• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Liz Truss and the Conservative Party.

Status
Not open for further replies.

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,373
Location
Yorks
According to the BBC, the Institute fir fiscal studies have published a "green budget" which sets out the scale of cuts it thinks we will need in the next budget to fund Truss' tax cuts. It's in the region of sixty billion:


The chancellor will need to make "big and painful" spending cuts to put the country's finances on a sustainable path, the Institute for Fiscal Studies think tank has warned.
With a weaker economy and promised tax cuts, there will be a large shortfall in revenue, the IFS predicts.
It calculates the government would have to spend £60bn a year less by 2026-27.
However, the Treasury said its tax cuts and reforms would deliver "sustainable funding for public services".
In a new report, the IFS outlines the scale of the cuts necessary to make the sums add up over the next five years, using an illustrative example.
It suggests Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng could:
  • increase working-age benefits in line with average earnings rather than inflation for two years to save £13bn
  • limit public investment to 2% of national income, to save £14bn
  • cut the budgets of every government department except health and defence by 15%, to save around £35bn
Mr Kwarteng and Prime Minister Liz Truss have argued focusing on measures to promote growth will help plug the shortfall between income and outgoings.
The chancellor has promised to set out further details of his economic strategy on 31 October, three weeks earlier than originally planned, alongside a full forecast from the official Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).
That change of timetable came after the markets baulked at the strategy announced in last month's mini-budget.
It outlined large tax cuts and a huge package of support with energy costs without details of how they would be paid for, and without the usual assessment of their impact from the OBR.
The IFS, a politically independent economics-focused think tank, has published its own assessment of the chancellor's strategy, in what it names a Green Budget, after the consultation green papers issued in Parliament.
It calculates the chancellor would have to cut spending on benefits, public services, and investment sharply if he wants to stick to his commitment to balance the budget in the medium term, rather than see debt continuing to rise.
IFS director Paul Johnson said: "The chancellor says he wants to get the public finances on a sustainable basis. It looks to us like that's going to mean tens of billions of pounds of spending cuts in order to achieve that.
"It's hard to see what other way out the chancellor has."
Mr Johnson said the country was not going into a period "with much fat to trim".
"One of the problems the government faces is we have had a decade and more of really tight spending settlements, we're still spending less on a lot of public services than we were just over a decade ago," he told BBC News.
Cutting public sector pay, benefits, education, justice and prisons would all be very difficult against that backdrop, he said.

Austerity by the back door.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,515
Location
LBK
Suella Braverman is reportedly keen on making marijuana a Class A drug, against the trend across much of the world where possession of small amounts is being decriminalised. It's apparently because some of the Tory Police and Crime Commissioners have told her it's a major concern in their leafy domains. I'd sooner every MP was liable to a drug test every time they enter the Houses of Parliament, then perhaps the one who passes it could be made PM. ;)
Doesn’t matter what they do in terms of classification if they don’t actually prosecute people who possess it.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
9,430
According to the BBC, the Institute fir fiscal studies have published a "green budget" which sets out the scale of cuts it thinks we will need in the next budget to fund Truss' tax cuts. It's in the region of sixty billion:




Austerity by the back door.

Quite.

How they're going to promote "growth" by imposing austerity I don't know.

People will spend less, and as a result businesses will go bankrupt.

Are Truss and Kwarteng imbeciles (and to me, you can be Oxford-educated and still an imbecile...), are they corrupt, or are they trying to make people detest their party? I'm struggling to see an alternative explanation for their actions. How they can justify tax cuts for the rich while screwing the rest of us, I don't know.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
7,239
Location
UK
Are Truss and Kwarteng imbeciles (and to me, you can be Oxford-educated and still an imbecile...), are they corrupt, or are they trying to make people detest their party? I'm struggling to see an alternative explanation for their actions. How they can justify tax cuts for the rich while screwing the rest of us, I don't know.
They believe that the wealthiest in society are the ones who create wealth, rather than haves the value of the labour of others, and then barely spend it.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,373
Location
Yorks
Quite.

How they're going to promote "growth" by imposing austerity I don't know.

People will spend less, and as a result businesses will go bankrupt.

Are Truss and Kwarteng imbeciles (and to me, you can be Oxford-educated and still an imbecile...), are they corrupt, or are they trying to make people detest their party? I'm struggling to see an alternative explanation for their actions. How they can justify tax cuts for the rich while screwing the rest of us, I don't know.

