?
The rules say she is safe from a VONC for the first 12 months.
So getting 57 this week doesn't trigger a vote.
Sir Graham going to Liz and saying look I've had over half the parliamentary party telling me they want you gone should do it.
What an absolute shambles. A struggle to take anything any of them say seriously. We have been humiliated on the world stage and pretty much every household is now worse off. This once proud nation deserves better. https://twitter.com/IsabelOakeshott/status/1581979473473572865
This really is another Suez moment.
I don't think that comparison works because Truss's policies were domestically very unpopular anyway.
The expectation is we get over 150 letters to Sir Graham, and the resignations push it to over the 179 magic figure.
How do they ever expect to get to 150 letters, when Sir Graham is bound to declare when he has received 57(?) letters, and hold a vote of the PCP at the earliest opportunity?
They all arrived this morning?
Letters are technically invalid for triggering a contest till we're a year in.
The expectation is we get over 150 letters to Sir Graham, and the resignations push it to over the 179 magic figure.
How do they ever expect to get to 150 letters, when Sir Graham is bound to declare when he has received 57(?) letters, and hold a vote of the PCP at the earliest opportunity?
Don't the rules state* (as noted by someone here - Stocky?) that there can be not vote in first year after leader elected? So presumably SGB would sit** on any letters received until a year has passed. Or communicate to the PM that she's toast, but not comment publicly.
* ETA: I remember this quite clearly as I have bet based on this **probably make quite a decent seat, that pile of letters
1) Small State Libertarianism is dead 2) Trickle Down economics is dead 3) You can't buck the market 4) The magic money tree doesn't exist
If this becomes political orthodoxy across the main politcal parties that would be a very good thing.
The problem is that everyone is ignoring the underlying issue which is that the current ponzi scheme model of our taxation and benefits system is unsustainable. So whilst I agree with you on some of these, the small state bit is inevitable either by planned reduction or by inevitable collapse. Truss has caused huge damage by trying to force the issue in the way she did so that people believe they have to stick with the current system. They can't, not in the medium to long term.
The model is sustainable if it is done properly. In previous threads I seem to recall you arguing for something like a Victorian welfare system. Now that is something that is *unsustainable*.
No it really isn't. It was designed as a safety net but has ballooned far beyond what it was designed for. I have never advocated a Victorian system. What I advocate is what the Atlee government intended it for and nothing more.
The current system simply cannot cope as the tax burden needed to maintain it is unsustainable.
+1 - working class families where parents are working shouldn't need tax credits to survive. Wages from their work should be enough for them to live on.
Yep. This is why I am so in favour of a state imposed living wage paid by employers. If your company is not viable without paying your employees enough to live on then you don't deserve to survive as a business. We should not have a situation where the tax payer is subsidising private companies by paying part of the wages of their underpaid staff. Calculate it based on a 40 hour working week and have a minimum pay per hour based on that. It doesn't have to be enough to be comfortable on but it should be enough to live on and cover all the basics. Make the political argument about what that amount should be rather than the basic principle.
1) Small State Libertarianism is dead 2) Trickle Down economics is dead 3) You can't buck the market 4) The magic money tree doesn't exist
If this becomes political orthodoxy across the main politcal parties that would be a very good thing.
The problem is that everyone is ignoring the underlying issue which is that the current ponzi scheme model of our taxation and benefits system is unsustainable. So whilst I agree with you on some of these, the small state bit is inevitable either by planned reduction or by inevitable collapse. Truss has caused huge damage by trying to force the issue in the way she did so that people believe they have to stick with the current system. They can't, not in the medium to long term.
The model is sustainable if it is done properly. In previous threads I seem to recall you arguing for something like a Victorian welfare system. Now that is something that is *unsustainable*.
No it really isn't. It was designed as a safety net but has ballooned far beyond what it was designed for. I have never advocated a Victorian system. What I advocate is what the Atlee government intended it for and nothing more.
The current system simply cannot cope as the tax burden needed to maintain it is unsustainable.
+1 - working class families where parents are working shouldn't need tax credits to survive. Wages from their work should be enough for them to live on.
At one point we got to the ridiculous situation where people on nearly top rate of tax were getting tax credits. Farcical system, taking money off people, then giving it some of it back after filling in a load of extra paperwork.
That's a problem though. How do you solve the dilemma of avoiding people getting money back, without having either too little money given to those who need it most, or having an extremely high taper rate that discourages work?
If you want to avoid higher earners getting payments you either need an extremely high taper (about 100% potentially) which means people don't increase earnings as they won't keep any of the money they work for anyway, or reduce the amount given in the first place even to the most needy.
