DelayRepay
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 May 2011
- Messages
- 2,929
Letters have, apparently, already been submitted.
I have seen that, but we don't know how many.
It might just be two, from a Mr Sunak and a Mr Johnson!
Letters have, apparently, already been submitted.
I have seen that, but we don't know how many.
It might just be two, from a Mr Sunak and a Mr Johnson!
A level economics is being unfairly maligned here."Her, Kwasi, Philp and Simon [McGee] are playing A-level economics with people's lives."
you are technically correct that there are small benefits to lower earners? But the policies offer much larger benefits to higher earners. As a one line summary, I feel that it’s a reasonable assessment.Not just for the wealthy. Stamp duty affects regular families and the 19% income tax rate will benefit everyone.
you are technically correct that there are small benefits to lower earners? But the policies offer much larger benefits to higher earners. As a one line summary, I feel that it’s a reasonable assessment.
With Truss in charge and Kwarteng making the fiscal decisions we're currently watching a slow motion car crash. In of itself that's nothing unusual.
What's particularly galling is that this was all signposted well in advance. 81,000 Tory members thought Tryss' plan would be a spiffing wheeze. Her sheer belief in unicorns would result in Equus Acutis everywhere, farting cash and British exceptionalism.
Just another two years until an election, eh? I don't want to wait that long. Sunak must be laughing his arse off right now
Out of curiosity (with more than a hint of wishful thinking), if Liz Truss is booted out by her own party prior to the next General Election, would she be the first PM never to have fought a General Election?
Westminster voting intention: LAB: 45% (+3) CON: 28% (-4) LDEM: 9% (-1) GRN: 7% (-) via @YouGov, 23 - 25 Sep Chgs. w/ 12 Sep
As for Truss and Kwarteng, the main impression I have is of sheer incompetence, much more than any previous prime ministers and chancellors of my lifetime - and I include Johnson in that.
I don't think she is thick but she might be blinded by ideology.
Out of curiosity (with more than a hint of wishful thinking), if Liz Truss is booted out by her own party prior to the next General Election, would she be the first PM never to have fought a General Election?
Sunak or Johnson would jump at the chance!If the Conservatives get rid of Liz Truss before the next election, it will not just be like turkeys voting for Christmas, it will be like turkeys voting for Christmas to be brought forward to next week.
Who would want to be the next Conservative leader anyway, having to deal with the mess that someone else has created?
I am sure there will be a lot of plotting and subterfuge in the pubs and bars of Birmingham next week (Conservative Party Conference)
Damning with faint praise that one!She is doing what she's told to do since selling out to the ERG. So far she's doing a great job (for them) and the right wing media are mostly still supporting her.
GB News is still saying how great she is (albeit not talking about exchange rates, inflation etc) and put her narrowly above the new Italian PM.
Theoretically, it could be the honeymoon period that's keeping Labour's lead from being even higherWhat is clear is that there is no sign of a honeymoon period for Truss, she might have got one if this "Mini budget" saw some popular and/or sensible policies announced, but the opposite happened.
I usually don't pay too much heed to theories that walk this kind of line, but so far there have definitely been some surprising co-incidences. Removing the 45% rate of income tax in the same year that cabinet members all get paid enough to need to pay it, and trying to employ a SPAD as a contractor at the same time as rolling back the IR35 rules regarding how said arrangements are taxed are both great looks. Then there's crashing the pound so spectacularly too...I just wonder: is it possible that the Tories know that losing the next election is inevitable, and so they've decided to simply enrich their mates? It seems unthinkable that Truss would be so stupid as to allow this without knowing the consequences.
I don't think she is thick but she might be blinded by ideology.
But this can't be ruled out at all, obviously. A nice big financial crisis is perfect for creating an apparent need for austerity, which sets up the ground to cut spending and services all over the place. You've heard of shrinking the state, but perhaps "starving" might be more apt now.She is doing what she's told to do since selling out to the ERG.
The first letters for Boris allegedly were submitted after Cummings jaunt to Barnard Castle in May 2021. There weren’t enough for a vote until June 2022.