They believe that the wealthiest in society are the ones who create wealth, rather than haves the value of the labour of others, and then barely spend it.

It is the economics of the mad house.

Expecting random rich people to all suddenly start a business employing hundreds of people is wishful thinking indeed.
 

SuspectUsual

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2018
Messages
6,789
Expecting random rich people to all suddenly start a business employing hundreds of people is wishful thinking indeed.

I could just about grasp that there’d be a *possibility* of job and wealth creation if corporate taxation was cut to leave businesses with more money to invest, but to expect it at an individual level is lunacy.
 

jfollows

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
10,132
Location
Wilmslow
They believe that the wealthiest in society are the ones who create wealth, rather than haves the value of the labour of others, and then barely spend it.
I question how many of them actually believe this, it's rather a convenient mantra on to which to hang policies which reward people in society who don't need rewarding or incent them when they don't need incentives (and then vote for them).
 
Last edited:

SynthD

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2020
Messages
2,043
Location
UK
Truss wants to take defence spending to 3% of GDP. Scrap that, freeze it until we aren’t a basket case.

During the last 12 years, the sensible Tories (relative) have been sent to the backbenches. The vapid if not dangerous, supposedly controllable, questionably backed few that qualify, only in loyalty, for the front bench aren’t any good. They do believe in the common people holding back the business owners, and other discredited proposals to explain their own failures.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,960
Location
Ely
Suella Braverman is reportedly keen on making marijuana a Class A drug, against the trend across much of the world where possession of small amounts is being decriminalised.

Yes, that's a really stupid idea - it should never have been moved to B, never mind A. Even those most concerned about cannabis use - and personally I think that concern is mostly misplaced - don't argue that it should be treated the same as say heroin, because that is obviously preposterous.

There are a lot of issues with the current 'class' system for grading drugs, and in my opinion it needs a massive overhaul and rethink, but if you are going to have this class system, it has to make some degree of sense.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
9,430
Truss wants to take defence spending to 3% of GDP. Scrap that, freeze it until we aren’t a basket case.
It really does sound like they wish to conform to the stereotypical view of what the Tories stand for. Tax cuts for the rich, austerity for the rest of us, harsh on "trivial" aspects of law and order (e.g. cannabis possession), spend lots of money we don't have on defence (which won't protect us from the biggest risks - such as terrorism - in any case) while cutting other things, start old arguments with France and Scotland but be friendly with hard-right foreign leaders.

It might increase their majority in blue-rinse seats but won't help them hold onto marginals. As I've said before I do wonder whether they plan to hold - and lose - an election in the near future, while the cost of living crisis is still a major issue, set Labour up to be blamed for it and as a result win a convincing majority later in the decade with a completely new leader (untainted by association with Johnson and/or Truss).
 
Last edited:

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,213
Location
SE London
Truss wants to take defence spending to 3% of GDP. Scrap that, freeze it until we aren’t a basket case.

Uh? Are you serious???? Have you not noticed that 8 months ago, Russia invaded a sovereign European country, where Russian forces have then proceeded to rape, torture, and murder civilians, and that it's only thanks to (amongst other things) a huge amount of money that the UK and other countries have spent helping that country that the Russian invasion has stalled?

I would say that in her short time as PM, Liz Truss has got lots of things very wrong. But, given current world circumstances, she is absolutely spot on about the need to substantially increase defence spending.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,671
Uh? Are you serious???? Have you not noticed that 8 months ago, Russia invaded a sovereign European country, where Russian forces have then proceeded to rape, torture, and murder civilians, and that it's only thanks to (amongst other things) a huge amount of money that the UK and other countries have spent helping that country that the Russian invasion has stalled?

I would say that in her short time as PM, Liz Truss has got lots of things very wrong. But, given current world circumstances, she is absolutely spot on about the need to substantially increase defence spending.
On this one I am with you. I only voted Tory once in my life, in 1983, because I couldn't stomach Labour's procrastination (or worse) on the subject.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,213
Location
SE London
Saying you hate a political party is not the same as saying you hate foreigners or those of a different race. I'm surprised you even typed that with a straight face. You know its not the same at all.

I would say that hating people is always wrong. You don't get excuse your hatred because the target is people who have a certain political point of view rather than people who have certain physical characteristics. So I'm very happy to stand by saying that, if you hate one group of people, then you have made yourself no better than someone who hates a different group of people.