Otherwise the lower the taper the higher earnings are still eligible to something. Which is why I prefer a universal system which extends the payment to everyone, even the most wealthy, but wrap it into the tax system as a replacement to tax free allowances etc, that way its all in one and not perverse.
https://twitter.com/hoffman_noa/status/1581979173597630464 As things stand (always subject to change): Liz Truss not keen to come to Commons for Lab UQ. Now battle to get someone in her place. Am told no ministers so far keen but Penny Mordaunt has said she'll do it
ha!!!! shes toast. Off playing farmy farm.
Penny might as well do it as an audition for the leadership/great office.
She'd definitely see it as an audition. Prepared to show up and deal with it when the PM won't. Let's see what she's made of.
Gov source: "I don't see how she has the authority to govern. Whips are rendered pointless. But can't poss change leader AGAIN without going to the country. If we go to the country, I genuinely believe my as yet not conceived children will be at uni before we're in power again" https://twitter.com/hoffman_noa/status/1581982067071496193
They can change leader again without going to the country immediately, but if they want to try and neutralise that attack line they need to pre-announce the date of the next GE (probably in May - autumn 2023).
“Incumbent on us to give a period of stability / travel the country listening to the electorate and what they’d like our GE offering to be.”
What is the point of changing leader now? After completely reversing nearly all Truss' tax cut plans and cutting the length of the energy support package, Hunt is now PM in all but name anyway.
Never have I ever seen a PM become such a puppet of their Chancellor
1) Small State Libertarianism is dead 2) Trickle Down economics is dead 3) You can't buck the market 4) The magic money tree doesn't exist
If this becomes political orthodoxy across the main politcal parties that would be a very good thing.
The problem is that everyone is ignoring the underlying issue which is that the current ponzi scheme model of our taxation and benefits system is unsustainable. So whilst I agree with you on some of these, the small state bit is inevitable either by planned reduction or by inevitable collapse. Truss has caused huge damage by trying to force the issue in the way she did so that people believe they have to stick with the current system. They can't, not in the medium to long term.
The model is sustainable if it is done properly. In previous threads I seem to recall you arguing for something like a Victorian welfare system. Now that is something that is *unsustainable*.
No it really isn't. It was designed as a safety net but has ballooned far beyond what it was designed for. I have never advocated a Victorian system. What I advocate is what the Atlee government intended it for and nothing more.
The current system simply cannot cope as the tax burden needed to maintain it is unsustainable.
+1 - working class families where parents are working shouldn't need tax credits to survive. Wages from their work should be enough for them to live on.
At one point we got to the ridiculous situation where people on nearly top rate of tax were getting tax credits. Farcical system, taking money off people, then giving it some of it back after filling in a load of extra paperwork.
From memory - it wasn't much paperwork - I think it took longer to get the form then it took to fill it in.
If Truss does go our politics will be getting as ruthless as Australia. No worries about dumping leaders over there.
Will she even qualify for a picture on the Downing Street staircase?
It will be one to explain to future generations, certainly. "May was 2017-2019, Johnson was 2019-2022, Truss was for a few weeks in 2022, then Sunak* was 2022..." "Hold on, what happened to Truss?" "Well she wasn't very good. Anyway, yes, Sunak*..."
*To pluck a name out of thin air for illustrative processes. I still think he'll manage to peak too soon again.
Quite right too.
Even if the circumstances were rum, and her achievements in office will be minimal, she has been PM.
And one of the things the Downing Street gallery does is act as a momento mori; "We too thought we were all-powerful, now we only exist as still photographs. The same fate awaits you, new Prime Minister..."
In future years new PMs will gaze at Liz’s portrait as they ascend the Downing Street staircase and think: “well, I can’t possibly do a worse job than her, thank god.”
1) Small State Libertarianism is dead 2) Trickle Down economics is dead 3) You can't buck the market 4) The magic money tree doesn't exist
If this becomes political orthodoxy across the main politcal parties that would be a very good thing.
The problem is that everyone is ignoring the underlying issue which is that the current ponzi scheme model of our taxation and benefits system is unsustainable. So whilst I agree with you on some of these, the small state bit is inevitable either by planned reduction or by inevitable collapse. Truss has caused huge damage by trying to force the issue in the way she did so that people believe they have to stick with the current system. They can't, not in the medium to long term.
The model is sustainable if it is done properly. In previous threads I seem to recall you arguing for something like a Victorian welfare system. Now that is something that is *unsustainable*.
No it really isn't. It was designed as a safety net but has ballooned far beyond what it was designed for. I have never advocated a Victorian system. What I advocate is what the Atlee government intended it for and nothing more.
The current system simply cannot cope as the tax burden needed to maintain it is unsustainable.
+1 - working class families where parents are working shouldn't need tax credits to survive. Wages from their work should be enough for them to live on.
