Starmer being preferred by 10% in an MRP poll really does not suggest Sunak is going to do well.
Here's the problem though - how does holding on past May make it any better? Tories get demolished in the Locals Markets say Oh Fuck No to the tax cut Rwanda gets laughed out of the Lords 5 Families of Lunatics organise over the summer against Sunak
etc etc etc
These things are all bad but they're no worse than what's been happening for the past year, and maybe something lucky will happen. If it doesn't, the result is the same but he's Prime Minister for longer.
In 1850s in leadup to US Civil War, there was a very significant transformation AND increased sectionalization of American politics, from the division between (Jacksonian) Democrats and (American) Whigs both with voters and politicos in every section and state, to even more polarized split between Democrats and Republicans - with former almost exclusively Northern, and later increasing sundered on sectional lines.
During the early days of the Republican Party we know today (sorta) it's rival for the support of former Whigs, dissident Dems, etc. was the American Party aka "Know-Nothings" whose Big Issue was NOT slavery, but instead . . . wait for it . . . immigration.
In mid-1850s it was touch-and-go whether the Republicans OR the Know Nothings would ultimately make it into the Top Two of the new American two-party system.
For example, in 1856 both fielded Presidential candidates; John C. Fremont ("the Pathfinder") for Reps and former Democratic POTUS Millard Fillmore for the KNs.
Result was that Democrat James Buchanan got 45% of popular vote and 174 EVs, Fremont got 33% of popular and 114 EVs, and Fillmore got 21.5% of popular and 8 EVs.
Only state Fillmore won was Maryland, with sizable immigrant population and slave state smack on Mason-Dixon line, with Southern roots but tied to Northern economy.
Every other slave state voted for Buchanan, as did his native Pennsylvania plus most of the lower Midwest and also California; Fremont won the rest, notably all New England plus areas in Great Lakes with New England roots.
Before the next election, in 1860, the American Party had fallen apart - broken on the rock of . . . wait for it . . . slavery.
With most "North Americans" = Know Nothings in Northern States, ending up with Republicans, while most "South Americans" trending toward Dems.
We think (or at least I do) of Massachusetts in general, and Boston in particular, of being markedly Irish in many ways, especially political.
Yet in the 1850s the government of the great Codfish Commonwealth was controlled, not by Republicans, but by anti-immigrant (read Catholic, and in Mass also read Irish) Know Nothings.
Who by 1860 were pretty much all Republicans, certainly the politicos.
Yes. Thanks Shanty. What a lode of interesting nuggets you are.
i clocked the person Malmsy pointed me to yesterday (as example of racist speeches, though reading them he mostly ranted on about anti federal tax and anti federal everything which, ironically, gave me ideas it was more than white supremacy getting them fired up) Alexander Stephens, went from
Whig (1836–1851) Unionist (1851–1860) Constitutional Union (1860–1861) Democratic (1861–1883)
The person said every Labour PM has submitted a resignation list. Tony Blair did not. The Tories are liars.
No they didn’t.
They said every Labour PM submitted a resignation or dissolution list.
I have proven that is correct.
Maybe not a lie, but certainly dishonest to conflate the two.
Normally I’d agree but Brown because of the cash for peerages scandal effectively put his resignation list into the dissolution list.
And Blair?
And are we really suggesting that Liz Truss deserves the benefit of such a fudge?
Blair couldn’t issue one because of the cash for peerages scandal but he did create nearly 400 peers as PM.
Truss got lucky because of precedent.
In an ideal world she shouldn’t have a resignation honours list.
I suppose there the difference in the attitudes of Blair and Truss are instructive. Blair was perfectly entitled to do a resignation honours but knew it would be a terrible look, so he didn't. Truss has used her entitlement regardless, even though it is a dreadful look and doesn't just damage her and her party but faith in the whole institution. Sunak has shown his weakness by waving it through rather than sternly telling her she really is taking the piss.
Australian WWII M3 Grant Tank Restoration 90 minutes of restoring a WW2 M3 Grant tank from a shell to a fully-working museum piece. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Av8Oa6RCA4
What if the markets take fright at these tax cuts? What then?
Different scenario. The Lizaster had just been appointed PM with a couple of years left to run. Rishi would have weeks left to run. The markets would express their alarm, effectively back Labour, and wait.
No, I think unfunded tax cuts would do to the markets exactly what they did in September 2022.
The Bank of England's bond flog-off dwarved any 'unfunded' tax cuts in fiscal terms. Under the Treasury's commitment to indemnify the Bank against it's losses, what had been announced the day before the minibudget was set to cost the Treasury over £80bn (it has cost more in the event). Any marketeers paying attention would have noted that fact.
So on the day of the Treasury's announcement, day before the mini-budget, GBP gained slightly against the USD; on the day of the budget it lost 3% against the USD.
Those markets were a bit slow to react to the Treasury announcement, what kept them?
There are various reasons for a delayed (very slightly delayed) market response to the BOE announcement, but that's not something I even need to explain to defend my argument. You state that 'unfunded tax cuts' spooked the markets. From memory, there were about £40bn of tax cuts in the mini budget. Within the BOE announcement, there was £80bn of 'unfunded' cost to the exchequer. That's just comparing apples and apples - a completely separate issue from any impact on the market price of UK bonds based on the fact that their biggest holder and purchaser had decided to divest.
One off vs. potentially ongoing?
More importantly, the bumps down and up in market sentiment tracked the announcements by Kwateng and Hunt. They may have been mistaken in doing that- tough.
Financial markets are right, even when they are wrong. As a better Thatcherite than me, I'm sure you remember the Good Lady's views on the buckability of the market.
1. The Bank's QT programme is ongoing, and is a far firmer commitment than some tax cuts. Much as it's trendy to poohoo the Laffer curve, there's also no growth benefit in giving money to the bank to put on their bonfire - with tax cuts one would expect at least some additional taxable activity to take place to offset the cost.
2. Sure, but if you acknowledge that the sums in the 'unfunded tax cuts' argument don't add up, but insist that the market believed they did and that's the point, you're effectively admitting that the problems with the mini-budget were presentational, not fundamental. That's very much my argument, but it's one I've seen very little support for amongst Truss's detractors on this board to date.
"Much as it's trendy to poohoo the Laffer curve . . ."
Much as it's trendy to poo-poo the Caloric theory.
Let's have phlogiston back. It explained a lot of things... 😃
Comments
And are we really suggesting that Liz Truss deserves the benefit of such a fudge?
Truss got lucky because of precedent.
In an ideal world she shouldn’t have a resignation honours list.
i clocked the person Malmsy pointed me to yesterday (as example of racist speeches, though reading them he mostly ranted on about anti federal tax and anti federal everything which, ironically, gave me ideas it was more than white supremacy getting them fired up) Alexander Stephens, went from
Whig (1836–1851)
Unionist (1851–1860)
Constitutional Union (1860–1861)
Democratic (1861–1883)
90 minutes of restoring a WW2 M3 Grant tank from a shell to a fully-working museum piece. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Av8Oa6RCA4
Why, my coat. So kind...