Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

ps the Best leaders surround themselves with the best people.   Not so good leaders surround themselves with those that are not going to challenge them.  So maybe the reason why it appears that there is a poor selection of candidates is partly due to Boris Johnson.  Another reason may be that the leadership qualities and the general competence levels of elected mps has declined.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Realising that you/someone else has made a huge mistake causing a lot of economic damage to millions of people, and so reversing it, is not cowardice, it's common sense. It's in the national interest to do so.

As to your other 'moral' opinions, I seem to recall you don't wish me to comment on them.

If we take this statement to be true, which I don't believe it is, then yes it's common sense.

But it isn't a huge mistake to keep corporation tax at 19% or cut the highest rate of tax back to what it was in the Blair and Major years. What wonders are we going to see by forcing business to shell out more tax money during a time of economic trouble?

Once again, should I go with the opinion of a poster on a sports forum, or the opinion of the large majority of economic experts/bodies? If you were neutral in this debate, which would you advise?

I would advise you to do your own research and thinking, and then arrive at your own conclusions.

Could you show us some of your research that led you to a different conclusion than the vast majority of economists in this country?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Realising that you/someone else has made a huge mistake causing a lot of economic damage to millions of people, and so reversing it, is not cowardice, it's common sense. It's in the national interest to do so.

As to your other 'moral' opinions, I seem to recall you don't wish me to comment on them.

If we take this statement to be true, which I don't believe it is, then yes it's common sense.

But it isn't a huge mistake to keep corporation tax at 19% or cut the highest rate of tax back to what it was in the Blair and Major years. What wonders are we going to see by forcing business to shell out more tax money during a time of economic trouble?

Once again, should I go with the opinion of a poster on a sports forum, or the opinion of the large majority of economic experts/bodies? If you were neutral in this debate, which would you advise?

I would advise you to do your own research and thinking, and then arrive at your own conclusions.

Indeed, and I would advise you to be guided by reality and not ideology. If only Truss/Kwarteng had done the same, they would still be in power, and with a chance of pushing through some of their more radical changes at a potentially more suitable time (assuming their less radical changes worked - a big 'what if' admittedly). Unfortunately they paid the price of taking the compassion out of 'compassionate Conservatism'.

Btw in the Blair and Major years that you seem to wish to hark back to, what was the rate of corporation tax?

Edit - should probably add that my own research and thinking has led me to conclude that Truss/Kwarteng were economically ignorant, lacked the necessary skills to do the job, and were egotistically driven and morally bankrupt.

I am indeed guided by reality. That is why we have previously spoken about the economic growth achieved under Thatcher from '83 onwards, and how lower taxes can incentivise business and can actually generate higher yields. There would have been no other time to push through these policies which you describe as 'more radical'. It had to be done right away or not at all, with a GE about two years away. It wouldn't have been much use bringing these ideas in four months before a GE.

I don't wish to hark back to the Blair and Major years. My point is that some believe the tax cut of the top rate from 45p to 40p is extreme - including yourself, laughably labelling it far-right - but clearly it being in operation for the greater part of the last Labour government and for Major's tenure as PM disproves this notion.

I am unsurprised with such lofty morals that you consider those two 'morally bankrupt'. The majority of the population, including my very good self, are probably also 'morally bankrupt'.

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Realising that you/someone else has made a huge mistake causing a lot of economic damage to millions of people, and so reversing it, is not cowardice, it's common sense. It's in the national interest to do so.

As to your other 'moral' opinions, I seem to recall you don't wish me to comment on them.

If we take this statement to be true, which I don't believe it is, then yes it's common sense.

But it isn't a huge mistake to keep corporation tax at 19% or cut the highest rate of tax back to what it was in the Blair and Major years. What wonders are we going to see by forcing business to shell out more tax money during a time of economic trouble?

Once again, should I go with the opinion of a poster on a sports forum, or the opinion of the large majority of economic experts/bodies? If you were neutral in this debate, which would you advise?

I would advise you to do your own research and thinking, and then arrive at your own conclusions.

Could you show us some of your research that led you to a different conclusion than the vast majority of economists in this country?

It's been well spoken about through this thread.

But what, in specifics, are you looking for? And what, also specifically, conclusion has been reached by the vast majority of economists in this country?

That announcing vast tax cuts without explaining how they will be funded is a pretty stupid idea

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Realising that you/someone else has made a huge mistake causing a lot of economic damage to millions of people, and so reversing it, is not cowardice, it's common sense. It's in the national interest to do so.

As to your other 'moral' opinions, I seem to recall you don't wish me to comment on them.

If we take this statement to be true, which I don't believe it is, then yes it's common sense.

But it isn't a huge mistake to keep corporation tax at 19% or cut the highest rate of tax back to what it was in the Blair and Major years. What wonders are we going to see by forcing business to shell out more tax money during a time of economic trouble?

Once again, should I go with the opinion of a poster on a sports forum, or the opinion of the large majority of economic experts/bodies? If you were neutral in this debate, which would you advise?

I would advise you to do your own research and thinking, and then arrive at your own conclusions.

Indeed, and I would advise you to be guided by reality and not ideology. If only Truss/Kwarteng had done the same, they would still be in power, and with a chance of pushing through some of their more radical changes at a potentially more suitable time (assuming their less radical changes worked - a big 'what if' admittedly). Unfortunately they paid the price of taking the compassion out of 'compassionate Conservatism'.