At one point we got to the ridiculous situation where people on nearly top rate of tax were getting tax credits. Farcical system, taking money off people, then giving it some of it back after filling in a load of extra paperwork.
From memory - it wasn't much paperwork - I think it took longer to get the form then it took to fill it in.
Cost to the taxpayer of administering the scheme from all the extra paperwork flying around was significant. Also don't forget you got weird situations where better not to live together as a couple with kids (or rather not tell the tax man you are)...then when it finally got updated you got stupid situations where people given money they shouldn't have, then actually owed money back to the state they didn't have.
1) Small State Libertarianism is dead 2) Trickle Down economics is dead 3) You can't buck the market 4) The magic money tree doesn't exist
If this becomes political orthodoxy across the main politcal parties that would be a very good thing.
The problem is that everyone is ignoring the underlying issue which is that the current ponzi scheme model of our taxation and benefits system is unsustainable. So whilst I agree with you on some of these, the small state bit is inevitable either by planned reduction or by inevitable collapse. Truss has caused huge damage by trying to force the issue in the way she did so that people believe they have to stick with the current system. They can't, not in the medium to long term.
The model is sustainable if it is done properly. In previous threads I seem to recall you arguing for something like a Victorian welfare system. Now that is something that is *unsustainable*.
No it really isn't. It was designed as a safety net but has ballooned far beyond what it was designed for. I have never advocated a Victorian system. What I advocate is what the Atlee government intended it for and nothing more.
The current system simply cannot cope as the tax burden needed to maintain it is unsustainable.
+1 - working class families where parents are working shouldn't need tax credits to survive. Wages from their work should be enough for them to live on.
Yep. This is why I am so in favour of a state imposed living wage paid by employers. If your company is not viable without paying your employees enough to live on then you don't deserve to survive as a business. We should not have a situation where the tax payer is subsidising private companies by paying part of the wages of their underpaid staff. Calculate it based on a 40 hour working week and have a minimum pay per hour based on that. It doesn't have to be enough to be comfortable on but it should be enough to live on and cover all the basics. Make the political argument about what that amount should be rather than the basic principle.
But we already have that.
A childless couple both working full time, 37.5 hours per week, on Minimum Wage, earn over three grand per month. That's enough to survive on and they won't be eligible for a penny in welfare. They'll pay a lot of taxes on that too in fact.
If a certain amount is the minimum needed to survive, then why are we taxing people who only earn that minimum?
https://twitter.com/hoffman_noa/status/1581979173597630464 As things stand (always subject to change): Liz Truss not keen to come to Commons for Lab UQ. Now battle to get someone in her place. Am told no ministers so far keen but Penny Mordaunt has said she'll do it
ha!!!! shes toast. Off playing farmy farm.
Huge kudos to Penny for offering - possible she couldd do herself huge favours if she pulls it off but either way very gutsy to offer.
1) Small State Libertarianism is dead 2) Trickle Down economics is dead 3) You can't buck the market 4) The magic money tree doesn't exist
If this becomes political orthodoxy across the main politcal parties that would be a very good thing.
The problem is that everyone is ignoring the underlying issue which is that the current ponzi scheme model of our taxation and benefits system is unsustainable. So whilst I agree with you on some of these, the small state bit is inevitable either by planned reduction or by inevitable collapse. Truss has caused huge damage by trying to force the issue in the way she did so that people believe they have to stick with the current system. They can't, not in the medium to long term.
The model is sustainable if it is done properly. In previous threads I seem to recall you arguing for something like a Victorian welfare system. Now that is something that is *unsustainable*.
No it really isn't. It was designed as a safety net but has ballooned far beyond what it was designed for. I have never advocated a Victorian system. What I advocate is what the Atlee government intended it for and nothing more.
The current system simply cannot cope as the tax burden needed to maintain it is unsustainable.
+1 - working class families where parents are working shouldn't need tax credits to survive. Wages from their work should be enough for them to live on.
At one point we got to the ridiculous situation where people on nearly top rate of tax were getting tax credits. Farcical system, taking money off people, then giving it some of it back after filling in a load of extra paperwork.
From memory - it wasn't much paperwork - I think it took longer to get the form then it took to fill it in.
Cost to the taxpayer from all the extra paperwork flying around was significant.
Yep - the admin cost was absolutely insane but that was Brown giving everyone sweeties.
For those calling for a negotiated settlement immediately, this...
