I dont agree that Truss is indecisive. She decided on a cabinet, an energy bill support policy, an economic direction. I just struggle to identify any decision that looks particularly good. And several that seem shockingly bad. So I'd give her a pass on decisiveness. But an epic fail on competence and likeability. And she is weak so some of her bad decisions have already been reversed.
She is indecisive and weak because she made so many stupid decisions and has been forced to reverse them. Remember that every single one of these was billed as essential, that they had no other choice. That anyone opposed was part of the "anti-growth coalition" or even dancing to Putin's tune.
The latest one - she is imposing a windfall tax on the excess profits being made by energy companies. All the way through her leadership she said "no handouts, no windfall tax". Then announced handouts *to the energy companies* paid for by consumers. Now is taking off them any profits over a level they are setting - a windfall tax.
She is in office, but not in power.
That is not indecisive, it is being too decisive. Making up her mind too quickly without infeorming herself f the consequences of those decisioons.
Neither are the U-turns an indication of indecisiveness, just an indication of having driven down a dead end.
I dont agree that Truss is indecisive. She decided on a cabinet, an energy bill support policy, an economic direction. I just struggle to identify any decision that looks particularly good. And several that seem shockingly bad. So I'd give her a pass on decisiveness. But an epic fail on competence and likeability. And she is weak so some of her bad decisions have already been reversed.
A better word might be impulsive.
She was absolutely determined to do all the things, right up to the point when she wasn't...
The other mistake she made was not understanding the need to draw a line under the Johnson era.
I don’t blame her for playing on her loyalty during the election - that was her trump card over Sunak with the members, and it delivered for her.
Once elected, she should have found ways to make it clear things were going to be different. Got the new ethics adviser in post, made a speech about honesty in politics, bring people Johnson had exiled back into cabinet, etc.
Instead, she appointed a cabinet of loyal numpties, just like he did. She dismissed and disregarded officials and experts, just like he did. She made impulsive decisions without consulting or thinking them through, and is then pushed into reversing them when reality bites. And so on.
We all learn about the boss’s job from seeing him or her in action, and in Truss’s case she has had the misfortune to work for such a bad example and not to have the judgement to understand why his premiership all fell apart.
Exclusive: I had a chat with the former chair of the Conservative Party, @SayeedaWarsi, who said PM Liz Truss "had to just carry on with the 2019 manifesto – or go to the electorate”.
She “doesn’t have the mandate to do some of the things she’s doing”.
Gordon Brown carried on for 3 years without an election, and he wasn't even elected by members or MPs. He didn't stick to the same policies that Tony Blair would have pursued.
A word used only by fanatics or those prone to exaggeration. Liz is incompetent and has an inflated opinion of her own ability, but that's not unusual in politicians and journalists.
She's not evil, she's a very naughty girl.
Hmm.
I generally would only use that word for someone who inflicts direct, deliberate, and severe harm on other humans.
Bonus points if they get kicks out of it.
I think there are better words to describe liz and her band of fellow idiots.
However, I don’t have a problem with describing her ideology as “evil”
In my experience, it’s a good lesson for life.
Use these kind of emotive, absolutist words to describe ideas or behaviours. Not actual people. Separate the person from the idea/behaviour.
Gets you into far fewer unwinnable fights. More likely to win people over to your side of an argument, too.
Disagreeing with you on whether government spending and tax levels should be plus/minus 200 basis points is evil?
I think you need your moral compass checked out
A feeble point, I can cause you to die horribly by altering the contents of the food you eat or the air you breathe by 20 or indeed 2 basis points. Let's include foreseeable consequences in our analysis.
The situation for Truss looks utterly hopeless. She has lost the public and commands no confidence amongst her MPs, because of a series of misjudgements and unforced errors. This is a political party that looks like it is in a death spiral.
Really it’s a similar hubris and sense of entitlement to that which was the undoing of Johnson.
She could have arrived in office recognising that she didn’t have an electoral mandate and had only thin support from her colleagues, and that her party was already unpopular, and so been gracious to those who didn’t support her, assembled a cabinet of all the talents (and factions), and made efforts to consult and involve her colleagues before departing from the previous government’s agenda (which largely reflected the manifesto). If she had new ideas that she wanted to try, like the different approach to tax, she should have taken the time to lay the political ground with colleagues and get her officials on board.
Instead she arrived with a “hey, I’m the new world king!” attitude and did the precise opposite of everything set out above. Now, too late I am sure, perhaps she is realising that there is a little more to politics than rewarding your friends and dishing out instructions.
The mystery is how someone so clearly abysmal at the top job got to where she is. She went through various cabinet posts and gave the impression of being a team player and a competent operator. But it is like she got to the top and, as you say, had no idea about how to do the job and just got drunk on the illusion of power.
If she was an incompetent CEO she would be forced out. The question for the tories is if they are going to let her ruin their party.
Foreign Secretary may be a great office of state but it's hardly difficult. What tough decisions do you have to make?
To return from holiday when Kabul falls.
But yes, ever since Blair the PM edges you out as soon as it gets interesting, had to think about who his FS actually was - even Hoon at armed forces got more airtime.
Thinking back, she did get humiliated by Lavrov at one point. But I suppose she did just mostly use the role as a platform for slightly cringeworthy instagram shoots.
That story is even more damaging than it looks. The point being not that she was stupid enough to fall into the trap, but that she was so stupid that Lavrov knew to set it in the first place.
I dont agree that Truss is indecisive. She decided on a cabinet, an energy bill support policy, an economic direction. I just struggle to identify any decision that looks particularly good. And several that seem shockingly bad. So I'd give her a pass on decisiveness. But an epic fail on competence and likeability. And she is weak so some of her bad decisions have already been reversed.
She is indecisive and weak because she made so many stupid decisions and has been forced to reverse them. Remember that every single one of these was billed as essential, that they had no other choice. That anyone opposed was part of the "anti-growth coalition" or even dancing to Putin's tune.
The latest one - she is imposing a windfall tax on the excess profits being made by energy companies. All the way through her leadership she said "no handouts, no windfall tax". Then announced handouts *to the energy companies* paid for by consumers. Now is taking off them any profits over a level they are setting - a windfall tax.
She is in office, but not in power.
I know that you love to bash the government. But the changes on renewable energy pricing genuinely are *not* a windfall tax.
That’s an unusually high tax rate on profits. This is a new price negotiation.” Which shifts them to a fixed return on capital model as with other utilities.
As has been noted by others, the increase in gilt yields will in the most part dramatically improve the solvency of DB pensions by reducing their liabilities faster than their assets. There is a potential liquidity issue in the short term as they unwind margined repos of Uk govt bonds, which has in turn been feeding a doom cycle in that asset class.
The reason why “no one is buying long dates gilts apart from the BoE” is simple, why would you until you are certain that the deleveraging within the funds has completed, especially when the BoE Governor is giving such jumpy mixed signals on his intent? Once this short phase is over, gilts are beginning to look a pretty attractive store of wealth if you ask me.
If the fund needed to meet a DB pension commitment has fallen due to the rise in gilt yields, does that mean the 25pc tax free bit has also fallen in proportion? Even if the regular pension paid out stays the same?
Exclusive: I had a chat with the former chair of the Conservative Party, @SayeedaWarsi, who said PM Liz Truss "had to just carry on with the 2019 manifesto – or go to the electorate”.
She “doesn’t have the mandate to do some of the things she’s doing”.
Gordon Brown carried on for 3 years without an election, and he wasn't even elected by members or MPs. He didn't stick to the same policies that Tony Blair would have pursued.
Not sure that's right, Andy.
The shocking truth about the Blair/Brown conflict was that ideologically there was precious little between them. It was a turf war, a pointless and unnecessary one.
The biggest event of Brown's Premiership was the Financial Crisis, which he handled well. I expect he would have done exactly the same if he had been Chancellor.
He was in my opinion a pretty poor PM, a position to which he was not well suited, but policy-wise he was not a whole lot different to his predecessor.
I dont agree that Truss is indecisive. She decided on a cabinet, an energy bill support policy, an economic direction. I just struggle to identify any decision that looks particularly good. And several that seem shockingly bad. So I'd give her a pass on decisiveness. But an epic fail on competence and likeability. And she is weak so some of her bad decisions have already been reversed.
She is indecisive and weak because she made so many stupid decisions and has been forced to reverse them. Remember that every single one of these was billed as essential, that they had no other choice. That anyone opposed was part of the "anti-growth coalition" or even dancing to Putin's tune.
The latest one - she is imposing a windfall tax on the excess profits being made by energy companies. All the way through her leadership she said "no handouts, no windfall tax". Then announced handouts *to the energy companies* paid for by consumers. Now is taking off them any profits over a level they are setting - a windfall tax.
She is in office, but not in power.
Price caps and windfall taxes are not the same thing.
Price caps aren't especially free market, or generally a good idea at all, but its a different issue.
Exclusive: I had a chat with the former chair of the Conservative Party, @SayeedaWarsi, who said PM Liz Truss "had to just carry on with the 2019 manifesto – or go to the electorate”.
She “doesn’t have the mandate to do some of the things she’s doing”.
Gordon Brown carried on for 3 years without an election, and he wasn't even elected by members or MPs. He didn't stick to the same policies that Tony Blair would have pursued.
Despise Brown, but I disagree with your point. Had Blair still been in charge at the time of the GFC he would have pursued identical policies for the very good reason that Brown would have made most of them anyway as Chancellor. And while Darling was undoubtedly more important than Brown let on, the essential outline came from Brown's personal team, the likes of Vadera.
In foreign affairs it's quite hard to think of any meaningful changes Brown made as well. While in say, education, BSF was an extension of Brown's own obsession with PFI.
It suited Brown to pretend he was doing lots of radical new stuff and Blair to say that Labour lost because they abandoned his ethos. But the truth is rather the reverse. Brown had nothing new left to do, and after 13 years, financial implosion and rather too many dodgy dossiers Blairism was discredited.
I may have come up with a way for Kamikwaze to balance the books.
Rather than cut public sector spending by 10%, which Tory MPs won't vote for, his forecasts should instead acknowledge that we wont be able to recruit the public sector workers we need (save 5%), and that the workers who we do have don't have to be paid whilst on strike to save the other 5%.
I dont agree that Truss is indecisive. She decided on a cabinet, an energy bill support policy, an economic direction. I just struggle to identify any decision that looks particularly good. And several that seem shockingly bad. So I'd give her a pass on decisiveness. But an epic fail on competence and likeability. And she is weak so some of her bad decisions have already been reversed.
She is indecisive and weak because she made so many stupid decisions and has been forced to reverse them. Remember that every single one of these was billed as essential, that they had no other choice. That anyone opposed was part of the "anti-growth coalition" or even dancing to Putin's tune.
The latest one - she is imposing a windfall tax on the excess profits being made by energy companies. All the way through her leadership she said "no handouts, no windfall tax". Then announced handouts *to the energy companies* paid for by consumers. Now is taking off them any profits over a level they are setting - a windfall tax.
She is in office, but not in power.