Btw in the Blair and Major years that you seem to wish to hark back to, what was the rate of corporation tax?

Edit - should probably add that my own research and thinking has led me to conclude that Truss/Kwarteng were economically ignorant, lacked the necessary skills to do the job, and were egotistically driven and morally bankrupt.

I am indeed guided by reality. That is why we have previously spoken about the economic growth achieved under Thatcher from '83 onwards, and how lower taxes can incentivise business and can actually generate higher yields. There would have been no other time to push through these policies which you describe as 'more radical'. It had to be done right away or not at all, with a GE about two years away. It wouldn't have been much use bringing these ideas in four months before a GE.

I don't wish to hark back to the Blair and Major years. My point is that some believe the tax cut of the top rate from 45p to 40p is extreme - including yourself, laughably labelling it far-right - but clearly it being in operation for the greater part of the last Labour government and for Major's tenure as PM disproves this notion.

I am unsurprised with such lofty morals that you consider those two 'morally bankrupt'. The majority of the population, including my very good self, are probably also 'morally bankrupt'.

These are not the 1980s. The economics that may have worked then (except for the millions of unemployed, obviously, and general disenfranchisement of the poorer people in 'society' - (there's no such thing) - and the growth of the selfish 'me' culture in which 'compassion' became a swear word) aren't necessarily going to work now - as recognised by the fact that Truss's fiscal event has led to huge damage to the country because most people know it is unworkable. Nothing to do with cowardice - just bad policy.

You do realise there is a difference between a tax rate cut and keeping the tax rate the same? And that at some times it is more morally (and politically) acceptable than others?

Yes, we are all morally bankrupt - such is the nature of humanity - I guess it comes down to what extent.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Realising that you/someone else has made a huge mistake causing a lot of economic damage to millions of people, and so reversing it, is not cowardice, it's common sense. It's in the national interest to do so.

As to your other 'moral' opinions, I seem to recall you don't wish me to comment on them.

If we take this statement to be true, which I don't believe it is, then yes it's common sense.

But it isn't a huge mistake to keep corporation tax at 19% or cut the highest rate of tax back to what it was in the Blair and Major years. What wonders are we going to see by forcing business to shell out more tax money during a time of economic trouble?

Once again, should I go with the opinion of a poster on a sports forum, or the opinion of the large majority of economic experts/bodies? If you were neutral in this debate, which would you advise?

I would advise you to do your own research and thinking, and then arrive at your own conclusions.

Indeed, and I would advise you to be guided by reality and not ideology. If only Truss/Kwarteng had done the same, they would still be in power, and with a chance of pushing through some of their more radical changes at a potentially more suitable time (assuming their less radical changes worked - a big 'what if' admittedly). Unfortunately they paid the price of taking the compassion out of 'compassionate Conservatism'.

Btw in the Blair and Major years that you seem to wish to hark back to, what was the rate of corporation tax?

Edit - should probably add that my own research and thinking has led me to conclude that Truss/Kwarteng were economically ignorant, lacked the necessary skills to do the job, and were egotistically driven and morally bankrupt.

I am indeed guided by reality. That is why we have previously spoken about the economic growth achieved under Thatcher from '83 onwards, and how lower taxes can incentivise business and can actually generate higher yields. There would have been no other time to push through these policies which you describe as 'more radical'. It had to be done right away or not at all, with a GE about two years away. It wouldn't have been much use bringing these ideas in four months before a GE.

I don't wish to hark back to the Blair and Major years. My point is that some believe the tax cut of the top rate from 45p to 40p is extreme - including yourself, laughably labelling it far-right - but clearly it being in operation for the greater part of the last Labour government and for Major's tenure as PM disproves this notion.

I am unsurprised with such lofty morals that you consider those two 'morally bankrupt'. The majority of the population, including my very good self, are probably also 'morally bankrupt'.

These are not the 1980s. The economics that may have worked then (except for the millions of unemployed, obviously, and general disenfranchisement of the poorer people in 'society' - (there's no such thing) - and the growth of the selfish 'me' culture in which 'compassion' became a swear word) aren't necessarily going to work now - as recognised by the fact that Truss's fiscal event has led to huge damage to the country because most people know it is unworkable. Nothing to do with cowardice - just bad policy.

You do realise there is a difference between a tax rate cut and keeping the tax rate the same? And that at some times it is more morally (and politically) acceptable than others?

Yes, we are all morally bankrupt - such is the nature of humanity - I guess it comes down to what extent.

Correct, these are not the 1980s, but it was the closest historical parallel. Achieving economic growth is not bad policy, particularly when you yourself have no alternative ideas for doing so.

Yes, I'm well aware there is a difference between a tax rate cut and keeping the rate the same - hence why I've been pointing out extensively that Truss' (originally) plans included no cut for corporation tax or NIC, as she was merely stopping planned rises of these things, and the actual value of the tax cuts was somewhere around £10bn, not £45bn. Although, I'd still like to hear an answer (from anyone) as to why it's good policy to hit businesses - some who have struggled with high energy bills - with additional taxes at a time of tepid economic growth?

On another, slightly separate point, Jeremy Hunt as chancellor is an odd one - in 2019 he said he would reduce corporation tax to 12.5%; in 2022 he said he would reduce corporation tax to 15%. Now he's happy to lift it to 25% and strangle business.