Literally hours after Putin declared “No more massive airstrikes,” he launches a new wave of airstrikes. It is impossible to negotiate with somebody who lies so routinely and deliberately https://twitter.com/Biz_Ukraine_Mag/status/1581952922744913921
Gov source: "I don't see how she has the authority to govern. Whips are rendered pointless. But can't poss change leader AGAIN without going to the country. If we go to the country, I genuinely believe my as yet not conceived children will be at uni before we're in power again" https://twitter.com/hoffman_noa/status/1581982067071496193
They can change leader again without going to the country immediately, but if they want to try and neutralise that attack line they need to pre-announce the date of the next GE (probably in May - autumn 2023).
“Incumbent on us to give a period of stability / travel the country listening to the electorate and what they’d like our GE offering to be.”
What is the point of changing leader now? After completely reversing nearly all Truss' tax cut plans and cutting the length of the energy support package, Hunt is now PM in all but name anyway.
Never have I ever seen a PM become such a puppet of their Chancellor
Do you want Liz Truss fronting the next PM debate at a general election? The Tories would start the campaign on x% and be x-10% by the time the campaign finished.
Parachuting the toxic former PM into exactly the kind of wealthy, Remain leaning Surrey seat where he is most disliked could plausibly act as a stimulus to large scale 'anti-Boris' tactical voting for Lab (or given nature of the seat, maybe more likely for LDs?)
The wolves are circling the vultures: UQ this afternoon - To ask the Prime Minister who is in charge" US from the Chancellor - "why I have demolished the Prime Minister and her agenda" Cabinet resignations expected before PMQs A Redfield Wilson poll due at 5pm of such pants-shitting excitement that we can only imagine what the numbers are
Meanwhile, secluded in the Naval Academy, Reichsprasident Truss continues to make grand plans for the reconstruction of the nation after the economic war, defiantly insisting that she is still in charge,
Gov source: "I don't see how she has the authority to govern. Whips are rendered pointless. But can't poss change leader AGAIN without going to the country. If we go to the country, I genuinely believe my as yet not conceived children will be at uni before we're in power again" https://twitter.com/hoffman_noa/status/1581982067071496193
Thats horse shit. They have a working majority, get on with using it to stabilise the economy under somebody with basic competence then choose a time to put it to the voters. The electorate don't get a new tranche of MPs just because they are cross, or we'd be constantly at the ballot box. There are mechanisms for getting an election via parliament, if they fail then no election until the PM calls one
Gov source: "I don't see how she has the authority to govern. Whips are rendered pointless. But can't poss change leader AGAIN without going to the country. If we go to the country, I genuinely believe my as yet not conceived children will be at uni before we're in power again" https://twitter.com/hoffman_noa/status/1581982067071496193
They can change leader again without going to the country immediately, but if they want to try and neutralise that attack line they need to pre-announce the date of the next GE (probably in May - autumn 2023).
“Incumbent on us to give a period of stability / travel the country listening to the electorate and what they’d like our GE offering to be.”
What is the point of changing leader now? After completely reversing nearly all Truss' tax cut plans and cutting the length of the energy support package, Hunt is now PM in all but name anyway.
Never have I ever seen a PM become such a puppet of their Chancellor
Because the Tories cannot even attempt to move on from this utter humiliation until she is gone. And the country deserves a leadership team who can inspire confidence and credibility.
Gov source: "I don't see how she has the authority to govern. Whips are rendered pointless. But can't poss change leader AGAIN without going to the country. If we go to the country, I genuinely believe my as yet not conceived children will be at uni before we're in power again" https://twitter.com/hoffman_noa/status/1581982067071496193
They can change leader again without going to the country immediately, but if they want to try and neutralise that attack line they need to pre-announce the date of the next GE (probably in May - autumn 2023).
“Incumbent on us to give a period of stability / travel the country listening to the electorate and what they’d like our GE offering to be.”
What is the point of changing leader now? After completely reversing nearly all Truss' tax cut plans and cutting the length of the energy support package, Hunt is now PM in all but name anyway.
Never have I ever seen a PM become such a puppet of their Chancellor
Do you want Liz Truss fronting the next PM debate at a general election? The Tories would start the campaign on x% and be x-10% by the time the campaign finished.
Given Hunt has just cut energy bills support and scrapped the cut in the basic rate of income tax I doubt he will be greatly appealing to the average floating voter now either
Gov source: "I don't see how she has the authority to govern. Whips are rendered pointless. But can't poss change leader AGAIN without going to the country. If we go to the country, I genuinely believe my as yet not conceived children will be at uni before we're in power again" https://twitter.com/hoffman_noa/status/1581982067071496193
They can change leader again without going to the country immediately, but if they want to try and neutralise that attack line they need to pre-announce the date of the next GE (probably in May - autumn 2023).
“Incumbent on us to give a period of stability / travel the country listening to the electorate and what they’d like our GE offering to be.”
What is the point of changing leader now? After completely reversing nearly all Truss' tax cut plans and cutting the length of the energy support package, Hunt is now PM in all but name anyway.