That is not indecisive, it is being too decisive. Making up her mind too quickly without infeorming herself f the consequences of those decisioons.
Neither are the U-turns an indication of indecisiveness, just an indication of having driven down a dead end.
Its indecisive - if "I am right, you are all wrong" and "there is no alternative" as they claim then own it. Stay the course. Don't shat your pants every 5 minutes and say "well ok maybe you are right, I'll change tack. But I'll keep talking up the old tack so that people understand why I am right"
I dont agree that Truss is indecisive. She decided on a cabinet, an energy bill support policy, an economic direction. I just struggle to identify any decision that looks particularly good. And several that seem shockingly bad. So I'd give her a pass on decisiveness. But an epic fail on competence and likeability. And she is weak so some of her bad decisions have already been reversed.
She is indecisive and weak because she made so many stupid decisions and has been forced to reverse them. Remember that every single one of these was billed as essential, that they had no other choice. That anyone opposed was part of the "anti-growth coalition" or even dancing to Putin's tune.
The latest one - she is imposing a windfall tax on the excess profits being made by energy companies. All the way through her leadership she said "no handouts, no windfall tax". Then announced handouts *to the energy companies* paid for by consumers. Now is taking off them any profits over a level they are setting - a windfall tax.
She is in office, but not in power.
That is not indecisive, it is being too decisive. Making up her mind too quickly without infeorming herself f the consequences of those decisioons.
Neither are the U-turns an indication of indecisiveness, just an indication of having driven down a dead end.
Its indecisive - if "I am right, you are all wrong" and "there is no alternative" as they claim then own it. Stay the course. Don't shat your pants every 5 minutes and say "well ok maybe you are right, I'll change tack. But I'll keep talking up the old tack so that people understand why I am right"
She has decided to be indecisive!
How does the rest go: 'resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, all powerful for impotence.'
The situation for Truss looks utterly hopeless. She has lost the public and commands no confidence amongst her MPs, because of a series of misjudgements and unforced errors. This is a political party that looks like it is in a death spiral.
Really it’s a similar hubris and sense of entitlement to that which was the undoing of Johnson.
She could have arrived in office recognising that she didn’t have an electoral mandate and had only thin support from her colleagues, and that her party was already unpopular, and so been gracious to those who didn’t support her, assembled a cabinet of all the talents (and factions), and made efforts to consult and involve her colleagues before departing from the previous government’s agenda (which largely reflected the manifesto). If she had new ideas that she wanted to try, like the different approach to tax, she should have taken the time to lay the political ground with colleagues and get her officials on board.
Instead she arrived with a “hey, I’m the new world king!” attitude and did the precise opposite of everything set out above. Now, too late I am sure, perhaps she is realising that there is a little more to politics than rewarding your friends and dishing out instructions.
The mystery is how someone so clearly abysmal at the top job got to where she is. She went through various cabinet posts and gave the impression of being a team player and a competent operator. But it is like she got to the top and, as you say, had no idea about how to do the job and just got drunk on the illusion of power.
If she was an incompetent CEO she would be forced out. The question for the tories is if they are going to let her ruin their party.
Foreign Secretary may be a great office of state but it's hardly difficult. What tough decisions do you have to make?
Yes. Basically you just have to agree with whatever the USA is saying/doing.
As has been noted by others, the increase in gilt yields will in the most part dramatically improve the solvency of DB pensions by reducing their liabilities faster than their assets. There is a potential liquidity issue in the short term as they unwind margined repos of Uk govt bonds, which has in turn been feeding a doom cycle in that asset class.
The reason why “no one is buying long dates gilts apart from the BoE” is simple, why would you until you are certain that the deleveraging within the funds has completed, especially when the BoE Governor is giving such jumpy mixed signals on his intent? Once this short phase is over, gilts are beginning to look a pretty attractive store of wealth if you ask me.
If the fund needed to meet a DB pension commitment has fallen due to the rise in gilt yields, does that mean the 25pc tax free bit has also fallen in proportion? Even if the regular pension paid out stays the same?
Entitlements haven’t changed.
This is all accounting
The CETV will have fallen because it takes less capital to fund the promises made. The trade off between taking the lump sum or an enhanced pension will also have changed to some degree because the lump sum could buy more pension. Whether that is reflected in the offer might depend on the scheme. Most importantly for the pensioner in the long run the fund will be better funded meaning that there is not pressure on the trustees to use their discretion to reduce entitlements at the margins.
I dont agree that Truss is indecisive. She decided on a cabinet, an energy bill support policy, an economic direction. I just struggle to identify any decision that looks particularly good. And several that seem shockingly bad. So I'd give her a pass on decisiveness. But an epic fail on competence and likeability. And she is weak so some of her bad decisions have already been reversed.
She is indecisive and weak because she made so many stupid decisions and has been forced to reverse them. Remember that every single one of these was billed as essential, that they had no other choice. That anyone opposed was part of the "anti-growth coalition" or even dancing to Putin's tune.
The latest one - she is imposing a windfall tax on the excess profits being made by energy companies. All the way through her leadership she said "no handouts, no windfall tax". Then announced handouts *to the energy companies* paid for by consumers. Now is taking off them any profits over a level they are setting - a windfall tax.
She is in office, but not in power.
I know that you love to bash the government. But the changes on renewable energy pricing genuinely are *not* a windfall tax.
That’s an unusually high tax rate on profits. This is a new price negotiation.” Which shifts them to a fixed return on capital model as with other utilities.
Old system - government pays an unlimited amount to energy companies - a windfall New system - government caps payment thus cutting their profits - a windfall tax
Call it what you want, its another massive u-turn and everyone is pointing and laughing. They will try and dance on a pinhead and call it something else. And the laughter will just get louder and the poll ratings worse.
Exclusive: I had a chat with the former chair of the Conservative Party, @SayeedaWarsi, who said PM Liz Truss "had to just carry on with the 2019 manifesto – or go to the electorate”.
She “doesn’t have the mandate to do some of the things she’s doing”.
Gordon Brown carried on for 3 years without an election, and he wasn't even elected by members or MPs. He didn't stick to the same policies that Tony Blair would have pursued.
Not a great decision by Brown was it?
The problem with these type of questions for Truss is that they're all irreversible.
Exclusive: I had a chat with the former chair of the Conservative Party, @SayeedaWarsi, who said PM Liz Truss "had to just carry on with the 2019 manifesto – or go to the electorate”.
She “doesn’t have the mandate to do some of the things she’s doing”.
Gordon Brown carried on for 3 years without an election, and he wasn't even elected by members or MPs. He didn't stick to the same policies that Tony Blair would have pursued.
Despise Brown, but I disagree with your point. Had Blair still been in charge at the time of the GFC he would have pursued identical policies for the very good reason that Brown would have made most of them anyway as Chancellor. And while Darling was undoubtedly more important than Brown let on, the essential outline came from Brown's personal team, the likes of Vadera.
In foreign affairs it's quite hard to think of any meaningful changes Brown made as well. While in say, education, BSF was an extension of Brown's own obsession with PFI.
It suited Brown to pretend he was doing lots of radical new stuff and Blair to say that Labour lost because they abandoned his ethos. But the truth is rather the reverse. Brown had nothing new left to do, and after 13 years, financial implosion and rather too many dodgy dossiers Blairism was discredited.
Yes, and overlapping with the points I made above, while the clown may be chuckling over his breakfast at how good he thinks he might now look in retrospect, the truth is that his poisonous legacy is significantly responsible for the demise of Truss, alongside her ability to recognise it for what it is.
I dont agree that Truss is indecisive. She decided on a cabinet, an energy bill support policy, an economic direction. I just struggle to identify any decision that looks particularly good. And several that seem shockingly bad. So I'd give her a pass on decisiveness. But an epic fail on competence and likeability. And she is weak so some of her bad decisions have already been reversed.
She is indecisive and weak because she made so many stupid decisions and has been forced to reverse them. Remember that every single one of these was billed as essential, that they had no other choice. That anyone opposed was part of the "anti-growth coalition" or even dancing to Putin's tune.
The latest one - she is imposing a windfall tax on the excess profits being made by energy companies. All the way through her leadership she said "no handouts, no windfall tax". Then announced handouts *to the energy companies* paid for by consumers. Now is taking off them any profits over a level they are setting - a windfall tax.
She is in office, but not in power.
I know that you love to bash the government. But the changes on renewable energy pricing genuinely are *not* a windfall tax.
That’s an unusually high tax rate on profits. This is a new price negotiation.” Which shifts them to a fixed return on capital model as with other utilities.
Old system - government pays an unlimited amount to energy companies - a windfall New system - government caps payment thus cutting their profits - a windfall tax
Call it what you want, its another massive u-turn and everyone is pointing and laughing. They will try and dance on a pinhead and call it something else. And the laughter will just get louder and the poll ratings worse.
Its not a u-turn, she said straight away in her original announcement that she wanted to change the pricing system on that.
If you insist on calling black white, by calling something that's not a windfall tax a windfall tax, then yes, sure, she's going for a windfall tax.
But a price cap and a windfall tax are not the same thing. Never have been.
Exclusive: I had a chat with the former chair of the Conservative Party, @SayeedaWarsi, who said PM Liz Truss "had to just carry on with the 2019 manifesto – or go to the electorate”.
She “doesn’t have the mandate to do some of the things she’s doing”.
Gordon Brown carried on for 3 years without an election, and he wasn't even elected by members or MPs. He didn't stick to the same policies that Tony Blair would have pursued.
Despise Brown, but I disagree with your point. Had Blair still been in charge at the time of the GFC he would have pursued identical policies for the very good reason that Brown would have made most of them anyway as Chancellor. And while Darling was undoubtedly more important than Brown let on, the essential outline came from Brown's personal team, the likes of Vadera.
In foreign affairs it's quite hard to think of any meaningful changes Brown made as well. While in say, education, BSF was an extension of Brown's own obsession with PFI.
It suited Brown to pretend he was doing lots of radical new stuff and Blair to say that Labour lost because they abandoned his ethos. But the truth is rather the reverse. Brown had nothing new left to do, and after 13 years, financial implosion and rather too many dodgy dossiers Blairism was discredited.
Yes, and overlapping with the points I made above, while the clown may be chuckling over his breakfast at how good he thinks he might now look in retrospect, the truth is that his poisonous legacy is significantly responsible for the demise of Truss, alongside her ability to recognise it for what it is.
There are only two types of Chancellor politician - those who fail and those who get out just in time.
Brown was right about that, but failed to apply the logic to himself. Had he retired in 2005 he would have been remembered as one of the greatest and most influential Chancellors of all time. Becoming PM trashed his legacy.
Johnson, however, yet again, has got out just before his politics blew up around him and will be able to pretend for the rest of his life he was a great PM brought down by a bottle of wine.
The situation for Truss looks utterly hopeless. She has lost the public and commands no confidence amongst her MPs, because of a series of misjudgements and unforced errors. This is a political party that looks like it is in a death spiral.
Really it’s a similar hubris and sense of entitlement to that which was the undoing of Johnson.