You continue to be cheerful, although I don't think labelling Truss/Kwarteng as morally bankrupt carries much weight if you believe everyone is.

Morally bankrupt is perhaps too strong a phrase. No-one is morally perfect - we can all be found morally wanting. Some more than others, and some a lot more than others.

Achieving economic growth is a good policy in isolation, but if the policies to do that cause more damage than harm (e.g. generally agreed that the most vulnerable would be worse off, borrowing would be massively increased), then why would you implement them, except out of blind ideology?

Let's face it - there is a reason why Truss/Kwarteng refused to run it by the OBR. There's a reason why the markets reacted as they did. There's a reason why Hunt is saying mistakes were made. However, you think everyone else is wrong. Who's the opinionated one?

Still genuinely confused how giving people who already have loads of money more money that they wont spend is going to increase growth.

Corporation tax is only payable on a businesses profits so an increase only affects those making money. If they are hard hit by the rise and don't make money they don't pay, quite simple really.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Morally bankrupt is perhaps too strong a phrase. No-one is morally perfect - we can all be found morally wanting. Some more than others, and some a lot more than others.

Achieving economic growth is a good policy in isolation, but if the policies to do that cause more damage than harm (e.g. generally agreed that the most vulnerable would be worse off, borrowing would be massively increased), then why would you implement them, except out of blind ideology?

Let's face it - there is a reason why Truss/Kwarteng refused to run it by the OBR. There's a reason why the markets reacted as they did. There's a reason why Hunt is saying mistakes were made. However, you think everyone else is wrong. Who's the opinionated one?

It isn't generally agreed that the most vulnerable would be worse off. They would be better off from the suspension in the NI rise, the cut in the basic tax rate and the economic growth that would result. You mean to say that they don't benefit as much as the richest from these changes, principally because the richest pay more tax in the first place.

As said, these policies should be implemented to engineer economic growth, which is sorely needed after the past 14 years of stagnation. You have no alternative answer to propose economic growth.

I don't think everyone else is wrong. I think some people are wrong.

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:What is certainly the wrong answer is continuing on the same course that this country has been on for years.

...alternative ideas for economic growth?

Not an economist, but I don't think trashing so much a la Truss/Kwarteng was ever going to work. There's no way they could ram that lot through, while appearing to actively diss any respected interrogation/analysis of how they were going to properly finance it, and expect it to stick. It was totally idealistic/dogmatic and stupid.

Correcting this country's malaise is a decades long piece of work, which is why it'll not be done easily as there's too much distance between the dysfunctional Tories and Labour. Too much dogma on both sides. I would suggest introducing PR into this country as one of the best ways to improve matters, but that's probably too advanced for the standard of politician we have these days.

If they want to borrow billions, borrow to invest in modern infrastructure and industry.
Get the multinational, tax dodging corporations to pay their way.
Fix the tax laws so that it's chuffing difficult to avoid paying your headline rate.
Destroy the idea that housing is some sort of damnable 'market'; that's the root of so many problems.
Promote industries that have an actual future; promote a nation that has one.
Actually have a bit of altruism at the heart of what they do.
Actually have an honest conversation with the population about the cost of stuff cf. what that population claims to want, and the actual cost of supplying services.
Stop.****ing.Lying.
Maybe realise, and point out to the nation, that this isn't the Empire of Victoria at its late 19th century height?
Stop selling off what few assets we have left.
Maybe consider a coalition Government in the national interest? (WTF am I thinking? In the national interest? They have no idea what that even means.)
Re-engage with the EU for goodness sake and neuter the ERG.

I would never have been in support of it even 12 months ago, but now I think we really do need a general strike that brings the country to a complete halt. Stuff it. For all the inconvenience to so many, there needs to be a complete reset.

And there we go again with claims of 'how to properly finance it'. £10bn of tax cuts and the sky falls in. Never mind the billions more thrown around on the NHS, HS2, track and trace, energy support etc. no one really cares where that's coming from.

I support PR (narrowly) but I'm not sure it'll improve the standards of politicians. Ideally we'll come to a point where political parties are abolished, and MPs are paid a heck of a lot more rather than the pittance they currently get (in relation to their role).

On some of your points:

I agree infrastructure needs to be improved, especially with regards to public transport and roads.

Tax laws can never be reformed in a satisfactory way because the UK doesn't have jurisdiction over other nations, if corporations choose to base themselves abroad in these well known tax havens. This is why a rise in corporation tax is so harmful, because it's the small and medium-sized enterprises that will suffer, not the big corporations.

There does need to be a lot more housing built. The population of the nation has increased dramatically over the past 70 or so years due to people living longer and immigration (a lot of it uncontrolled).

What industry would you like to see the UK focus on? We are a service economy now for a reason.

Stop lying - yes, absolutely. But politicians and political activists lie because they know many on their own 'team' will support it and regurgitate it; and others won't even bother to do basic research on things if it supports their biases, well seen on here and on Twitter. The standard of journalism, which when properly used can be used to hold politicians to account, is also on the floor.

Hardly anyone thinks it's Pax Britannica. The  only one I know who bangs on about the Empire is you. Just who on earth thinks it's Rule Britannia these days?