Never have I ever seen a PM become such a puppet of their Chancellor
You don't think the spectacle of a deeply unpopular, and totally discredited leader continuing in post indefinitely might be somewhat detrimental both to good government and the Conservative party's electoral prospects ?
Gov source: "I don't see how she has the authority to govern. Whips are rendered pointless. But can't poss change leader AGAIN without going to the country. If we go to the country, I genuinely believe my as yet not conceived children will be at uni before we're in power again" https://twitter.com/hoffman_noa/status/1581982067071496193
They can change leader again without going to the country immediately, but if they want to try and neutralise that attack line they need to pre-announce the date of the next GE (probably in May - autumn 2023).
“Incumbent on us to give a period of stability / travel the country listening to the electorate and what they’d like our GE offering to be.”
What is the point of changing leader now? After completely reversing nearly all Truss' tax cut plans and cutting the length of the energy support package, Hunt is now PM in all but name anyway.
Never have I ever seen a PM become such a puppet of their Chancellor
You don't think the spectacle of a deeply unpopular, and totally discredited leader continuing in post indefinitely might be somewhat detrimental both to good government and the Conservative party's electoral prospects ?
What about having three prime ministers but only one elected. Game over.
Most EU accession states since the Euro was launched weren't able to qualify to join the euro at the time they acceded, but they committed to complying with the criteria in order to in due course.
Scotland can make the same commitment. Say they're not qualifying yet (they're clearly not) but commit to complying in the future as other accession states have.
There's no chance Starmer would spend equal to or less than Hunt would in the counterfactual. So the nation is probably looking at higher borrowing costs under Labour than they otherwise would be under Hunt's current leadership.
Tory MPs are being told Truss will get Hunt to answer Starmer’s urgent question. If she sits mute next to him, that will be her vote of confidence in her Chancellor...but it may also fuel calls for a vote of no confidence in herself.
If Truss does go our politics will be getting as ruthless as Australia. No worries about dumping leaders over there.
Will she even qualify for a picture on the Downing Street staircase?
It will be one to explain to future generations, certainly. "May was 2017-2019, Johnson was 2019-2022, Truss was for a few weeks in 2022, then Sunak* was 2022..." "Hold on, what happened to Truss?" "Well she wasn't very good. Anyway, yes, Sunak*..."
*To pluck a name out of thin air for illustrative processes. I still think he'll manage to peak too soon again.
Quite right too.
Even if the circumstances were rum, and her achievements in office will be minimal, she has been PM.
And one of the things the Downing Street gallery does is act as a momento mori; "We too thought we were all-powerful, now we only exist as still photographs. The same fate awaits you, new Prime Minister..."
In future years new PMs will gaze at Liz’s portrait as they ascend the Downing Street staircase and think: “well, I can’t possibly do a worse job than her, thank god.”
Having a portrait might be her highest achievement?
Edit: no, she's got umpteen already. Just pick one of the Mrs T cosplay ilk.
The return of one poster in the last few minutes is a useful reminder that the PM has rivals for the annual 'Most Deluded Tory Party Member of the Year'.
1) Small State Libertarianism is dead 2) Trickle Down economics is dead 3) You can't buck the market 4) The magic money tree doesn't exist
If this becomes political orthodoxy across the main politcal parties that would be a very good thing.
The problem is that everyone is ignoring the underlying issue which is that the current ponzi scheme model of our taxation and benefits system is unsustainable. So whilst I agree with you on some of these, the small state bit is inevitable either by planned reduction or by inevitable collapse. Truss has caused huge damage by trying to force the issue in the way she did so that people believe they have to stick with the current system. They can't, not in the medium to long term.
The model is sustainable if it is done properly. In previous threads I seem to recall you arguing for something like a Victorian welfare system. Now that is something that is *unsustainable*.
No it really isn't. It was designed as a safety net but has ballooned far beyond what it was designed for. I have never advocated a Victorian system. What I advocate is what the Atlee government intended it for and nothing more.
The current system simply cannot cope as the tax burden needed to maintain it is unsustainable.
+1 - working class families where parents are working shouldn't need tax credits to survive. Wages from their work should be enough for them to live on.
At one point we got to the ridiculous situation where people on nearly top rate of tax were getting tax credits. Farcical system, taking money off people, then giving it some of it back after filling in a load of extra paperwork.
From memory - it wasn't much paperwork - I think it took longer to get the form then it took to fill it in.
Cost to the taxpayer of administering the scheme from all the extra paperwork flying around was significant. Also don't forget you got weird situations where better not to live together as a couple with kids (or rather not tell the tax man you are)...then when it finally got updated you got stupid situations where people given money they shouldn't have, then actually owed money back to the state they didn't have.