She could have arrived in office recognising that she didn’t have an electoral mandate and had only thin support from her colleagues, and that her party was already unpopular, and so been gracious to those who didn’t support her, assembled a cabinet of all the talents (and factions), and made efforts to consult and involve her colleagues before departing from the previous government’s agenda (which largely reflected the manifesto). If she had new ideas that she wanted to try, like the different approach to tax, she should have taken the time to lay the political ground with colleagues and get her officials on board.
Instead she arrived with a “hey, I’m the new world king!” attitude and did the precise opposite of everything set out above. Now, too late I am sure, perhaps she is realising that there is a little more to politics than rewarding your friends and dishing out instructions.
The mystery is how someone so clearly abysmal at the top job got to where she is. She went through various cabinet posts and gave the impression of being a team player and a competent operator. But it is like she got to the top and, as you say, had no idea about how to do the job and just got drunk on the illusion of power.
If she was an incompetent CEO she would be forced out. The question for the tories is if they are going to let her ruin their party.
Foreign Secretary may be a great office of state but it's hardly difficult. What tough decisions do you have to make?
To return from holiday when Kabul falls.
But yes, ever since Blair the PM edges you out as soon as it gets interesting, had to think about who his FS actually was - even Hoon at armed forces got more airtime.
Thinking back, she did get humiliated by Lavrov at one point. But I suppose she did just mostly use the role as a platform for slightly cringeworthy instagram shoots.
That story is even more damaging than it looks. The point being not that she was stupid enough to fall into the trap, but that she was so stupid that Lavrov knew to set it in the first place.
The only redeeming point is that Lavrov and co aren't looking so clever now.
Sorry but in an interview, aren't you asked to explain things? What should he have done when asked a question, defer to her superior knowledge of the answer?
I dont agree that Truss is indecisive. She decided on a cabinet, an energy bill support policy, an economic direction. I just struggle to identify any decision that looks particularly good. And several that seem shockingly bad. So I'd give her a pass on decisiveness. But an epic fail on competence and likeability. And she is weak so some of her bad decisions have already been reversed.
She is indecisive and weak because she made so many stupid decisions and has been forced to reverse them. Remember that every single one of these was billed as essential, that they had no other choice. That anyone opposed was part of the "anti-growth coalition" or even dancing to Putin's tune.
The latest one - she is imposing a windfall tax on the excess profits being made by energy companies. All the way through her leadership she said "no handouts, no windfall tax". Then announced handouts *to the energy companies* paid for by consumers. Now is taking off them any profits over a level they are setting - a windfall tax.
She is in office, but not in power.
I know that you love to bash the government. But the changes on renewable energy pricing genuinely are *not* a windfall tax.
That’s an unusually high tax rate on profits. This is a new price negotiation.” Which shifts them to a fixed return on capital model as with other utilities.
Old system - government pays an unlimited amount to energy companies - a windfall New system - government caps payment thus cutting their profits - a windfall tax
Call it what you want, its another massive u-turn and everyone is pointing and laughing. They will try and dance on a pinhead and call it something else. And the laughter will just get louder and the poll ratings worse.
Its not a u-turn, she said straight away in her original announcement that she wanted to change the pricing system on that.
If you insist on calling black white, by calling something that's not a windfall tax a windfall tax, then yes, sure, she's going for a windfall tax.
But a price cap and a windfall tax are not the same thing. Never have been.
Enjoy the pinhead dance. This will reduce the profits they would have been making off the taxpayer. Its not technically a windfall tax as we're reducing the money we were going to pay them, but it has the same effect of reducing their excess profits.
Feel free to patronise the British public all you want. It only adds to the scale of the Tory ELE. Truss was wrong on this. In every way. That she stridently and sneeringly told the world that she was right and everyone else wrong - especially Rishi - it just makes it funnier...
I may have come up with a way for Kamikwaze to balance the books.
Rather than cut public sector spending by 10%, which Tory MPs won't vote for, his forecasts should instead acknowledge that we wont be able to recruit the public sector workers we need (save 5%), and that the workers who we do have don't have to be paid whilst on strike to save the other 5%.
That doesn’t come to more than a couple of billion…
Public sector spending isn’t actual spent on workers in most places it’s spent on the firms the work is outsourced to
The situation for Truss looks utterly hopeless. She has lost the public and commands no confidence amongst her MPs, because of a series of misjudgements and unforced errors. This is a political party that looks like it is in a death spiral.
Really it’s a similar hubris and sense of entitlement to that which was the undoing of Johnson.
She could have arrived in office recognising that she didn’t have an electoral mandate and had only thin support from her colleagues, and that her party was already unpopular, and so been gracious to those who didn’t support her, assembled a cabinet of all the talents (and factions), and made efforts to consult and involve her colleagues before departing from the previous government’s agenda (which largely reflected the manifesto). If she had new ideas that she wanted to try, like the different approach to tax, she should have taken the time to lay the political ground with colleagues and get her officials on board.
Instead she arrived with a “hey, I’m the new world king!” attitude and did the precise opposite of everything set out above. Now, too late I am sure, perhaps she is realising that there is a little more to politics than rewarding your friends and dishing out instructions.
The mystery is how someone so clearly abysmal at the top job got to where she is. She went through various cabinet posts and gave the impression of being a team player and a competent operator. But it is like she got to the top and, as you say, had no idea about how to do the job and just got drunk on the illusion of power.
If she was an incompetent CEO she would be forced out. The question for the tories is if they are going to let her ruin their party.
Foreign Secretary may be a great office of state but it's hardly difficult. What tough decisions do you have to make?
To return from holiday when Kabul falls.
But yes, ever since Blair the PM edges you out as soon as it gets interesting, had to think about who his FS actually was - even Hoon at armed forces got more airtime.
Thinking back, she did get humiliated by Lavrov at one point. But I suppose she did just mostly use the role as a platform for slightly cringeworthy instagram shoots.
That story is even more damaging than it looks. The point being not that she was stupid enough to fall into the trap, but that she was so stupid that Lavrov knew to set it in the first place.
The only redeeming point is that Lavrov and co aren't looking so clever now.
If they lose control of Belarus and are forced to demilitarise the Don basin then he will look really stupid.
Exclusive: I had a chat with the former chair of the Conservative Party, @SayeedaWarsi, who said PM Liz Truss "had to just carry on with the 2019 manifesto – or go to the electorate”.
She “doesn’t have the mandate to do some of the things she’s doing”.
Gordon Brown carried on for 3 years without an election, and he wasn't even elected by members or MPs. He didn't stick to the same policies that Tony Blair would have pursued.
Despise Brown, but I disagree with your point. Had Blair still been in charge at the time of the GFC he would have pursued identical policies for the very good reason that Brown would have made most of them anyway as Chancellor. And while Darling was undoubtedly more important than Brown let on, the essential outline came from Brown's personal team, the likes of Vadera.
In foreign affairs it's quite hard to think of any meaningful changes Brown made as well. While in say, education, BSF was an extension of Brown's own obsession with PFI.
It suited Brown to pretend he was doing lots of radical new stuff and Blair to say that Labour lost because they abandoned his ethos. But the truth is rather the reverse. Brown had nothing new left to do, and after 13 years, financial implosion and rather too many dodgy dossiers Blairism was discredited.
Yes, and overlapping with the points I made above, while the clown may be chuckling over his breakfast at how good he thinks he might now look in retrospect, the truth is that his poisonous legacy is significantly responsible for the demise of Truss, alongside her ability to recognise it for what it is.
There are only two types of Chancellor politician - those who fail and those who get out just in time.
Brown was right about that, but failed to apply the logic to himself. Had he retired in 2005 he would have been remembered as one of the greatest and most influential Chancellors of all time. Becoming PM trashed his legacy.
Johnson, however, yet again, has got out just before his politics blew up around him and will be able to pretend for the rest of his life he was a great PM brought down by a bottle of wine.
.
And having got the story he wanted straight, at least in his own head, why try to return and risk being proved wrong all along?
It’s why I still think the smart money is on Johnson not returning - and Trump also, who can surround himself with people telling him that his wonderful presidency was stolen from him. Why stand again and risk losing (again)?
Sorry but in an interview, aren't you asked to explain things? What should he have done when asked a question, defer to her superior knowledge of the answer?
The best thing Truss could do is call a general election for early next year. Assuming she loses, she will still have an honourable legacy and her brief tenure as PM will have legitimacy. At the moment she is looking like the worst PM in modern history.
I dont agree that Truss is indecisive. She decided on a cabinet, an energy bill support policy, an economic direction. I just struggle to identify any decision that looks particularly good. And several that seem shockingly bad. So I'd give her a pass on decisiveness. But an epic fail on competence and likeability. And she is weak so some of her bad decisions have already been reversed.
She is indecisive and weak because she made so many stupid decisions and has been forced to reverse them. Remember that every single one of these was billed as essential, that they had no other choice. That anyone opposed was part of the "anti-growth coalition" or even dancing to Putin's tune.
The latest one - she is imposing a windfall tax on the excess profits being made by energy companies. All the way through her leadership she said "no handouts, no windfall tax". Then announced handouts *to the energy companies* paid for by consumers. Now is taking off them any profits over a level they are setting - a windfall tax.
She is in office, but not in power.
I know that you love to bash the government. But the changes on renewable energy pricing genuinely are *not* a windfall tax.
That’s an unusually high tax rate on profits. This is a new price negotiation.” Which shifts them to a fixed return on capital model as with other utilities.
Old system - government pays an unlimited amount to energy companies - a windfall New system - government caps payment thus cutting their profits - a windfall tax
Call it what you want, its another massive u-turn and everyone is pointing and laughing. They will try and dance on a pinhead and call it something else. And the laughter will just get louder and the poll ratings worse.
Its not a u-turn, she said straight away in her original announcement that she wanted to change the pricing system on that.
If you insist on calling black white, by calling something that's not a windfall tax a windfall tax, then yes, sure, she's going for a windfall tax.
But a price cap and a windfall tax are not the same thing. Never have been.
Enjoy the pinhead dance. This will reduce the profits they would have been making off the taxpayer. Its not technically a windfall tax as we're reducing the money we were going to pay them, but it has the same effect of reducing their excess profits.
Feel free to patronise the British public all you want. It only adds to the scale of the Tory ELE. Truss was wrong on this. In every way. That she stridently and sneeringly told the world that she was right and everyone else wrong - especially Rishi - it just makes it funnier...
Great, I'm glad we're agreed its not a windfall tax, now we can move on.
For what its worth, I think a price cap is a very, very bad idea, it discourages investment.
I actually think a windfall tax, with an investment allowance attached to it, would be much better than a price cap.
So this isn't a u-turn, its far worse than one in my eyes.
I dont agree that Truss is indecisive. She decided on a cabinet, an energy bill support policy, an economic direction. I just struggle to identify any decision that looks particularly good. And several that seem shockingly bad. So I'd give her a pass on decisiveness. But an epic fail on competence and likeability. And she is weak so some of her bad decisions have already been reversed.
She is indecisive and weak because she made so many stupid decisions and has been forced to reverse them. Remember that every single one of these was billed as essential, that they had no other choice. That anyone opposed was part of the "anti-growth coalition" or even dancing to Putin's tune.