Coalition government is a tricky one and one of the reasons I only narrowly support PR. In a coalition government, voters will struggle to get what they want. We saw that in 2010. Many people voted Lib Dem in good faith, and then Clegg went for a meeting with Cameron, and the Lib Dem manifesto changed dramatically. This type of mystery is more popular on the continent, especially in the Netherlands.

We are engaged with the EU as a trading partner.

I don't recall ever saying I supported the Poopie that is HS2 etc. Truss's tax cuts per se weren't the problem; it was the lack of any costing.

I agree that MPs should be paid more; they're running the country FFS, like them or loathe them.

Of course we can reform our own tax laws. Yes, other jurisdictions can do their own thing etc, but thats a really pants excuse not to get our own house in order.

Industry? How about green/renewable energy as a starter for 10? We're a service economy because we've ****ed over/given away everything else.

Just stop lying. The reasons you give that they do it is just an excuse. It's not a justification.

We can disagree, but a-holes like Mark Francois etc still think we're actual world leaders with real clout. We aren't. The services, infrastructure, services etc that so many expect are based on Empire (and the resources that we claimed as 'ours') and being able to rip it off from that empire. That's done, but too many don't realise that or accept it.

Coalition follows the middle road and removes the wing nut opinions. God forbid that anyone would put nation first though.

If we're engaged with the EU as any sort of trading partner, it's lesser position that pre-Brexit. ~2016 - we were 90% of the German economy; 2022 - we're ~60-70% of the German economy. Time to admit a mistake was made.

Samo wrote:Still genuinely confused how giving people who already have loads of money more money that they wont spend is going to increase growth.

No need to be confused. That won't increase growth. You're welcome .

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Morally bankrupt is perhaps too strong a phrase. No-one is morally perfect - we can all be found morally wanting. Some more than others, and some a lot more than others.

Achieving economic growth is a good policy in isolation, but if the policies to do that cause more damage than harm (e.g. generally agreed that the most vulnerable would be worse off, borrowing would be massively increased), then why would you implement them, except out of blind ideology?

Let's face it - there is a reason why Truss/Kwarteng refused to run it by the OBR. There's a reason why the markets reacted as they did. There's a reason why Hunt is saying mistakes were made. However, you think everyone else is wrong. Who's the opinionated one?

It isn't generally agreed that the most vulnerable would be worse off. They would be better off from the suspension in the NI rise, the cut in the basic tax rate and the economic growth that would result. You mean to say that they don't benefit as much as the richest from these changes, principally because the richest pay more tax in the first place.

As said, these policies should be implemented to engineer economic growth, which is sorely needed after the past 14 years of stagnation. You have no alternative answer to propose economic growth.

I don't think everyone else is wrong. I think some people are wrong.

If you read the IMF, OBR, etc conclusions (apologies for not remembering all the acronyms) on the recent fiscal event - they all state that the most vulnerable would actually be worse off because of overall adverse effects. I realise you think they are all wrong and that you believe you know better than they do.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Morally bankrupt is perhaps too strong a phrase. No-one is morally perfect - we can all be found morally wanting. Some more than others, and some a lot more than others.

Achieving economic growth is a good policy in isolation, but if the policies to do that cause more damage than harm (e.g. generally agreed that the most vulnerable would be worse off, borrowing would be massively increased), then why would you implement them, except out of blind ideology?

Let's face it - there is a reason why Truss/Kwarteng refused to run it by the OBR. There's a reason why the markets reacted as they did. There's a reason why Hunt is saying mistakes were made. However, you think everyone else is wrong. Who's the opinionated one?

It isn't generally agreed that the most vulnerable would be worse off. They would be better off from the suspension in the NI rise, the cut in the basic tax rate and the economic growth that would result. You mean to say that they don't benefit as much as the richest from these changes, principally because the richest pay more tax in the first place.

As said, these policies should be implemented to engineer economic growth, which is sorely needed after the past 14 years of stagnation. You have no alternative answer to propose economic growth.

I don't think everyone else is wrong. I think some people are wrong.

If you read the IMF, OBR, etc conclusions (apologies for not remembering all the acronyms) on the recent fiscal event - they all state that the most vulnerable would actually be worse off because of overall adverse effects. I realise you think they are all wrong and that you believe you know better than they do.

The general consensus is it would increase inequality; this is a different thing to people being worse off.

Unless you're referring to something else, in which case please provide direct, referenced quotations.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:What is certainly the wrong answer is continuing on the same course that this country has been on for years.

...alternative ideas for economic growth?

Not an economist, but I don't think trashing so much a la Truss/Kwarteng was ever going to work. There's no way they could ram that lot through, while appearing to actively diss any respected interrogation/analysis of how they were going to properly finance it, and expect it to stick. It was totally idealistic/dogmatic and stupid.

Correcting this country's malaise is a decades long piece of work, which is why it'll not be done easily as there's too much distance between the dysfunctional Tories and Labour. Too much dogma on both sides. I would suggest introducing PR into this country as one of the best ways to improve matters, but that's probably too advanced for the standard of politician we have these days.

If they want to borrow billions, borrow to invest in modern infrastructure and industry.
Get the multinational, tax dodging corporations to pay their way.
Fix the tax laws so that it's chuffing difficult to avoid paying your headline rate.
Destroy the idea that housing is some sort of damnable 'market'; that's the root of so many problems.
Promote industries that have an actual future; promote a nation that has one.
Actually have a bit of altruism at the heart of what they do.
Actually have an honest conversation with the population about the cost of stuff cf. what that population claims to want, and the actual cost of supplying services.
Stop.****ing.Lying.
Maybe realise, and point out to the nation, that this isn't the Empire of Victoria at its late 19th century height?
Stop selling off what few assets we have left.
Maybe consider a coalition Government in the national interest? (WTF am I thinking? In the national interest? They have no idea what that even means.)
Re-engage with the EU for goodness sake and neuter the ERG.