The old 'toothbrush test' was an eye opener – if you have a toothbrush permanently stationed at your girlfriend/boyfriend's house, are you effectively cohabiting?
Most EU accession states since the Euro was launched weren't able to qualify to join the euro at the time they acceded, but they committed to complying with the criteria in order to in due course.
Scotland can make the same commitment. Say they're not qualifying yet (they're clearly not) but commit to complying in the future as other accession states have.
You could imagine what Carlotta and her source (whohe*?) would be saying if Ms S said the opposite, too.
Edit: Mr Taylor is the director of a Unionist, erm, campaigning outfit, These Islands.
It also fondly imagines that the CTA remains in place…..something not within their gift…..
Before Brexit, it was the EU for manufactured goods - please try to read the statement properly in context.
Was it?
The statement claims £11bn for the UK and £19bn for "EU and rest of the world" but rest of the world doesn't fall under the EU, so its disingenuous to include that. Why would you include trade with America or Australia for instance on a debate as whether to be in the UK or the EU? Unless its because the figures don't represent your agenda unless you fudge them that way.
On average nationwide the UK trades more with the rest of the world than it does with the EU and has done for a long time, so unless Scotland is wildly different it seems reasonable to assume a breakdown of roughly £9bn for EU, £10bn for rest of the world, and £11bn for the UK.
1) Small State Libertarianism is dead 2) Trickle Down economics is dead 3) You can't buck the market 4) The magic money tree doesn't exist
If this becomes political orthodoxy across the main politcal parties that would be a very good thing.
The problem is that everyone is ignoring the underlying issue which is that the current ponzi scheme model of our taxation and benefits system is unsustainable. So whilst I agree with you on some of these, the small state bit is inevitable either by planned reduction or by inevitable collapse. Truss has caused huge damage by trying to force the issue in the way she did so that people believe they have to stick with the current system. They can't, not in the medium to long term.
The model is sustainable if it is done properly. In previous threads I seem to recall you arguing for something like a Victorian welfare system. Now that is something that is *unsustainable*.
No it really isn't. It was designed as a safety net but has ballooned far beyond what it was designed for. I have never advocated a Victorian system. What I advocate is what the Atlee government intended it for and nothing more.
The current system simply cannot cope as the tax burden needed to maintain it is unsustainable.
+1 - working class families where parents are working shouldn't need tax credits to survive. Wages from their work should be enough for them to live on.
At one point we got to the ridiculous situation where people on nearly top rate of tax were getting tax credits. Farcical system, taking money off people, then giving it some of it back after filling in a load of extra paperwork.
Worse than that, it’s almost impossible to do anything about it, without either ruinously marginal benefit withdrawal rates or lowering of the maximum payments
The only way that will work in reality, is a good bit of fiscal drag on the thresholds at a time of inflation. Thankfully…
The expectation is we get over 150 letters to Sir Graham, and the resignations push it to over the 179 magic figure.
How do they ever expect to get to 150 letters, when Sir Graham is bound to declare when he has received 57(?) letters, and hold a vote of the PCP at the earliest opportunity?
The rules say she is safe from a VONC for the first 12 months.
So getting 57 this week doesn't trigger a vote.
Sir Graham going to Liz and saying look I've had over half the parliamentary party telling me they want you gone should do it.
Do the rules actually say that though?
We know that a leader that wins a vote of confidence among the MPs is safe for 12 months, but are we certain that a leader elected by the membership is free from challenge for that same period?
For those calling for a negotiated settlement immediately, this...
Literally hours after Putin declared “No more massive airstrikes,” he launches a new wave of airstrikes. It is impossible to negotiate with somebody who lies so routinely and deliberately https://twitter.com/Biz_Ukraine_Mag/status/1581952922744913921
The thing with Putin is to start with no expectations. Just assume that it is all lies and provocations.
Western backing for Ukraine only makes sense if the aim is to blunt the ability of Russia to do these kinds of attacks - by bleeding out their military capabilities. So Russia keeps throwing everything it has got in to the war, and makes no progress at all. And so the threat is neutralised. Recent events can be made sense of this way.
The aim is not to 'beat back Putin', create 'regime change' or even 'win'. It is to make Russians realise it cannot go on, the idea that they can invade the whole of the former Soviet Union and the rest of Europe will never happen. It is bringing reality to Putin in a similar way to how the markets bought reality to Truss.
If Truss does go our politics will be getting as ruthless as Australia. No worries about dumping leaders over there.
Will she even qualify for a picture on the Downing Street staircase?