I do hate the tories and have absolutely no qualms saying that in public. In fact I see it as a badge of honour as they are totally reprehensible and CHOOSE to do what they do despite the criticism and opposition from various sections of society, often even within their own ranks!

That's very sad, and I would invite to reconsider and reflect on what you've written there. You have just openly written about hatred as being (I'm paraphrasing somewhat) something to be proud of. Do you seriously think it's OK to do that? I think you can be a lot better than that!

To quote Yoda, when he was talking about the path to the dark side [1]: "Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering"

[1] Yes, I know it's fiction. But in this case, fiction that points out a very very important - and IMO completely correct - principle.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,568
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I would say that hating people is always wrong. You don't get excuse your hatred because the target is people who have a certain political point of view rather than people who have certain physical characteristics. So I'm very happy to stand by saying that, if you hate one group of people, then you have made yourself no better than someone who hates a different group of people.

Agreed. I have a strong dislike of Tory policy (particularly this very right wing version; I was a bit more neutral on Cameronism give or take that stupid referendum), but I don't "hate Tories".
 

Simon11

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2010
Messages
1,389
Uh? Are you serious???? Have you not noticed that 8 months ago, Russia invaded a sovereign European country, where Russian forces have then proceeded to rape, torture, and murder civilians, and that it's only thanks to (amongst other things) a huge amount of money that the UK and other countries have spent helping that country that the Russian invasion has stalled?

I would say that in her short time as PM, Liz Truss has got lots of things very wrong. But, given current world circumstances, she is absolutely spot on about the need to substantially increase defence spending.
Okay, but then what should be cut to increase spending on defence?
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,540
Location
Kent
Uh? Are you serious???? Have you not noticed that 8 months ago, Russia invaded a sovereign European country, where Russian forces have then proceeded to rape, torture, and murder civilians, and that it's only thanks to (amongst other things) a huge amount of money that the UK and other countries have spent helping that country that the Russian invasion has stalled?

I would say that in her short time as PM, Liz Truss has got lots of things very wrong. But, given current world circumstances, she is absolutely spot on about the need to substantially increase defence spending.
I can't see anyone cutting defence spending just now if only because of the message it would give (and that would include a Labour government lead by someone quite some way left of Starmer). Putin, like Stalin before him, is a dictator; there is nothing 'socialist' about him, despite what some of the media might want us to believe. The difference might be where the money set aside for defence went (and how much publicity was given to it).
Taxes should be increased, or at least not reduced, in particular not the 45% band. Cutting is not the only option; framing the question that way is disingenuous.
Agree. 'Those with the broadest shoulders ...'. Look at taxes that least affect those who will be struggling with energy bills and cost of living; for instance, on second (and third homes), maybe luxury goods. Truss needs to remember that many of her core supporters are already feeling the effect of public service cuts as they are more and more isolated in their locality. It is not just the well-off that support the Conservatives, many elderly people do because of policies like 'law-and-order' and 'strong-and-stable'. They may be tempted to stay at home next time if the services the depend on are cut>
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,568
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Agree. 'Those with the broadest shoulders ...'. Look at taxes that least affect those who will be struggling with energy bills and cost of living; for instance, on second (and third homes), maybe luxury goods. Truss needs to remember that many of her core supporters are already feeling the effect of public service cuts as they are more and more isolated in their locality. It is not just the well-off that support the Conservatives, many elderly people do because of policies like 'law-and-order' and 'strong-and-stable'. They may be tempted to stay at home next time if the services the depend on are cut>

Rather than reducing the 20% rate to 19%, I'd prefer to see the personal allowance raised such that those on the minimum wage pay no income tax, compensated for by reducing the point where the 40 and 45% rates kick in so those* who do pay 40% don't see any reduction in tax paid. They pay enough other tax - fuel tax, VAT etc, plus NI which is a tax under a different name.

That would be a big help.

* Including me, so I'm not just asking others to subsidise me.
 

SynthD

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2020
Messages
2,043
Location
UK
Uh? Are you serious???? Have you not noticed that 8 months ago, Russia invaded a sovereign European country, where Russian forces have then proceeded to rape, torture, and murder civilians, and that it's only thanks to (amongst other things) a huge amount of money that the UK and other countries have spent helping that country that the Russian invasion has stalled?