I would never have been in support of it even 12 months ago, but now I think we really do need a general strike that brings the country to a complete halt. Stuff it. For all the inconvenience to so many, there needs to be a complete reset.

And there we go again with claims of 'how to properly finance it'. £10bn of tax cuts and the sky falls in. Never mind the billions more thrown around on the NHS, HS2, track and trace, energy support etc. no one really cares where that's coming from.

I support PR (narrowly) but I'm not sure it'll improve the standards of politicians. Ideally we'll come to a point where political parties are abolished, and MPs are paid a heck of a lot more rather than the pittance they currently get (in relation to their role).

On some of your points:

I agree infrastructure needs to be improved, especially with regards to public transport and roads.

Tax laws can never be reformed in a satisfactory way because the UK doesn't have jurisdiction over other nations, if corporations choose to base themselves abroad in these well known tax havens. This is why a rise in corporation tax is so harmful, because it's the small and medium-sized enterprises that will suffer, not the big corporations.

There does need to be a lot more housing built. The population of the nation has increased dramatically over the past 70 or so years due to people living longer and immigration (a lot of it uncontrolled).

What industry would you like to see the UK focus on? We are a service economy now for a reason.

Stop lying - yes, absolutely. But politicians and political activists lie because they know many on their own 'team' will support it and regurgitate it; and others won't even bother to do basic research on things if it supports their biases, well seen on here and on Twitter. The standard of journalism, which when properly used can be used to hold politicians to account, is also on the floor.

Hardly anyone thinks it's Pax Britannica. The  only one I know who bangs on about the Empire is you. Just who on earth thinks it's Rule Britannia these days?

Coalition government is a tricky one and one of the reasons I only narrowly support PR. In a coalition government, voters will struggle to get what they want. We saw that in 2010. Many people voted Lib Dem in good faith, and then Clegg went for a meeting with Cameron, and the Lib Dem manifesto changed dramatically. This type of mystery is more popular on the continent, especially in the Netherlands.

We are engaged with the EU as a trading partner.

I don't recall ever saying I supported the Poopie that is HS2 etc. Truss's tax cuts per se weren't the problem; it was the lack of any costing.

I agree that MPs should be paid more; they're running the country FFS, like them or loathe them.

Of course we can reform our own tax laws. Yes, other jurisdictions can do their own thing etc, but thats a really pants excuse not to get our own house in order.

Industry? How about green/renewable energy as a starter for 10? We're a service economy because we've ****ed over/given away everything else.

Just stop lying. The reasons you give that they do it is just an excuse. It's not a justification.

We can disagree, but a-holes like Mark Francois etc still think we're actual world leaders with real clout. We aren't. The services, infrastructure, services etc that so many expect are based on Empire (and the resources that we claimed as 'ours') and being able to rip it off from that empire. That's done, but too many don't realise that or accept it.

Coalition follows the middle road and removes the wing nut opinions. God forbid that anyone would put nation first though.

If we're engaged with the EU as any sort of trading partner, it's lesser position that pre-Brexit. ~2016 - we were 90% of the German economy; 2022 - we're ~60-70% of the German economy. Time to admit a mistake was made.

1) Exactly and that's the point. No one cares about the costing of various other things, we accept those things are funded through borrowing and increases the national debt.

2) We can reform our tax laws, yes, but if a big corporation is based outside the UK there's little the UK government can do about it.

3) I'm not saying it's a justification for lying, I'm saying it's why they do it. Because they know they will get away with it. There is no penalty for it.

4) The person you refer to is a very minor individual. The UK is still a leading nation in the world, that is fair to say.

5) And what if the middle road is not the right road? It may not also remove the 'wing nut' opinions. The Tories had to be propped up by the DUP in 2017; the Swedish Democrats are propping up the Swedish Conservatives and Swedish Liberals etc.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Morally bankrupt is perhaps too strong a phrase. No-one is morally perfect - we can all be found morally wanting. Some more than others, and some a lot more than others.

Achieving economic growth is a good policy in isolation, but if the policies to do that cause more damage than harm (e.g. generally agreed that the most vulnerable would be worse off, borrowing would be massively increased), then why would you implement them, except out of blind ideology?

Let's face it - there is a reason why Truss/Kwarteng refused to run it by the OBR. There's a reason why the markets reacted as they did. There's a reason why Hunt is saying mistakes were made. However, you think everyone else is wrong. Who's the opinionated one?

It isn't generally agreed that the most vulnerable would be worse off. They would be better off from the suspension in the NI rise, the cut in the basic tax rate and the economic growth that would result. You mean to say that they don't benefit as much as the richest from these changes, principally because the richest pay more tax in the first place.

As said, these policies should be implemented to engineer economic growth, which is sorely needed after the past 14 years of stagnation. You have no alternative answer to propose economic growth.

I don't think everyone else is wrong. I think some people are wrong.