The latest one - she is imposing a windfall tax on the excess profits being made by energy companies. All the way through her leadership she said "no handouts, no windfall tax". Then announced handouts *to the energy companies* paid for by consumers. Now is taking off them any profits over a level they are setting - a windfall tax.
She is in office, but not in power.
I know that you love to bash the government. But the changes on renewable energy pricing genuinely are *not* a windfall tax.
That’s an unusually high tax rate on profits. This is a new price negotiation.” Which shifts them to a fixed return on capital model as with other utilities.
Old system - government pays an unlimited amount to energy companies - a windfall New system - government caps payment thus cutting their profits - a windfall tax
Call it what you want, its another massive u-turn and everyone is pointing and laughing. They will try and dance on a pinhead and call it something else. And the laughter will just get louder and the poll ratings worse.
Its not a u-turn, she said straight away in her original announcement that she wanted to change the pricing system on that.
If you insist on calling black white, by calling something that's not a windfall tax a windfall tax, then yes, sure, she's going for a windfall tax.
But a price cap and a windfall tax are not the same thing. Never have been.
Enjoy the pinhead dance. This will reduce the profits they would have been making off the taxpayer. Its not technically a windfall tax as we're reducing the money we were going to pay them, but it has the same effect of reducing their excess profits.
Feel free to patronise the British public all you want. It only adds to the scale of the Tory ELE. Truss was wrong on this. In every way. That she stridently and sneeringly told the world that she was right and everyone else wrong - especially Rishi - it just makes it funnier...
Great, I'm glad we're agreed its not a windfall tax, now we can move on.
For what its worth, I think a price cap is a very, very bad idea, it discourages investment.
I actually think a windfall tax, with an investment allowance attached to it, would be much better than a price cap.
So this isn't a u-turn, its far worse than one in my eyes.
Liz Truss’s flagship trade deal with India is on the “verge of collapse” after Indian ministers reacted furiously to comments by Suella Braverman criticising migrants from their country.
Last week the home secretary said she had “concerns” about the trade deal because it would increase migration to the UK and Indians represented the largest group of visa overstayers.
She told The Spectator magazine: “I do have some reservations. Look at migration in this country — the largest group of people who overstay are Indian migrants.”
The comments sparked a furious reaction from Indian government ministers and officials, sources from both governments have told The Times.
A source in Delhi said they were “shocked and disappointed” by the “disrespectful” remarks.
Looking at the detail in that story, it seems that my kids lost their rights to live, work and study in 30 European countries, so that Indians under the age of 35 can have the right to live, work and study in the UK.
Just what the Red Wall voted for.
The simple truth is that the UK needs a trade deal with India a whole lot more than India needs a trade deal with the UK. It’s a familiar story.
It makes rejoining the single market inevitable to some of my depressed Brexiteer friends.
Three cheers for Liz.
Hip hip hooray.
The UK economy goes to Hell in a handcart or we rejoin the EU?
I may have come up with a way for Kamikwaze to balance the books.
Rather than cut public sector spending by 10%, which Tory MPs won't vote for, his forecasts should instead acknowledge that we wont be able to recruit the public sector workers we need (save 5%), and that the workers who we do have don't have to be paid whilst on strike to save the other 5%.
News today that half my senior colleagues are planning to retire imminently. I am working on the timing myself...
I may have come up with a way for Kamikwaze to balance the books.
Rather than cut public sector spending by 10%, which Tory MPs won't vote for, his forecasts should instead acknowledge that we wont be able to recruit the public sector workers we need (save 5%), and that the workers who we do have don't have to be paid whilst on strike to save the other 5%.
That doesn’t come to more than a couple of billion…
Public sector spending isn’t actual spent on workers in most places it’s spent on the firms the work is outsourced to
Tongue was firmly in cheek as not employing necessary workers and demotivating the ones you keep in essential services leads to higher costs, especially in the medium to long run.
The fiscal right have their heads completely buried in the sand over a simple fact that to maintain public service levels is going to cost more each year due to our demographics. In terms of public sector service delivery, the equivalent of a small cut in the 1980s today is a small increase. Standing still requires a reasonable increase.
The situation for Truss looks utterly hopeless. She has lost the public and commands no confidence amongst her MPs, because of a series of misjudgements and unforced errors. This is a political party that looks like it is in a death spiral.
Really it’s a similar hubris and sense of entitlement to that which was the undoing of Johnson.
She could have arrived in office recognising that she didn’t have an electoral mandate and had only thin support from her colleagues, and that her party was already unpopular, and so been gracious to those who didn’t support her, assembled a cabinet of all the talents (and factions), and made efforts to consult and involve her colleagues before departing from the previous government’s agenda (which largely reflected the manifesto). If she had new ideas that she wanted to try, like the different approach to tax, she should have taken the time to lay the political ground with colleagues and get her officials on board.
Instead she arrived with a “hey, I’m the new world king!” attitude and did the precise opposite of everything set out above. Now, too late I am sure, perhaps she is realising that there is a little more to politics than rewarding your friends and dishing out instructions.
The mystery is how someone so clearly abysmal at the top job got to where she is. She went through various cabinet posts and gave the impression of being a team player and a competent operator. But it is like she got to the top and, as you say, had no idea about how to do the job and just got drunk on the illusion of power.
If she was an incompetent CEO she would be forced out. The question for the tories is if they are going to let her ruin their party.
Foreign Secretary may be a great office of state but it's hardly difficult. What tough decisions do you have to make?
To return from holiday when Kabul falls.
But yes, ever since Blair the PM edges you out as soon as it gets interesting, had to think about who his FS actually was - even Hoon at armed forces got more airtime.
Thinking back, she did get humiliated by Lavrov at one point. But I suppose she did just mostly use the role as a platform for slightly cringeworthy instagram shoots.
That story is even more damaging than it looks. The point being not that she was stupid enough to fall into the trap, but that she was so stupid that Lavrov knew to set it in the first place.
The only redeeming point is that Lavrov and co aren't looking so clever now.
If they lose control of Belarus and are forced to demilitarise the Don basin then he will look really stupid.
These are all old men in their 70s, there are no credible successors. So their regime is in deep trouble however you look at the situation.
Sorry but in an interview, aren't you asked to explain things? What should he have done when asked a question, defer to her superior knowledge of the answer?
Most of it seems to be explaining why her questions are wrong.
The best thing Truss could do is call a general election for early next year. Assuming she loses, she will still have an honourable legacy and her brief tenure as PM will have legitimacy. At the moment she is looking like the worst PM in modern history.
It's like the 1970's joke about pass the parcel in a Belfast pub. She is the one left holding the parcel when the music stops. It's more than a little unfair but them's the breaks as she apparently likes to say.
The situation for Truss looks utterly hopeless. She has lost the public and commands no confidence amongst her MPs, because of a series of misjudgements and unforced errors. This is a political party that looks like it is in a death spiral.
Really it’s a similar hubris and sense of entitlement to that which was the undoing of Johnson.
She could have arrived in office recognising that she didn’t have an electoral mandate and had only thin support from her colleagues, and that her party was already unpopular, and so been gracious to those who didn’t support her, assembled a cabinet of all the talents (and factions), and made efforts to consult and involve her colleagues before departing from the previous government’s agenda (which largely reflected the manifesto). If she had new ideas that she wanted to try, like the different approach to tax, she should have taken the time to lay the political ground with colleagues and get her officials on board.
Instead she arrived with a “hey, I’m the new world king!” attitude and did the precise opposite of everything set out above. Now, too late I am sure, perhaps she is realising that there is a little more to politics than rewarding your friends and dishing out instructions.
The mystery is how someone so clearly abysmal at the top job got to where she is. She went through various cabinet posts and gave the impression of being a team player and a competent operator. But it is like she got to the top and, as you say, had no idea about how to do the job and just got drunk on the illusion of power.
If she was an incompetent CEO she would be forced out. The question for the tories is if they are going to let her ruin their party.
Foreign Secretary may be a great office of state but it's hardly difficult. What tough decisions do you have to make?
To return from holiday when Kabul falls.
But yes, ever since Blair the PM edges you out as soon as it gets interesting, had to think about who his FS actually was - even Hoon at armed forces got more airtime.
Thinking back, she did get humiliated by Lavrov at one point. But I suppose she did just mostly use the role as a platform for slightly cringeworthy instagram shoots.
That story is even more damaging than it looks. The point being not that she was stupid enough to fall into the trap, but that she was so stupid that Lavrov knew to set it in the first place.
The only redeeming point is that Lavrov and co aren't looking so clever now.
If they lose control of Belarus and are forced to demilitarise the Don basin then he will look really stupid.
These are all old men in their 70s, there are no credible successors. So their regime is in deep trouble however you look at the situation.
Ah, the Late- and post-Brezhnev era.
What is the difference between Tsarism and Communism?
Under Tsarism power goes from father to son, under Communism from grandfather to grandfather.
Liz Truss’s flagship trade deal with India is on the “verge of collapse” after Indian ministers reacted furiously to comments by Suella Braverman criticising migrants from their country.
Last week the home secretary said she had “concerns” about the trade deal because it would increase migration to the UK and Indians represented the largest group of visa overstayers.
She told The Spectator magazine: “I do have some reservations. Look at migration in this country — the largest group of people who overstay are Indian migrants.”
The comments sparked a furious reaction from Indian government ministers and officials, sources from both governments have told The Times.
A source in Delhi said they were “shocked and disappointed” by the “disrespectful” remarks.
Looking at the detail in that story, it seems that my kids lost their rights to live, work and study in 30 European countries, so that Indians under the age of 35 can have the right to live, work and study in the UK.
Just what the Red Wall voted for.
The simple truth is that the UK needs a trade deal with India a whole lot more than India needs a trade deal with the UK. It’s a familiar story.
It makes rejoining the single market inevitable to some of my depressed Brexiteer friends.
Three cheers for Liz.
Hip hip hooray.
The UK economy goes to Hell in a handcart or we rejoin the EU?
80,000 Tory members say Hell in a handcart.....
Well they are delivering well on the second part there.
I dont agree that Truss is indecisive. She decided on a cabinet, an energy bill support policy, an economic direction. I just struggle to identify any decision that looks particularly good. And several that seem shockingly bad. So I'd give her a pass on decisiveness. But an epic fail on competence and likeability. And she is weak so some of her bad decisions have already been reversed.
She is indecisive and weak because she made so many stupid decisions and has been forced to reverse them. Remember that every single one of these was billed as essential, that they had no other choice. That anyone opposed was part of the "anti-growth coalition" or even dancing to Putin's tune.
The latest one - she is imposing a windfall tax on the excess profits being made by energy companies. All the way through her leadership she said "no handouts, no windfall tax". Then announced handouts *to the energy companies* paid for by consumers. Now is taking off them any profits over a level they are setting - a windfall tax.
She is in office, but not in power.
I know that you love to bash the government. But the changes on renewable energy pricing genuinely are *not* a windfall tax.
That’s an unusually high tax rate on profits. This is a new price negotiation.” Which shifts them to a fixed return on capital model as with other utilities.