It will be one to explain to future generations, certainly. "May was 2017-2019, Johnson was 2019-2022, Truss was for a few weeks in 2022, then Sunak* was 2022..." "Hold on, what happened to Truss?" "Well she wasn't very good. Anyway, yes, Sunak*..."
*To pluck a name out of thin air for illustrative processes. I still think he'll manage to peak too soon again.
Quite right too.
Even if the circumstances were rum, and her achievements in office will be minimal, she has been PM.
And one of the things the Downing Street gallery does is act as a momento mori; "We too thought we were all-powerful, now we only exist as still photographs. The same fate awaits you, new Prime Minister..."
In future years new PMs will gaze at Liz’s portrait as they ascend the Downing Street staircase and think: “well, I can’t possibly do a worse job than her, thank god.”
Just like both Johnson and Truss said, when they walked up the stairs for the first time
1) Small State Libertarianism is dead 2) Trickle Down economics is dead 3) You can't buck the market 4) The magic money tree doesn't exist
If this becomes political orthodoxy across the main politcal parties that would be a very good thing.
The problem is that everyone is ignoring the underlying issue which is that the current ponzi scheme model of our taxation and benefits system is unsustainable. So whilst I agree with you on some of these, the small state bit is inevitable either by planned reduction or by inevitable collapse. Truss has caused huge damage by trying to force the issue in the way she did so that people believe they have to stick with the current system. They can't, not in the medium to long term.
The model is sustainable if it is done properly. In previous threads I seem to recall you arguing for something like a Victorian welfare system. Now that is something that is *unsustainable*.
No it really isn't. It was designed as a safety net but has ballooned far beyond what it was designed for. I have never advocated a Victorian system. What I advocate is what the Atlee government intended it for and nothing more.
The current system simply cannot cope as the tax burden needed to maintain it is unsustainable.
I suspect you don't know a lot about the Atlee welfare system. If you did, you wouldn't be arguing for it, whilst simultaneously arguing for a slimmer welfare state.
Gov source: "I don't see how she has the authority to govern. Whips are rendered pointless. But can't poss change leader AGAIN without going to the country. If we go to the country, I genuinely believe my as yet not conceived children will be at uni before we're in power again" https://twitter.com/hoffman_noa/status/1581982067071496193
Thats horse shit. They have a working majority, get on with using it to stabilise the economy under somebody with basic competence then choose a time to put it to the voters. The electorate don't get a new tranche of MPs just because they are cross, or we'd be constantly at the ballot box. There are mechanisms for getting an election via parliament, if they fail then no election until the PM calls one
Well, I think I called the unaffordable nature of the energy package this morning. I said it would be the ultimate humiliation for Truss and it is. Listening to WATO I actually started to feel sorry for her. This is too cruel no matter what her stupidity and mistakes. I genuinely begin to fear for her.
Gov source: "I don't see how she has the authority to govern. Whips are rendered pointless. But can't poss change leader AGAIN without going to the country. If we go to the country, I genuinely believe my as yet not conceived children will be at uni before we're in power again" https://twitter.com/hoffman_noa/status/1581982067071496193
They can change leader again without going to the country immediately, but if they want to try and neutralise that attack line they need to pre-announce the date of the next GE (probably in May - autumn 2023).
“Incumbent on us to give a period of stability / travel the country listening to the electorate and what they’d like our GE offering to be.”
What is the point of changing leader now? After completely reversing nearly all Truss' tax cut plans and cutting the length of the energy support package, Hunt is now PM in all but name anyway.
Never have I ever seen a PM become such a puppet of their Chancellor
Do you want Liz Truss fronting the next PM debate at a general election? The Tories would start the campaign on x% and be x-10% by the time the campaign finished.
Given Hunt has just cut energy bills support and scrapped the cut in the basic rate of income tax I doubt he will be greatly appealing to the average floating voter now either
Both in the future, whereas what people will notice is the introduction of sanity for the first time in a while.
Do you want to vote for a sane person or not. Not many people pick 'not'.
Comments
“Incumbent on us to give a period of stability / travel the country listening to the electorate and what they’d like our GE offering to be.”
Even if the circumstances were rum, and her achievements in office will be minimal, she has been PM.
And one of the things the Downing Street gallery does is act as a momento mori; "We too thought we were all-powerful, now we only exist as still photographs. The same fate awaits you, new Prime Minister..."
So getting 57 this week doesn't trigger a vote.
Sir Graham going to Liz and saying look I've had over half the parliamentary party telling me they want you gone should do it.
It mentions "physical checks".
* ETA: I remember this quite clearly as I have bet based on this
**probably make quite a decent seat, that pile of letters
If you want to avoid higher earners getting payments you either need an extremely high taper (about 100% potentially) which means people don't increase earnings as they won't keep any of the money they work for anyway, or reduce the amount given in the first place even to the most needy.