If you read the IMF, OBR, etc conclusions (apologies for not remembering all the acronyms) on the recent fiscal event - they all state that the most vulnerable would actually be worse off because of overall adverse effects. I realise you think they are all wrong and that you believe you know better than they do.

The general consensus is it would increase inequality; this is a different thing to people being worse off.

Unless you're referring to something else, in which case please provide direct, referenced quotations.

I already did. You cherry-picked one paragraph of a report and I posted the rest of it which detailed why the poor would be worse off. You ignored it. Why should I post it again? Pretty sure the OBR conclusion was that the poor would be £1000/year worse after mortgage rate rises, paying for increased government borrowing, other considerations etc. Can I be bothered to find it again? No. Why? Because even if you read them, agreed that the poor would be worse off, you wouldn't actually care anyway as long as the better off gained from it. So what's the point?

Soul Requiem wrote:Corporation tax is only payable on a businesses profits so an increase only affects those making money. If they are hard hit by the rise and don't make money they don't pay, quite simple really.

I was refering more to the income tax changes, rather than cutting corporation tax.

Could I make a quick suggestion/request. If you reply to someones post, maybe just select the portion that is relevant rather than the whole page full.
Scrolling through the same quoted text repeatedly is a bit of a pain especially if on mobile device.

Cheers.

Samo wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Corporation tax is only payable on a businesses profits so an increase only affects those making money. If they are hard hit by the rise and don't make money they don't pay, quite simple really.

I was refering more to the income tax changes, rather than cutting corporation tax.

I was replying to Duty.

Soul Requiem wrote:

Samo wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Corporation tax is only payable on a businesses profits so an increase only affects those making money. If they are hard hit by the rise and don't make money they don't pay, quite simple really.

I was refering more to the income tax changes, rather than cutting corporation tax.

I was replying to Duty.

Ah. My apologies.

mountain man wrote:Could I make a quick suggestion/request. If you reply to someones post, maybe just select the portion that is relevant rather than the whole page full.
Scrolling through the same quoted text repeatedly is a bit of a pain especially if on mobile device.

Cheers.

Especially when it goes to one character per line

Duty281 wrote:1) Exactly and that's the point. No one cares about the costing of various other things, we accept those things are funded through borrowing and increases the national debt.

Don't misinterpret my position as solely objecting to just that aspect. The whole bloody thing was uncosted. The tax breaks for the well off got a lot of the headlines, but the whole thing was worse than a dog's dinner.

Duty281 wrote:...5) And what if the middle road is not the right road? It may not also remove the 'wing nut' opinions. The Tories had to be propped up by the DUP in 2017; the Swedish Democrats are propping up the Swedish Conservatives and Swedish Liberals etc.

The Tories did not have to be propped up by the DUP. They chose to be. Big difference. It's also not a good argument to maintain the status quo, which is clearly unfit for purpose.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Morally bankrupt is perhaps too strong a phrase. No-one is morally perfect - we can all be found morally wanting. Some more than others, and some a lot more than others.

Achieving economic growth is a good policy in isolation, but if the policies to do that cause more damage than harm (e.g. generally agreed that the most vulnerable would be worse off, borrowing would be massively increased), then why would you implement them, except out of blind ideology?

Let's face it - there is a reason why Truss/Kwarteng refused to run it by the OBR. There's a reason why the markets reacted as they did. There's a reason why Hunt is saying mistakes were made. However, you think everyone else is wrong. Who's the opinionated one?

It isn't generally agreed that the most vulnerable would be worse off. They would be better off from the suspension in the NI rise, the cut in the basic tax rate and the economic growth that would result. You mean to say that they don't benefit as much as the richest from these changes, principally because the richest pay more tax in the first place.

As said, these policies should be implemented to engineer economic growth, which is sorely needed after the past 14 years of stagnation. You have no alternative answer to propose economic growth.

I don't think everyone else is wrong. I think some people are wrong.

If you read the IMF, OBR, etc conclusions (apologies for not remembering all the acronyms) on the recent fiscal event - they all state that the most vulnerable would actually be worse off because of overall adverse effects. I realise you think they are all wrong and that you believe you know better than they do.

The general consensus is it would increase inequality; this is a different thing to people being worse off.

Unless you're referring to something else, in which case please provide direct, referenced quotations.

I already did. You cherry-picked one paragraph of a report and I posted the rest of it which detailed why the poor would be worse off. You ignored it. Why should I post it again? Pretty sure the OBR conclusion was that the poor would be £1000/year worse after mortgage rate rises, paying for increased government borrowing, other considerations etc. Can I be bothered to find it again? No. Why? Because even if you read them, agreed that the poor would be worse off, you wouldn't actually care anyway as long as the better off gained from it. So what's the point?

Do you mean the NIESR? I 'cherry-picked' because it was relevant to the discussion happening at the time, which was concerning economic growth, and the NIESR confirmed economic growth would happen (in their view). I quoted that bit specifically because it was related to the point in hand.  I'm not sure they ever said the poor would be worse off, but they did say regional disparity would widen.

Did the OBR release a conclusion? Or do you mean a different body, such as the IMF?

Your penultimate sentence contains yet another incorrect point. I do not want the poorest to be worse off, I want this whole country to prosper once again. Your continual insistence that I want the poorest to be worse off - just because I have a different point of view to you, or I should say an actual point of view considering you don't seem to have any ideas for economic growth of your own - does not make it true.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:1) Exactly and that's the point. No one cares about the costing of various other things, we accept those things are funded through borrowing and increases the national debt.