Old system - government pays an unlimited amount to energy companies - a windfall New system - government caps payment thus cutting their profits - a windfall tax
Call it what you want, its another massive u-turn and everyone is pointing and laughing. They will try and dance on a pinhead and call it something else. And the laughter will just get louder and the poll ratings worse.
Its not a u-turn, she said straight away in her original announcement that she wanted to change the pricing system on that.
If you insist on calling black white, by calling something that's not a windfall tax a windfall tax, then yes, sure, she's going for a windfall tax.
But a price cap and a windfall tax are not the same thing. Never have been.
Enjoy the pinhead dance. This will reduce the profits they would have been making off the taxpayer. Its not technically a windfall tax as we're reducing the money we were going to pay them, but it has the same effect of reducing their excess profits.
Feel free to patronise the British public all you want. It only adds to the scale of the Tory ELE. Truss was wrong on this. In every way. That she stridently and sneeringly told the world that she was right and everyone else wrong - especially Rishi - it just makes it funnier...
Great, I'm glad we're agreed its not a windfall tax, now we can move on.
For what its worth, I think a price cap is a very, very bad idea, it discourages investment.
I actually think a windfall tax, with an investment allowance attached to it, would be much better than a price cap.
So this isn't a u-turn, its far worse than one in my eyes.
How's that for pin head dancing?
In terms of their summer positions on the subject, how would you rank Starmer, Truss and Sunak in terms of being closest to advocating the solutions that Truss is now saying are the only tenable options?
Not the small print, but who was broadly right and wrong about direction?
It may be true that many of the problems the country faces are not Truss's fault.
Nevertheless, she took on the job of trying to fix them and is not doing so - and her lack of preparation, shown by her shock at the reaction to her plans and inability to respond, shows she lacks insight on how to fix things. No good claiming the intent was right, the reality has not worked.
Exclusive: I had a chat with the former chair of the Conservative Party, @SayeedaWarsi, who said PM Liz Truss "had to just carry on with the 2019 manifesto – or go to the electorate”.
She “doesn’t have the mandate to do some of the things she’s doing”.
Gordon Brown carried on for 3 years without an election, and he wasn't even elected by members or MPs. He didn't stick to the same policies that Tony Blair would have pursued.
Which Labour manifesto commitments did he breach? And Brown was chosen by Labour MPs
As has been noted by others, the increase in gilt yields will in the most part dramatically improve the solvency of DB pensions by reducing their liabilities faster than their assets. There is a potential liquidity issue in the short term as they unwind margined repos of Uk govt bonds, which has in turn been feeding a doom cycle in that asset class.
The reason why “no one is buying long dates gilts apart from the BoE” is simple, why would you until you are certain that the deleveraging within the funds has completed, especially when the BoE Governor is giving such jumpy mixed signals on his intent? Once this short phase is over, gilts are beginning to look a pretty attractive store of wealth if you ask me.
If the fund needed to meet a DB pension commitment has fallen due to the rise in gilt yields, does that mean the 25pc tax free bit has also fallen in proportion? Even if the regular pension paid out stays the same?
Entitlements haven’t changed.
This is all accounting
So if you had a plan that last year would have paid a 4k a year pension and you could have taken say a 50k lump sum and 3k a year instead, that would still be the case today? Or if the gilts(?) needed to pay the 4k pension now only cost 160k rather than 200k the lump sum offered would be 40k not 50k? If so that's not just accounting.
I dont agree that Truss is indecisive. She decided on a cabinet, an energy bill support policy, an economic direction. I just struggle to identify any decision that looks particularly good. And several that seem shockingly bad. So I'd give her a pass on decisiveness. But an epic fail on competence and likeability. And she is weak so some of her bad decisions have already been reversed.
She is indecisive and weak because she made so many stupid decisions and has been forced to reverse them. Remember that every single one of these was billed as essential, that they had no other choice. That anyone opposed was part of the "anti-growth coalition" or even dancing to Putin's tune.
The latest one - she is imposing a windfall tax on the excess profits being made by energy companies. All the way through her leadership she said "no handouts, no windfall tax". Then announced handouts *to the energy companies* paid for by consumers. Now is taking off them any profits over a level they are setting - a windfall tax.
She is in office, but not in power.
That is not indecisive, it is being too decisive. Making up her mind too quickly without infeorming herself f the consequences of those decisioons.
Neither are the U-turns an indication of indecisiveness, just an indication of having driven down a dead end.
Its indecisive - if "I am right, you are all wrong" and "there is no alternative" as they claim then own it. Stay the course. Don't shat your pants every 5 minutes and say "well ok maybe you are right, I'll change tack. But I'll keep talking up the old tack so that people understand why I am right"
She has decided to be indecisive!
How does the rest go: 'resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, all powerful for impotence.'
‘stiff for impotence’ is the phrase you might have been searching for…?
A war against Ukraine would be "the most terrible crime you can think of"
Openly advocating genocide of Ukranians seems to be par for the course now:
Here's "DPR" separatist and terrorist Pavel Gubarev stating he will kill millions of Ukrainians possessed by demons, and even exterminate them all if need to be.
Hopefully the MPs wont be able to oust her and we can have a majority Lab government. Bring it on and let's start rebuilding from the rubble.
Both Labour and the Tories have demonstrated in the past few years that allowing extremist party members to pick their leaders is an exceptionally sillyidea.
As has been noted by others, the increase in gilt yields will in the most part dramatically improve the solvency of DB pensions by reducing their liabilities faster than their assets. There is a potential liquidity issue in the short term as they unwind margined repos of Uk govt bonds, which has in turn been feeding a doom cycle in that asset class.
The reason why “no one is buying long dates gilts apart from the BoE” is simple, why would you until you are certain that the deleveraging within the funds has completed, especially when the BoE Governor is giving such jumpy mixed signals on his intent? Once this short phase is over, gilts are beginning to look a pretty attractive store of wealth if you ask me.
If the fund needed to meet a DB pension commitment has fallen due to the rise in gilt yields, does that mean the 25pc tax free bit has also fallen in proportion? Even if the regular pension paid out stays the same?
Entitlements haven’t changed.
This is all accounting
So if you had a plan that last year would have paid a 4k a year pension and you could have taken say a 50k lump sum and 3k a year instead, that would still be the case today? Or if the gilts(?) needed to pay the 4k pension now only cost 160k rather than 200k the lump sum offered would be 40k not 50k? If so that's not just accounting.
If you have a DB scheme, what you get isn’t changed (so long as the whole scheme remains afloat). If you have a DC scheme you will be hoping markets go up again before you retire….
I dont agree that Truss is indecisive. She decided on a cabinet, an energy bill support policy, an economic direction. I just struggle to identify any decision that looks particularly good. And several that seem shockingly bad. So I'd give her a pass on decisiveness. But an epic fail on competence and likeability. And she is weak so some of her bad decisions have already been reversed.
She is indecisive and weak because she made so many stupid decisions and has been forced to reverse them. Remember that every single one of these was billed as essential, that they had no other choice. That anyone opposed was part of the "anti-growth coalition" or even dancing to Putin's tune.
The latest one - she is imposing a windfall tax on the excess profits being made by energy companies. All the way through her leadership she said "no handouts, no windfall tax". Then announced handouts *to the energy companies* paid for by consumers. Now is taking off them any profits over a level they are setting - a windfall tax.
She is in office, but not in power.
That is not indecisive, it is being too decisive. Making up her mind too quickly without infeorming herself f the consequences of those decisioons.
Neither are the U-turns an indication of indecisiveness, just an indication of having driven down a dead end.
Its indecisive - if "I am right, you are all wrong" and "there is no alternative" as they claim then own it. Stay the course. Don't shat your pants every 5 minutes and say "well ok maybe you are right, I'll change tack. But I'll keep talking up the old tack so that people understand why I am right"
She has decided to be indecisive!
How does the rest go: 'resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, all powerful for impotence.'
‘stiff for impotence’ is the phrase you might have been searching for…?
A large, possibly complete realignment of US policy towards Saudi Arabia seems to be underway.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/10/dems-rage-at-saudis-over-oil-cut-vow-to-block-weapons-sales-00061123 ...“From unanswered questions about 9/11, the brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and the exporting of extremism, to dubious jailing of peaceful dissidents and conspiring with Vladimir Putin to punish the U.S. with higher oil prices, the Saudi royal family has never been a trustworthy ally of our nation,” Durbin said. “It’s time for our foreign policy to imagine a world without this alliance with these royal backstabbers.”
And Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has already said several legislative responses are under consideration, including a bill taking aim at OPEC for price-fixing and antitrust violations. The legislation, referred to as NOPEC, cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year in a 17-4 vote.
“What Saudi Arabia did to help Putin continue to wage his despicable, vicious war against Ukraine will long be remembered by Americans,” Schumer said in a statement last week. “We are looking at all the legislative tools to best deal with this appalling and deeply cynical action, including the NOPEC bill.”
Lawmakers are also calling for a drawdown of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia as a consequence of the oil production cut...
If Truss backs Rees-Mogg, that may signal to market a Govt rift with Bank of England, especially given Jon Cunliffe letter stating clearly minibudget the cause. If she doesn't back Rees-Mogg, sends signal ministers are breaching collective Cabinet responsibility + freelancing. https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1580102501197832192
The best thing Truss could do is call a general election for early next year. Assuming she loses, she will still have an honourable legacy and her brief tenure as PM will have legitimacy. At the moment she is looking like the worst PM in modern history.
And worse there may be yet. The worst is not So long as we can say 'This is the worst.'
Tory MPs can't just sit back and wallow in their impotence. The warnings signs were there when they let it be known they would object to the 45p tax change. A trifling measure when you consider the bank's intervention in the pension market. They should have been clear that there was no way the entire package was passing after the market panic.
Labour hasn't exactly helped itself by saying that all we need is a windfall tax on energy companies and to reverse the 45p change. Are they focused on inflation or not?
If you want to help with the situation in Ukraine I recommend again what this guy is doing. It is an ex army guy, he has a network in Ukraine, and delivers basic humanitarian aid (instant meals, sleeping bags etc) to areas affected by the war, just loads up his truck and drives there, mostly funded by business donations but he also takes some occasional donations on a just giving page (the gofundme page was closed down due to concerns he was 'supporting one side in an armed conflict')
A large, possibly complete realignment of US policy towards Saudi Arabia seems to be underway.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/10/dems-rage-at-saudis-over-oil-cut-vow-to-block-weapons-sales-00061123 ...“From unanswered questions about 9/11, the brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and the exporting of extremism, to dubious jailing of peaceful dissidents and conspiring with Vladimir Putin to punish the U.S. with higher oil prices, the Saudi royal family has never been a trustworthy ally of our nation,” Durbin said. “It’s time for our foreign policy to imagine a world without this alliance with these royal backstabbers.”
And Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has already said several legislative responses are under consideration, including a bill taking aim at OPEC for price-fixing and antitrust violations. The legislation, referred to as NOPEC, cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year in a 17-4 vote.