There's also the possibility that if they hand Labour the next election they'll have so much to clear up that popularity won't be high, so the Tories could get back at the following election as a form of long-term thinking. A number of swing seat MPs won't approve of this because they'll likely be out of a job, but safe Tory MPs are more likely to go along with it as they can stay in Parliament throughout.But this can't be ruled out at all, obviously. A nice big financial crisis is perfect for creating an apparent need for austerity, which sets up the ground to cut spending and services all over the place. You've heard of shrinking the state, but perhaps "starving" might be more apt now.
I recall Sir Roger Gale being one such example; he revealed he wrote a letter during the Barnard Castle saga, and resubmitted a letter during Partygate.They can be withdrawn as well as submitted.
I do indeed wonder whether the Tories are trying to deliberately lose, for this precise reason.There's also the possibility that if they hand Labour the next election they'll have so much to clear up that popularity won't be high, so the Tories could get back at the following election as a form of long-term thinking. A number of swing seat MPs won't approve of this because they'll likely be out of a job, but safe Tory MPs are more likely to go along with it as they can stay in Parliament throughout.
I think several were when Ukraine hit centre stage.They can be withdrawn as well as submitted.
That is impressive, to say the least. 10/10 from all the judges.The weirdest takes I've seen recently come from certain right-leaning journalists who seem to think the pound's current appalling performance is due to the fear in the markets of an incoming Labour government. The mental gymnastics required to come to that conclusion are quite staggering.
NEW: Statement from IMF on UK, a pretty clear rebuke to Friday: “We’re closely monitoring recent economic developments in the UK and are engaged with the authorities. Given elevated inflation pressures…we do not recommend large and untargeted fiscal packages at this juncture.”
The UK government should reconsider its plan for tax cuts, the International Monetary Fund has said, warning that the measures are likely to fuel the cost-of-living crisis.
In an unusually outspoken statement, the IMF said the proposal would be likely to increase inequality and add to pressures pushing up prices.
Markets have already raised alarm over the plans, sending the pound plunging.
The government says the measures will kickstart economic growth.
Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng unveiled the country's biggest tax package in 50 years on Friday, funded by the government borrowing tens of billions of pounds.
The IMF, which works to stabilise the global economy, said it understood the package aimed to boosting growth via tax cuts, but it said that it could boost inflation, which the UK's central bank is trying to bring down.
"Furthermore, the nature of the UK measures will likely increase inequality," it said.
The UK government proposals would scrap the top rate of income tax, and end a cap on bankers' bonuses, among other measures.
The announcement sparked days of financial turmoil, as investors dumped the pound and UK debt, and some of the country's biggest lenders suspended mortgage deals amid the uncertainty.
Kwasi Kwarteng presumably imagines that, whatever anyone else thinks, bankers will surely welcome his plan to scrap the cap on their bonuses.
The Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng believes this move will boost the City, part of his and Liz Truss’s drive for growth.
There has already been resistance to the bonus idea from surprising sources. Sir Win Bischoff, the City grandee and former chair of Lloyds, called the move “symbolic”.
It doesn’t make London more competitive, he says, concluding: “This isn’t necessary.”
So it may not work as a policy, and there’s also a chance some of the presumed beneficiaries might not be wild about it.
When the cap came in post 2008, one effect was to boost fixed pay, what the rest of us call salaries.
So for the bankers, their total take-home may not have shifted much. More of it was guaranteed rather than reliant on what trade they drummed up.
If their contracts are now adjusted to be bonus-dependent, that means they have got to ace it again. At the moment, investment bank revenue is on the slide as clients sit on their hands.
There's also the possibility that if they hand Labour the next election they'll have so much to clear up that popularity won't be high, so the Tories could get back at the following election as a form of long-term thinking. A number of swing seat MPs won't approve of this because they'll likely be out of a job, but safe Tory MPs are more likely to go along with it as they can stay in Parliament throughout.
I do indeed wonder whether the Tories are trying to deliberately lose, for this precise reason.