Don't misinterpret my position as solely objecting to just that aspect. The whole bloody thing was uncosted. The tax breaks for the well off got a lot of the headlines, but the whole thing was worse than a dog's dinner.

Duty281 wrote:...5) And what if the middle road is not the right road? It may not also remove the 'wing nut' opinions. The Tories had to be propped up by the DUP in 2017; the Swedish Democrats are propping up the Swedish Conservatives and Swedish Liberals etc.

The Tories did not have to be propped up by the DUP. They chose to be. Big difference. It's also not a good argument to maintain the status quo, which is clearly unfit for purpose.

1) I liked the whole thing, if I'm honest. But Truss was defeated by the blob, no courage, and we'll continue with our high-tax, low-growth economy for at least the next seven years. Ode to Joy.

5) They didn't have to be propped up, fair, but they wanted to be because they wished to remain in government. This wish will remain even if PR happens. It's not an argument for the status quo, for FPTP, it's just to point out that PR does not remove options that are disparate from the centre, as seen in Sweden and many other countries. If we got PR in this country tomorrow, political parties to the right of the Tories would spring up and prosper under PR, win seats, and maybe even form part of a government in the future.

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:1) Exactly and that's the point. No one cares about the costing of various other things, we accept those things are funded through borrowing and increases the national debt.

Don't misinterpret my position as solely objecting to just that aspect. The whole bloody thing was uncosted. The tax breaks for the well off got a lot of the headlines, but the whole thing was worse than a dog's dinner.

Duty281 wrote:...5) And what if the middle road is not the right road? It may not also remove the 'wing nut' opinions. The Tories had to be propped up by the DUP in 2017; the Swedish Democrats are propping up the Swedish Conservatives and Swedish Liberals etc.

The Tories did not have to be propped up by the DUP. They chose to be. Big difference. It's also not a good argument to maintain the status quo, which is clearly unfit for purpose.

1) I liked the whole thing, if I'm honest. But Truss was defeated by the blob, no courage, and we'll continue with our high-tax, low-growth economy for at least the next seven years. Ode to Joy.

5) They didn't have to be propped up, fair, but they wanted to be because they wished to remain in government. This wish will remain even if PR happens. It's not an argument for the status quo, for FPTP, it's just to point out that PR does not remove options that are disparate from the centre, as seen in Sweden and many other countries. If we got PR in this country tomorrow, political parties to the right of the Tories would spring up and prosper under PR, win seats, and maybe even form part of a government in the future.

I mean this is getting daft. It wasn't her lack of courage and for you to say that shows how little you understand of what's actually going on. It was not going to make it through parliament. They weren't going to get the votes, she didn't have the backing of her parliamentary party. It's as simple as that. The plan was moronic and almost everyone that knows what they're talking about said as much.

People are also cottoning on to the simplistic, reductive and incorrect argument that growth is always good in whatever form. The UK has experienced net economic growth over the last 12 years and, before Covid, had experienced annual growth of between 1.5% and 3%. Not amazing but not bad either.

But are Britain's people better off? Unless they were already loaded to begin with, no they're almost certainly not. There are more people living in poverty now than there were before 2012, more children going hungry at school. Food bank use has exploded. But the rich are much richer, so there's that.

Economic growth is not the be all and end all. Society HAS to be taken care of and the growth has to be distributed. That, in my opinion, is one of the most crucial duties of government. Yes, the economy has grown since 2021 (despite Duty's ridiculous claims of "stagnation") but the vast, vast majority of the UK's people are poorer today, relatively speaking, than they were in 2012.

So let's just call this ridiculous, undemocratic, power-grabbing "mini-budget" for what it was. A cynical, ambitious, back of a fag packet attempt to shove as much money as possible into the pockets of the already wealthy. The sooner the Tories are honest about that, the better.

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:1) Exactly and that's the point. No one cares about the costing of various other things, we accept those things are funded through borrowing and increases the national debt.

Don't misinterpret my position as solely objecting to just that aspect. The whole bloody thing was uncosted. The tax breaks for the well off got a lot of the headlines, but the whole thing was worse than a dog's dinner.

Duty281 wrote:...5) And what if the middle road is not the right road? It may not also remove the 'wing nut' opinions. The Tories had to be propped up by the DUP in 2017; the Swedish Democrats are propping up the Swedish Conservatives and Swedish Liberals etc.

The Tories did not have to be propped up by the DUP. They chose to be. Big difference. It's also not a good argument to maintain the status quo, which is clearly unfit for purpose.

1) I liked the whole thing, if I'm honest. But Truss was defeated by the blob, no courage, and we'll continue with our high-tax, low-growth economy for at least the next seven years. Ode to Joy.

5) They didn't have to be propped up, fair, but they wanted to be because they wished to remain in government. This wish will remain even if PR happens. It's not an argument for the status quo, for FPTP, it's just to point out that PR does not remove options that are disparate from the centre, as seen in Sweden and many other countries. If we got PR in this country tomorrow, political parties to the right of the Tories would spring up and prosper under PR, win seats, and maybe even form part of a government in the future.

I mean this is getting daft. It wasn't her lack of courage and for you to say that shows how little you understand of what's actually going on. It was not going to make it through parliament. They weren't going to get the votes, she didn't have the backing of her parliamentary party. It's as simple as that. The plan was moronic and almost everyone that knows what they're talking about said as much.