“What Saudi Arabia did to help Putin continue to wage his despicable, vicious war against Ukraine will long be remembered by Americans,” Schumer said in a statement last week. “We are looking at all the legislative tools to best deal with this appalling and deeply cynical action, including the NOPEC bill.”
Lawmakers are also calling for a drawdown of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia as a consequence of the oil production cut...
Good for them, though I suspect it won’t be long until there is a reversal
A large, possibly complete realignment of US policy towards Saudi Arabia seems to be underway.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/10/dems-rage-at-saudis-over-oil-cut-vow-to-block-weapons-sales-00061123 ...“From unanswered questions about 9/11, the brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and the exporting of extremism, to dubious jailing of peaceful dissidents and conspiring with Vladimir Putin to punish the U.S. with higher oil prices, the Saudi royal family has never been a trustworthy ally of our nation,” Durbin said. “It’s time for our foreign policy to imagine a world without this alliance with these royal backstabbers.”
And Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has already said several legislative responses are under consideration, including a bill taking aim at OPEC for price-fixing and antitrust violations. The legislation, referred to as NOPEC, cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year in a 17-4 vote.
“What Saudi Arabia did to help Putin continue to wage his despicable, vicious war against Ukraine will long be remembered by Americans,” Schumer said in a statement last week. “We are looking at all the legislative tools to best deal with this appalling and deeply cynical action, including the NOPEC bill.”
Lawmakers are also calling for a drawdown of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia as a consequence of the oil production cut...
So complete blind eye to human rights, but put up the price of oil a couple of $ and...
Liz Truss’s flagship trade deal with India is on the “verge of collapse” after Indian ministers reacted furiously to comments by Suella Braverman criticising migrants from their country.
Last week the home secretary said she had “concerns” about the trade deal because it would increase migration to the UK and Indians represented the largest group of visa overstayers.
She told The Spectator magazine: “I do have some reservations. Look at migration in this country — the largest group of people who overstay are Indian migrants.”
The comments sparked a furious reaction from Indian government ministers and officials, sources from both governments have told The Times.
A source in Delhi said they were “shocked and disappointed” by the “disrespectful” remarks.
Looking at the detail in that story, it seems that my kids lost their rights to live, work and study in 30 European countries, so that Indians under the age of 35 can have the right to live, work and study in the UK.
Just what the Red Wall voted for.
The simple truth is that the UK needs a trade deal with India a whole lot more than India needs a trade deal with the UK. It’s a familiar story.
It makes rejoining the single market inevitable to some of my depressed Brexiteer friends.
Three cheers for Liz.
Hip hip hooray.
The UK economy goes to Hell in a handcart or we rejoin the EU?
80,000 Tory members say Hell in a handcart.....
Well they are delivering well on the second part there.
About the only thing this lot are delivering.
Joining the EEA at least looks appealing at this point to be honest
I dont agree that Truss is indecisive. She decided on a cabinet, an energy bill support policy, an economic direction. I just struggle to identify any decision that looks particularly good. And several that seem shockingly bad. So I'd give her a pass on decisiveness. But an epic fail on competence and likeability. And she is weak so some of her bad decisions have already been reversed.
She is indecisive and weak because she made so many stupid decisions and has been forced to reverse them. Remember that every single one of these was billed as essential, that they had no other choice. That anyone opposed was part of the "anti-growth coalition" or even dancing to Putin's tune.
The latest one - she is imposing a windfall tax on the excess profits being made by energy companies. All the way through her leadership she said "no handouts, no windfall tax". Then announced handouts *to the energy companies* paid for by consumers. Now is taking off them any profits over a level they are setting - a windfall tax.
She is in office, but not in power.
That is not indecisive, it is being too decisive. Making up her mind too quickly without infeorming herself f the consequences of those decisioons.
Neither are the U-turns an indication of indecisiveness, just an indication of having driven down a dead end.
Its indecisive - if "I am right, you are all wrong" and "there is no alternative" as they claim then own it. Stay the course. Don't shat your pants every 5 minutes and say "well ok maybe you are right, I'll change tack. But I'll keep talking up the old tack so that people understand why I am right"
She has decided to be indecisive!
How does the rest go: 'resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, all powerful for impotence.'
‘stiff for impotence’ is the phrase you might have been searching for…?
Thankfully, another relatively quiet night in Ukraine.
These new Iranian-made drones don’t seem to be particularly effective at getting to their targets, air defences have taken out nine of them overnight in the South of Ukraine near Kherson and Mykolaiv.
Also, FWIW, seems like the Russian troops arriving in Belarus are there to try and shore up the army and regime of Lukashenka, rather than to attempt a raid against northern Ukraine. Things seem increasingly dire in Minsk and the regime is clearly concerned to avoid the return of the demonstrations of two years ago. However, the longer the attack of Ukraine continues, the more fragile the situation becomes for the Belarusian regime. The increasing prominence of Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya and the growth of the Belarusian volunteer Kastuś Kalinoŭski Battalion of the Ukrainian army into a regiment, as a result of growing support from the Belarusians in exile, clearly worries Lukashenka, He´s right to be worried.
The best thing Truss could do is call a general election for early next year. Assuming she loses, she will still have an honourable legacy and her brief tenure as PM will have legitimacy. At the moment she is looking like the worst PM in modern history.
And worse there may be yet. The worst is not So long as we can say 'This is the worst.'
Truss is the Lady Jane Grey of neo-Tudor British politics
The best thing Truss could do is call a general election for early next year. Assuming she loses, she will still have an honourable legacy and her brief tenure as PM will have legitimacy. At the moment she is looking like the worst PM in modern history.
And worse there may be yet. The worst is not So long as we can say 'This is the worst.'
Truss is the Lady Jane Grey of neo-Tudor British politics
The best thing Truss could do is call a general election for early next year. Assuming she loses, she will still have an honourable legacy and her brief tenure as PM will have legitimacy. At the moment she is looking like the worst PM in modern history.
It's like the 1970's joke about pass the parcel in a Belfast pub. She is the one left holding the parcel when the music stops. It's more than a little unfair but them's the breaks as she apparently likes to say.
Tbf she was willing to say whatever was necessary to grab the parcel and has now torn all the wrapping off with complete disregard to the normal rules.
So... hardly surprising that it's blown up in her face.
FSB epically screwed up with the x-ray of the truck and the video of its inspection.
Attention to the pictures: there is no spare wheel on the x-ray, which can be seen on the footage from video surveillance. In addition, one axle in front of the truck magically disappeared.
If Truss backs Rees-Mogg, that may signal to market a Govt rift with Bank of England, especially given Jon Cunliffe letter stating clearly minibudget the cause. If she doesn't back Rees-Mogg, sends signal ministers are breaching collective Cabinet responsibility + freelancing. https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1580102501197832192
Wasn't Andrew Bailey chosen by the Tory government as BoE governor because of his "soundness" on Brexit?
The best thing Truss could do is call a general election for early next year. Assuming she loses, she will still have an honourable legacy and her brief tenure as PM will have legitimacy. At the moment she is looking like the worst PM in modern history.
And worse there may be yet. The worst is not So long as we can say 'This is the worst.'
Truss is the Lady Jane Grey of neo-Tudor British politics
A large, possibly complete realignment of US policy towards Saudi Arabia seems to be underway.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/10/dems-rage-at-saudis-over-oil-cut-vow-to-block-weapons-sales-00061123 ...“From unanswered questions about 9/11, the brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and the exporting of extremism, to dubious jailing of peaceful dissidents and conspiring with Vladimir Putin to punish the U.S. with higher oil prices, the Saudi royal family has never been a trustworthy ally of our nation,” Durbin said. “It’s time for our foreign policy to imagine a world without this alliance with these royal backstabbers.”
And Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has already said several legislative responses are under consideration, including a bill taking aim at OPEC for price-fixing and antitrust violations. The legislation, referred to as NOPEC, cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year in a 17-4 vote.
“What Saudi Arabia did to help Putin continue to wage his despicable, vicious war against Ukraine will long be remembered by Americans,” Schumer said in a statement last week. “We are looking at all the legislative tools to best deal with this appalling and deeply cynical action, including the NOPEC bill.”
Lawmakers are also calling for a drawdown of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia as a consequence of the oil production cut...
So complete blind eye to human rights, but put up the price of oil a couple of $ and...
Probably more as we move towards net zero Saudis strategic power wanes and their ability to both go against US interests whilst receiving its protection has been massively reduced. Geopolitical reality shift rather than morals or price imo.
I dont agree that Truss is indecisive. She decided on a cabinet, an energy bill support policy, an economic direction. I just struggle to identify any decision that looks particularly good. And several that seem shockingly bad. So I'd give her a pass on decisiveness. But an epic fail on competence and likeability. And she is weak so some of her bad decisions have already been reversed.
She is indecisive and weak because she made so many stupid decisions and has been forced to reverse them. Remember that every single one of these was billed as essential, that they had no other choice. That anyone opposed was part of the "anti-growth coalition" or even dancing to Putin's tune.
The latest one - she is imposing a windfall tax on the excess profits being made by energy companies. All the way through her leadership she said "no handouts, no windfall tax". Then announced handouts *to the energy companies* paid for by consumers. Now is taking off them any profits over a level they are setting - a windfall tax.
She is in office, but not in power.
That is not indecisive, it is being too decisive. Making up her mind too quickly without infeorming herself f the consequences of those decisioons.
Neither are the U-turns an indication of indecisiveness, just an indication of having driven down a dead end.
Its indecisive - if "I am right, you are all wrong" and "there is no alternative" as they claim then own it. Stay the course. Don't shat your pants every 5 minutes and say "well ok maybe you are right, I'll change tack. But I'll keep talking up the old tack so that people understand why I am right"
She has decided to be indecisive!
How does the rest go: 'resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, all powerful for impotence.'
‘stiff for impotence’ is the phrase you might have been searching for…?
Exclusive: I had a chat with the former chair of the Conservative Party, @SayeedaWarsi, who said PM Liz Truss "had to just carry on with the 2019 manifesto – or go to the electorate”.
She “doesn’t have the mandate to do some of the things she’s doing”.
Gordon Brown carried on for 3 years without an election, and he wasn't even elected by members or MPs. He didn't stick to the same policies that Tony Blair would have pursued.
Brown played a more than prominent role in the 2005 election campaign, such that it effectively became a Blair-Brown double act. It was an open secret that Brown was expected to take over during Blair's third term, and Labour did nothing to damp this down because it helped deal with Blair's personal unpopularity. The mandate that Labour won in 2005 would only have been questionable if Blair had stayed the full term.
Moreover unlike Truss Brown didn't as his first step as PM denounce the economic policies pursued by previous governments over the past decade. How could he have, he was the Chancellor! His was a continuity premiership in the mould of New Labour, not a break from the past.
Liz Truss’s flagship trade deal with India is on the “verge of collapse” after Indian ministers reacted furiously to comments by Suella Braverman criticising migrants from their country.
Last week the home secretary said she had “concerns” about the trade deal because it would increase migration to the UK and Indians represented the largest group of visa overstayers.