Otherwise the lower the taper the higher earnings are still eligible to something. Which is why I prefer a universal system which extends the payment to everyone, even the most wealthy, but wrap it into the tax system as a replacement to tax free allowances etc, that way its all in one and not perverse.
So who will November's chancellor be? Back to Rishi again? Or someone exciting and new?
Sam Allardyce is available.
Never have I ever seen a PM become such a puppet of their Chancellor
Big Ron Atkinson Chief Secretary
A childless couple both working full time, 37.5 hours per week, on Minimum Wage, earn over three grand per month. That's enough to survive on and they won't be eligible for a penny in welfare. They'll pay a lot of taxes on that too in fact.
If a certain amount is the minimum needed to survive, then why are we taxing people who only earn that minimum?
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1581963281014484993?s=20&t=vt6yvIHbw-er4jl_1lyN-g
Literally hours after Putin declared “No more massive airstrikes,” he launches a new wave of airstrikes. It is impossible to negotiate with somebody who lies so routinely and deliberately
https://twitter.com/Biz_Ukraine_Mag/status/1581952922744913921
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1581982607377854465
Though
Parachuting the toxic former PM into exactly the kind of wealthy, Remain leaning Surrey seat where he is most disliked could plausibly act as a stimulus to large scale 'anti-Boris' tactical voting for Lab (or given nature of the seat, maybe more likely for LDs?)
https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1581984349213593601
UQ this afternoon - To ask the Prime Minister who is in charge"
US from the Chancellor - "why I have demolished the Prime Minister and her agenda"
Cabinet resignations expected before PMQs
A Redfield Wilson poll due at 5pm of such pants-shitting excitement that we can only imagine what the numbers are
Meanwhile, secluded in the Naval Academy, Reichsprasident Truss continues to make grand plans for the reconstruction of the nation after the economic war, defiantly insisting that she is still in charge,
“It was a political disembowelment of the scale that I cannot remember ever seeing in my two decades covering British politics… https://twitter.com/SophiaSleigh/status/1581985327396577286/photo/1
There are mechanisms for getting an election via parliament, if they fail then no election until the PM calls one
"New Member States are also committed to complying with the criteria laid down in the Treaty in order to be able to adopt the euro in due course..."
https://twitter.com/staylorish/status/1581983297424408577
Most EU accession states since the Euro was launched weren't able to qualify to join the euro at the time they acceded, but they committed to complying with the criteria in order to in due course.
Scotland can make the same commitment. Say they're not qualifying yet (they're clearly not) but commit to complying in the future as other accession states have.
If she sits mute next to him, that will be her vote of confidence in her Chancellor...but it may also fuel calls for a vote of no confidence in herself.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1581986564082520065
New Thread but not yet a new PM
Edit: no, she's got umpteen already. Just pick one of the Mrs T cosplay ilk.
Edit: Mr Taylor is the director of a Unionist, erm, campaigning outfit, These Islands.
The statement claims £11bn for the UK and £19bn for "EU and rest of the world" but rest of the world doesn't fall under the EU, so its disingenuous to include that. Why would you include trade with America or Australia for instance on a debate as whether to be in the UK or the EU? Unless its because the figures don't represent your agenda unless you fudge them that way.
On average nationwide the UK trades more with the rest of the world than it does with the EU and has done for a long time, so unless Scotland is wildly different it seems reasonable to assume a breakdown of roughly £9bn for EU, £10bn for rest of the world, and £11bn for the UK.
The only way that will work in reality, is a good bit of fiscal drag on the thresholds at a time of inflation. Thankfully…
We know that a leader that wins a vote of confidence among the MPs is safe for 12 months, but are we certain that a leader elected by the membership is free from challenge for that same period?
Western backing for Ukraine only makes sense if the aim is to blunt the ability of Russia to do these kinds of attacks - by bleeding out their military capabilities. So Russia keeps throwing everything it has got in to the war, and makes no progress at all. And so the threat is neutralised. Recent events can be made sense of this way.
The aim is not to 'beat back Putin', create 'regime change' or even 'win'. It is to make Russians realise it cannot go on, the idea that they can invade the whole of the former Soviet Union and the rest of Europe will never happen. It is bringing reality to Putin in a similar way to how the markets bought reality to Truss.
It’s clearly in their interest, to make sure the ‘border’ is as frictionless as possible in all directions.
Well, I think I called the unaffordable nature of the energy package this morning. I said it would be the ultimate humiliation for Truss and it is. Listening to WATO I actually started to feel sorry for her. This is too cruel no matter what her stupidity and mistakes. I genuinely begin to fear for her.
Do you want to vote for a sane person or not. Not many people pick 'not'.