I would say that in her short time as PM, Liz Truss has got lots of things very wrong. But, given current world circumstances, she is absolutely spot on about the need to substantially increase defence spending.
I'm not sure what Ukraine wants, but I suspect aid in military equipment or cash is best. They don't need us to prepare to run a third aircraft carrier in 20 years. The middle ground is giving them our old stuff as we buy new.

Ukraine was invaded 8 years ago, but we didn't yet have a PM running over there multiple times a year to bring it to our attention. Credit to Johnson?
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
9,430
Okay, but then what should be cut to increase spending on defence?

Benefits, of course. They're all lazy good for nothing scroungers anyway. ;)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

On this one I am with you. I only voted Tory once in my life, in 1983, because I couldn't stomach Labour's procrastination (or worse) on the subject.

It's a shame the SDP didn't win that election. I'd tend to agree that the 1979-83 edition of Labour wasn't the best (I was too young to follow politics but I get the impression Foot was another Corbyn), but I do think the moderate SDP would have done a grand job of rescuing the country from Thatcherism.

Also, of course 1983, like 2019, dramatically illustrates the problems with first-past-the-post. There were more centre/left votes in 1983 than Tory votes, but due to the FPTP system the Tories got sole power.
 
Last edited:

jfollows

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
10,132
Location
Wilmslow
I get the impression Foot was another Corbyn
Michael Foot was a brilliant, erudite, witty man but he wasn't a leader, and in that much he was another Corbyn only I think.
EDIT He supported the Falklands recovery Task Force and he would not have tolerated anti-semitism. Make your own view on how Corbyn acted or would have acted!

Sorry, getting off-topic, I apologise! I admired and respected the man although I didn't support his policies at the time.
 
Last edited:

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,213
Location
SE London
Also, of course 1983, like 2019, dramatically illustrates the problems with first-past-the-post. There were more centre/left votes in 1983 than Tory votes, but due to the FPTP system the Tories got sole power.

The LibDem/SDP alliance in 1983, unlike the LibDems today, was an actual centre group: It was just as far politically from Labour as from the Conservatives. It's not at all accurate to present 1983 politics as centre/left vs the Tories. (Although you are correct that if we'd had PR in 1983 then the Tories wouldn't have got sole power - the Government would have to have been either a minority Government or a coalition).
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,503
Location
Taunton or Kent
BoE Governor Andrew Bailey announced that his support will stop on Friday, telling pension fund investors "you've got three days left".

Prepare for quite the showdown between him and the Government this week.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,671
BoE Governor Andrew Bailey announced that his support will stop on Friday, telling pension fund investors "you've got three days left".

Prepare for quite the showdown between him and the Government this week.
Maybe Kwarteng will be sacrificed by Truss ('announcing his resignation, which is accepted', rather) which, of course, would only keep her safe for a couple of weeks. Coffey didn't deny the suggestion on 'Good Morning Britain' that benefits will be increased in line with inflation, which is something, I suppose.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,705
Location
Scotland
I would say that hating people is always wrong. You don't get excuse your hatred because the target is people who have a certain political point of view rather than people who have certain physical characteristics.
I agree with you that hating individual people is wrong. But hating a group/organisation whose values are diametrically opposed to yours is perfectly rational, even necessary at times.

Using current events as an example, Ukrainians are perfectly justified to hate Russians who support the invasion of their country, but that wouldn't justify acts of violence towards non-combatant Russian people just because they are Russian, or even because they express support for the war.
 

birchesgreen

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2015
Messages
7,673
Location
Solihull
BoE Governor Andrew Bailey announced that his support will stop on Friday, telling pension fund investors "you've got three days left".

Prepare for quite the showdown between him and the Government this week.
The Truss-Kwarteng Project might be able to hit a brick wall at 1000mph.
 

Lost property

On Moderation
Joined
2 Jun 2016
Messages
739
Doesn't he inspire confidence !....apparently, the economy is in good shape...he seems to forget his own was shifted out of the UK pretty rapidly, but, at least the nanny will still get paid with no concerns about a crashing economy !

 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,503
Location
Taunton or Kent
Truss has said in PMQs that there'll be no spending cuts. This comes across as something to get her through the day, but is going to cause havoc tomorrow onwards: it means she'll have to u-turn on the mini Budget, or announce cuts and be seen to have lied, or do nothing but watch a spectacular market crash on Friday in line with the BoE saying their support ends then.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top