She told The Spectator magazine: “I do have some reservations. Look at migration in this country — the largest group of people who overstay are Indian migrants.”
The comments sparked a furious reaction from Indian government ministers and officials, sources from both governments have told The Times.
A source in Delhi said they were “shocked and disappointed” by the “disrespectful” remarks.
Looking at the detail in that story, it seems that my kids lost their rights to live, work and study in 30 European countries, so that Indians under the age of 35 can have the right to live, work and study in the UK.
Just what the Red Wall voted for.
Braverman seems to at least have her political antennae switched on. We are so far through the looking glass.
They have a wee bit of a problem. Any deal they do with someone like India opens the door to migration. So many of the people who voted for Brexit had at least a parochial bigotry approach when it comes to outsiders who aren't exactly like them. So a flood from the subcontinent is not what they expected when they voted to send the forrin home to stop taking their jobs and their benefits.
However, we *need* migrants. We're a nation of migrants, and there are a whole underclass of jobs that right-thinking Brits don't want to do. When tosspot government ministers say "just get a better job" to poor people, who do they imagine will do these essential jobs they leave behind? That's right - MIGRANTS.
Fun times ahead.
Because most people don't follow politics closely, it's broadly true that they only worry about one or two things at a time. At the moment, most people aren't especially thinking about migrants, despite the best efforts of the Express and Leon and indeed Braverman, and it would take some enormous Merkel-like decision to fling open the borders to get them focused on it again. I think the Government could get away with some quiet relaxation of the rules - indeed if I'm not mistaken they already have. Wasn't there something last week about more access for agricultural workers? Truss doesn't seem especially dogmatic on the issue.
A large, possibly complete realignment of US policy towards Saudi Arabia seems to be underway.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/10/dems-rage-at-saudis-over-oil-cut-vow-to-block-weapons-sales-00061123 ...“From unanswered questions about 9/11, the brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and the exporting of extremism, to dubious jailing of peaceful dissidents and conspiring with Vladimir Putin to punish the U.S. with higher oil prices, the Saudi royal family has never been a trustworthy ally of our nation,” Durbin said. “It’s time for our foreign policy to imagine a world without this alliance with these royal backstabbers.”
And Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has already said several legislative responses are under consideration, including a bill taking aim at OPEC for price-fixing and antitrust violations. The legislation, referred to as NOPEC, cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year in a 17-4 vote.
“What Saudi Arabia did to help Putin continue to wage his despicable, vicious war against Ukraine will long be remembered by Americans,” Schumer said in a statement last week. “We are looking at all the legislative tools to best deal with this appalling and deeply cynical action, including the NOPEC bill.”
Lawmakers are also calling for a drawdown of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia as a consequence of the oil production cut...
So complete blind eye to human rights, but put up the price of oil a couple of $ and...
Well, yes.
There's always been an argument between the 'pragmatists' and and the 'morally principled' about US dealings with Saudi Arabia. And for decades, the former dominated US policy, even through 9/11. And of course under Trump the administration didn't give two hoots anyway. That's now changed, as the 'pragmatists' have realised they're not getting anything out of the relationship.
Saudi Arabia might be about about to discover that it doesn't hold all the cards, after behaving as though it has complete impunity for its actions.
A large, possibly complete realignment of US policy towards Saudi Arabia seems to be underway.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/10/dems-rage-at-saudis-over-oil-cut-vow-to-block-weapons-sales-00061123 ...“From unanswered questions about 9/11, the brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and the exporting of extremism, to dubious jailing of peaceful dissidents and conspiring with Vladimir Putin to punish the U.S. with higher oil prices, the Saudi royal family has never been a trustworthy ally of our nation,” Durbin said. “It’s time for our foreign policy to imagine a world without this alliance with these royal backstabbers.”
And Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has already said several legislative responses are under consideration, including a bill taking aim at OPEC for price-fixing and antitrust violations. The legislation, referred to as NOPEC, cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year in a 17-4 vote.
“What Saudi Arabia did to help Putin continue to wage his despicable, vicious war against Ukraine will long be remembered by Americans,” Schumer said in a statement last week. “We are looking at all the legislative tools to best deal with this appalling and deeply cynical action, including the NOPEC bill.”
Lawmakers are also calling for a drawdown of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia as a consequence of the oil production cut...
So complete blind eye to human rights, but put up the price of oil a couple of $ and...
Thankfully, another relatively quiet night in Ukraine.
These new Iranian-made drones don’t seem to be particularly effective at getting to their targets, air defences have taken out nine of them overnight in the South of Ukraine near Kherson and Mykolaiv.
Also, FWIW, seems like the Russian troops arriving in Belarus are there to try and shore up the army and regime of Lukashenka, rather than to attempt a raid against northern Ukraine. Things seem increasingly dire in Minsk and the regime is clearly concerned to avoid the return of the demonstrations of two years ago. However, the longer the attack of Ukraine continues, the more fragile the situation becomes for the Belarusian regime. The increasing prominence of Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya and the growth of the Belarusian volunteer Kastuś Kalinoŭski Battalion of the Ukrainian army into a regiment, as a result of growing support from the Belarusians in exile, clearly worries Lukashenka, He´s right to be worried.
With his attempt to ban inflation, it could be the economic situation that brings him down.
The best thing Truss could do is call a general election for early next year. Assuming she loses, she will still have an honourable legacy and her brief tenure as PM will have legitimacy. At the moment she is looking like the worst PM in modern history.
And worse there may be yet. The worst is not So long as we can say 'This is the worst.'
Truss is the Lady Jane Grey of neo-Tudor British politics
Boris was Henry VIII, of course
Someone who's been in the cabinet for over a decade really isn't a Lady Jane Grey figure.
I dont agree that Truss is indecisive. She decided on a cabinet, an energy bill support policy, an economic direction. I just struggle to identify any decision that looks particularly good. And several that seem shockingly bad. So I'd give her a pass on decisiveness. But an epic fail on competence and likeability. And she is weak so some of her bad decisions have already been reversed.
She is indecisive and weak because she made so many stupid decisions and has been forced to reverse them. Remember that every single one of these was billed as essential, that they had no other choice. That anyone opposed was part of the "anti-growth coalition" or even dancing to Putin's tune.
The latest one - she is imposing a windfall tax on the excess profits being made by energy companies. All the way through her leadership she said "no handouts, no windfall tax". Then announced handouts *to the energy companies* paid for by consumers. Now is taking off them any profits over a level they are setting - a windfall tax.
She is in office, but not in power.
I know that you love to bash the government. But the changes on renewable energy pricing genuinely are *not* a windfall tax.
That’s an unusually high tax rate on profits. This is a new price negotiation.” Which shifts them to a fixed return on capital model as with other utilities.
Old system - government pays an unlimited amount to energy companies - a windfall New system - government caps payment thus cutting their profits - a windfall tax
Call it what you want, its another massive u-turn and everyone is pointing and laughing. They will try and dance on a pinhead and call it something else. And the laughter will just get louder and the poll ratings worse.
Its not a u-turn, she said straight away in her original announcement that she wanted to change the pricing system on that.
If you insist on calling black white, by calling something that's not a windfall tax a windfall tax, then yes, sure, she's going for a windfall tax.
But a price cap and a windfall tax are not the same thing. Never have been.
Enjoy the pinhead dance. This will reduce the profits they would have been making off the taxpayer. Its not technically a windfall tax as we're reducing the money we were going to pay them, but it has the same effect of reducing their excess profits.
Feel free to patronise the British public all you want. It only adds to the scale of the Tory ELE. Truss was wrong on this. In every way. That she stridently and sneeringly told the world that she was right and everyone else wrong - especially Rishi - it just makes it funnier...
Great, I'm glad we're agreed its not a windfall tax, now we can move on.
For what its worth, I think a price cap is a very, very bad idea, it discourages investment.
I actually think a windfall tax, with an investment allowance attached to it, would be much better than a price cap.
So this isn't a u-turn, its far worse than one in my eyes.
How's that for pin head dancing?
So we're broadly in agreement coming at the same issue from different sides with different perspectives. You think its two faces, I think its a vase. Both are valid interpretations of the same thing - and thing is that they have made things worse...
Liz Truss’s flagship trade deal with India is on the “verge of collapse” after Indian ministers reacted furiously to comments by Suella Braverman criticising migrants from their country.
Last week the home secretary said she had “concerns” about the trade deal because it would increase migration to the UK and Indians represented the largest group of visa overstayers.
She told The Spectator magazine: “I do have some reservations. Look at migration in this country — the largest group of people who overstay are Indian migrants.”
The comments sparked a furious reaction from Indian government ministers and officials, sources from both governments have told The Times.
A source in Delhi said they were “shocked and disappointed” by the “disrespectful” remarks.
Looking at the detail in that story, it seems that my kids lost their rights to live, work and study in 30 European countries, so that Indians under the age of 35 can have the right to live, work and study in the UK.
Just what the Red Wall voted for.
Braverman seems to at least have her political antennae switched on. We are so far through the looking glass.
They have a wee bit of a problem. Any deal they do with someone like India opens the door to migration. So many of the people who voted for Brexit had at least a parochial bigotry approach when it comes to outsiders who aren't exactly like them. So a flood from the subcontinent is not what they expected when they voted to send the forrin home to stop taking their jobs and their benefits.
However, we *need* migrants. We're a nation of migrants, and there are a whole underclass of jobs that right-thinking Brits don't want to do. When tosspot government ministers say "just get a better job" to poor people, who do they imagine will do these essential jobs they leave behind? That's right - MIGRANTS.
Fun times ahead.
Because most people don't follow politics closely, it's broadly true that they only worry about one or two things at a time. At the moment, most people aren't especially thinking about migrants, despite the best efforts of the Express and Leon and indeed Braverman, and it would take some enormous Merkel-like decision to fling open the borders to get them focused on it again. I think the Government could get away with some quiet relaxation of the rules - indeed if I'm not mistaken they already have. Wasn't there something last week about more access for agricultural workers? Truss doesn't seem especially dogmatic on the issue.
The imaginative thing would be, set up a jobcentre on Dover beach and hand out contracts of employment as they come ashore.
I think Brown should have called an immediate election. And May. And Truss.
The mandate problem was/is there for all of them.
The reality is we’ve morphed from primes inter pares to a system with executive dominance. Our modern election campaigns reflect this reality. They’ve become more and more presidential and personalised around the leaders. It’s time for our constitution to adjust.
Any replacement PM triggers an election within 3 months.
I am going to open like this, this morning: LIZ TRUSS COULD HAVE BEEN AN EXCELLENT PRIME MINISTER.
I note the discussion down thread about how a decent number had rated Liz OK as she rose through the ranks and wondered why, suddenly, this decent minister had turned into an awful PM (bear with me if you think the signs were there, I'm developing from the arguments of others here...).
In that thinking, I'm minded of the, was it Nick Hornby regarding Gus Caesar, argument of a kid who is an excellent footballer at all levels but suddenly, unexpectedly just doesn't have that spark to cut it at the top level. But I don't think that is why Truss has failed.
The jobs Truss has risen in, International Trade, CST, FS have all been jobs where (a) the path to take is pretty much laid down for you and (b) there has been decent alignment with Truss's own ideology. "Make a load of rollover free trade deals" - Liz will go at it with more gusto than anyone else. "help, with others, to arm Ukraine and oppose Russia" - ditto.
What Liz could have done was recognise all the Scyllas and Charybdes of the current situation and navigated the narrow course with more gusto than anyone else heading to where the course widened. Could she have done that better than Sunak? - possibly, yes. Simply by recognising that her PMship was under many of b the same constraints as her prebious jobs, yes.
But, to have done that, we have to acknowledge that, this time, it required her to put some of her ideological traits in a box. To resist the siren call - and she knew damn well it was a siren call - onto the rocks. To import a couple of lumps of cheese into her ears and steer the good course, as she knew she should.
And here is where it gets a bit "if my aunt had balls". She is Liz Truss. She doesn't believe in resisting temptation. The siren calls were too great. Cheese was not an option. And so came Disgrace. And it had to be like this.
Comments
Neither are the U-turns an indication of indecisiveness, just an indication of having driven down a dead end.
I don’t blame her for playing on her loyalty during the election - that was her trump card over Sunak with the members, and it delivered for her.
Once elected, she should have found ways to make it clear things were going to be different. Got the new ethics adviser in post, made a speech about honesty in politics, bring people Johnson had exiled back into cabinet, etc.
Instead, she appointed a cabinet of loyal numpties, just like he did. She dismissed and disregarded officials and experts, just like he did. She made impulsive decisions without consulting or thinking them through, and is then pushed into reversing them when reality bites. And so on.
We all learn about the boss’s job from seeing him or her in action, and in Truss’s case she has had the misfortune to work for such a bad example and not to have the judgement to understand why his premiership all fell apart.
You're having a bad morning.
That’s an unusually high tax rate on profits. This is a new price negotiation.” Which shifts them to a fixed return on capital model as with other utilities.
This is all accounting
The shocking truth about the Blair/Brown conflict was that ideologically there was precious little between them. It was a turf war, a pointless and unnecessary one.
The biggest event of Brown's Premiership was the Financial Crisis, which he handled well. I expect he would have done exactly the same if he had been Chancellor.
He was in my opinion a pretty poor PM, a position to which he was not well suited, but policy-wise he was not a whole lot different to his predecessor.
Price caps aren't especially free market, or generally a good idea at all, but its a different issue.
In foreign affairs it's quite hard to think of any meaningful changes Brown made as well. While in say, education, BSF was an extension of Brown's own obsession with PFI.
It suited Brown to pretend he was doing lots of radical new stuff and Blair to say that Labour lost because they abandoned his ethos. But the truth is rather the reverse. Brown had nothing new left to do, and after 13 years, financial implosion and rather too many dodgy dossiers Blairism was discredited.
Rather than cut public sector spending by 10%, which Tory MPs won't vote for, his forecasts should instead acknowledge that we wont be able to recruit the public sector workers we need (save 5%), and that the workers who we do have don't have to be paid whilst on strike to save the other 5%.
How does the rest go: 'resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, all powerful for impotence.'
New system - government caps payment thus cutting their profits - a windfall tax
Call it what you want, its another massive u-turn and everyone is pointing and laughing. They will try and dance on a pinhead and call it something else. And the laughter will just get louder and the poll ratings worse.
The problem with these type of questions for Truss is that they're all irreversible.
https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1580096438742417408
So pleased that PM Truss has wisely unlocked JRM for the morning media round. It was so unfair of the previous PM to keep him off air. Let a thousand flowers bloom.
https://twitter.com/danielboffey/status/1580096288091041794
If you insist on calling black white, by calling something that's not a windfall tax a windfall tax, then yes, sure, she's going for a windfall tax.
But a price cap and a windfall tax are not the same thing. Never have been.
Chancellorpolitician - those who fail and those who get out just in time.Brown was right about that, but failed to apply the logic to himself. Had he retired in 2005 he would have been remembered as one of the greatest and most influential Chancellors of all time. Becoming PM trashed his legacy.
Johnson, however, yet again, has got out just before his politics blew up around him and will be able to pretend for the rest of his life he was a great PM brought down by a bottle of wine.
Life's really unfair sometimes.
Feel free to patronise the British public all you want. It only adds to the scale of the Tory ELE. Truss was wrong on this. In every way. That she stridently and sneeringly told the world that she was right and everyone else wrong - especially Rishi - it just makes it funnier...
Public sector spending isn’t actual spent on workers in most places it’s spent on the firms the work is outsourced to
It’s why I still think the smart money is on Johnson not returning - and Trump also, who can surround himself with people telling him that his wonderful presidency was stolen from him. Why stand again and risk losing (again)?
For what its worth, I think a price cap is a very, very bad idea, it discourages investment.
I actually think a windfall tax, with an investment allowance attached to it, would be much better than a price cap.
So this isn't a u-turn, its far worse than one in my eyes.
How's that for pin head dancing?
80,000 Tory members say Hell in a handcart.....
https://metro.co.uk/2022/10/12/nhs-at-risk-of-complete-collapse-with-almost-50-of-seniors-doctors-set-to-go-17546845/
Should cut the pay bill a bit. Staff vacancies are great for balancing the books.
https://twitter.com/francis_scarr/status/1580066665353519104
Vladimir Solovyov speaking at the Moscow Arts Theatre in 2008:
A war against Ukraine would be "the most terrible crime you can think of"
Hopefully the MPs wont be able to oust her and we can have a majority Lab government. Bring it on and let's start rebuilding from the rubble.
The fiscal right have their heads completely buried in the sand over a simple fact that to maintain public service levels is going to cost more each year due to our demographics. In terms of public sector service delivery, the equivalent of a small cut in the 1980s today is a small increase. Standing still requires a reasonable increase.
What is the difference between Tsarism and Communism?
Under Tsarism power goes from father to son, under Communism from grandfather to grandfather.
About the only thing this lot are delivering.
Not the small print, but who was broadly right and wrong about direction?
Nevertheless, she took on the job of trying to fix them and is not doing so - and her lack of preparation, shown by her shock at the reaction to her plans and inability to respond, shows she lacks insight on how to fix things. No good claiming the intent was right, the reality has not worked.
Here's "DPR" separatist and terrorist Pavel Gubarev stating he will kill millions of Ukrainians possessed by demons, and even exterminate them all if need to be.
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1579809855380291584?t=D_dNtkbmA9WuMLMsA1slFA&s=19
@Leon, Elon Musk and the ghost of Lord Halifax all think that we should hand over the occupied Oblasts to these people.
https://twitter.com/hugorifkind/status/1580101736273915904
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1580100268431376385
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/10/dems-rage-at-saudis-over-oil-cut-vow-to-block-weapons-sales-00061123
...“From unanswered questions about 9/11, the brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and the exporting of extremism, to dubious jailing of peaceful dissidents and conspiring with Vladimir Putin to punish the U.S. with higher oil prices, the Saudi royal family has never been a trustworthy ally of our nation,” Durbin said. “It’s time for our foreign policy to imagine a world without this alliance with these royal backstabbers.”
And Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has already said several legislative responses are under consideration, including a bill taking aim at OPEC for price-fixing and antitrust violations. The legislation, referred to as NOPEC, cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year in a 17-4 vote.
“What Saudi Arabia did to help Putin continue to wage his despicable, vicious war against Ukraine will long be remembered by Americans,” Schumer said in a statement last week. “We are looking at all the legislative tools to best deal with this appalling and deeply cynical action, including the NOPEC bill.”
Lawmakers are also calling for a drawdown of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia as a consequence of the oil production cut...
If she doesn't back Rees-Mogg, sends signal ministers are breaching collective Cabinet responsibility + freelancing.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1580102501197832192
So long as we can say 'This is the worst.'
Labour hasn't exactly helped itself by saying that all we need is a windfall tax on energy companies and to reverse the 45p change. Are they focused on inflation or not?
https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/ukraineaidmission
Maybe not zero, but usually, what is gone is gone, and can’t be magicked back.
Boris was Henry VIII, of course
Or do you think a whole array of Tory MPs should resign the whip so we can have an election immediately?
So... hardly surprising that it's blown up in her face.
FSB epically screwed up with the x-ray of the truck and the video of its inspection.
Attention to the pictures: there is no spare wheel on the x-ray, which can be seen on the footage from video surveillance. In addition, one axle in front of the truck magically disappeared.
https://twitter.com/TpyxaNews/status/1580089665595793408
One bad idea drives another...
Moreover unlike Truss Brown didn't as his first step as PM denounce the economic policies pursued by previous governments over the past decade. How could he have, he was the Chancellor! His was a continuity premiership in the mould of New Labour, not a break from the past.
There's always been an argument between the 'pragmatists' and and the 'morally principled' about US dealings with Saudi Arabia. And for decades, the former dominated US policy, even through 9/11.
And of course under Trump the administration didn't give two hoots anyway.
That's now changed, as the 'pragmatists' have realised they're not getting anything out of the relationship.
Saudi Arabia might be about about to discover that it doesn't hold all the cards, after behaving as though it has complete impunity for its actions.
https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/1579959215237787648?s=20&t=XENatPjPPhZB6FZrDMwfdw
The mandate problem was/is there for all of them.
The reality is we’ve morphed from primes inter pares to a system with executive dominance. Our modern election campaigns reflect this reality. They’ve become more and more presidential and personalised around the leaders. It’s time for our constitution to adjust.
Any replacement PM triggers an election within 3 months.
LIZ TRUSS COULD HAVE BEEN AN EXCELLENT PRIME MINISTER.
I note the discussion down thread about how a decent number had rated Liz OK as she rose through the ranks and wondered why, suddenly, this decent minister had turned into an awful PM (bear with me if you think the signs were there, I'm developing from the arguments of others here...).
In that thinking, I'm minded of the, was it Nick Hornby regarding Gus Caesar, argument of a kid who is an excellent footballer at all levels but suddenly, unexpectedly just doesn't have that spark to cut it at the top level. But I don't think that is why Truss has failed.
The jobs Truss has risen in, International Trade, CST, FS have all been jobs where (a) the path to take is pretty much laid down for you and (b) there has been decent alignment with Truss's own ideology. "Make a load of rollover free trade deals" - Liz will go at it with more gusto than anyone else. "help, with others, to arm Ukraine and oppose Russia" - ditto.
What Liz could have done was recognise all the Scyllas and Charybdes of the current situation and navigated the narrow course with more gusto than anyone else heading to where the course widened. Could she have done that better than Sunak? - possibly, yes. Simply by recognising that her PMship was under many of b the same constraints as her prebious jobs, yes.
But, to have done that, we have to acknowledge that, this time, it required her to put some of her ideological traits in a box. To resist the siren call - and she knew damn well it was a siren call - onto the rocks. To import a couple of lumps of cheese into her ears and steer the good course, as she knew she should.
And here is where it gets a bit "if my aunt had balls". She is Liz Truss. She doesn't believe in resisting temptation. The siren calls were too great. Cheese was not an option. And so came Disgrace. And it had to be like this.