People are also cottoning on to the simplistic, reductive and incorrect argument that growth is always good in whatever form. The UK has experienced net economic growth over the last 12 years and, before Covid, had experienced annual growth of between 1.5% and 3%. Not amazing but not bad either.

But are Britain's people better off? Unless they were already loaded to begin with, no they're almost certainly not. There are more people living in poverty now than there were before 2012, more children going hungry at school. Food bank use has exploded. But the rich are much richer, so there's that.

Economic growth is not the be all and end all. Society HAS to be taken care of and the growth has to be distributed. That, in my opinion, is one of the most crucial duties of government. Yes, the economy has grown since 2021 (despite Duty's ridiculous claims of "stagnation") but the vast, vast majority of the UK's people are poorer today, relatively speaking, than they were in 2012.

So let's just call this ridiculous, undemocratic, power-grabbing "mini-budget" for what it was. A cynical, ambitious, back of a fag packet attempt to shove as much money as possible into the pockets of the already wealthy. The sooner the Tories are honest about that, the better.

Well put Prawn.
The penultimate sentence explains why Duty was so much in favour of it.
I never actually said he wanted the poor to be worse off, I said he doesn't care if they are worse off or not - and I think that is a very fair statement, based on previous postings. His protestations to the contrary ring hollow.

It's also not taking into account the massive real-terms cuts to public services, which drastically impact the poor and which the very rich don't really care about.

I'm not sure the ill-fated mini budget was a purposeful plan to enable the already wealthy to get even more, even if Truss was too dull to realise that wasn't going to go down well with anyone outside of her and KK. I'd say it was an attempt to get economy going but spectacularly back-fired and it was obvious to 99.9% of ordinary people that it was a disaster. How on earth did they think a tax cut for the rich was going to play out in the media? I suspect their intentions were genuine but I'm amazed there wasn't some advisor who didn't mention how bad it looked. Maybe there were but Truss/KK went for it anyway.

Whatever, Truss is surely on very limited time. I was suprised she won in first place and thought it was the wrong choice. Since becoming PM she has been an unmitigated clusterthing. From all accounts Tory MPs are openly discussing her removal so if she doesn't have backing of her own ministers she is doomed as the general public from what I can gather also think she should go.
I'm also surprised Hunt took job as chancellor as being associated with Truss will scupper any remaining hopes he may have of becoming PM one day.

I assume most have seen that meme of a lettuce? Will Truss outlast the life span of a cut lettuce, cruel but very amusing.

Their intention was, in allegorical terms, to provide the rich with loads more food, with the poor benefitting from a few more of their bread crumbs. As you say, pretty much everyone saw this as hopelessly naive and morally indefensible.

Glad to see Liz Truss joining the Anti-Growth coalition.

General Election please?

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:1) Exactly and that's the point. No one cares about the costing of various other things, we accept those things are funded through borrowing and increases the national debt.

Don't misinterpret my position as solely objecting to just that aspect. The whole bloody thing was uncosted. The tax breaks for the well off got a lot of the headlines, but the whole thing was worse than a dog's dinner.

Duty281 wrote:...5) And what if the middle road is not the right road? It may not also remove the 'wing nut' opinions. The Tories had to be propped up by the DUP in 2017; the Swedish Democrats are propping up the Swedish Conservatives and Swedish Liberals etc.

The Tories did not have to be propped up by the DUP. They chose to be. Big difference. It's also not a good argument to maintain the status quo, which is clearly unfit for purpose.

1) I liked the whole thing, if I'm honest. But Truss was defeated by the blob, no courage, and we'll continue with our high-tax, low-growth economy for at least the next seven years. Ode to Joy.

5) They didn't have to be propped up, fair, but they wanted to be because they wished to remain in government. This wish will remain even if PR happens. It's not an argument for the status quo, for FPTP, it's just to point out that PR does not remove options that are disparate from the centre, as seen in Sweden and many other countries. If we got PR in this country tomorrow, political parties to the right of the Tories would spring up and prosper under PR, win seats, and maybe even form part of a government in the future.

I mean this is getting daft. It wasn't her lack of courage and for you to say that shows how little you understand of what's actually going on. It was not going to make it through parliament. They weren't going to get the votes, she didn't have the backing of her parliamentary party. It's as simple as that. The plan was moronic and almost everyone that knows what they're talking about said as much.

People are also cottoning on to the simplistic, reductive and incorrect argument that growth is always good in whatever form. The UK has experienced net economic growth over the last 12 years and, before Covid, had experienced annual growth of between 1.5% and 3%. Not amazing but not bad either.

But are Britain's people better off? Unless they were already loaded to begin with, no they're almost certainly not. There are more people living in poverty now than there were before 2012, more children going hungry at school. Food bank use has exploded. But the rich are much richer, so there's that.

Economic growth is not the be all and end all. Society HAS to be taken care of and the growth has to be distributed. That, in my opinion, is one of the most crucial duties of government. Yes, the economy has grown since 2021 (despite Duty's ridiculous claims of "stagnation") but the vast, vast majority of the UK's people are poorer today, relatively speaking, than they were in 2012.

So let's just call this ridiculous, undemocratic, power-grabbing "mini-budget" for what it was. A cynical, ambitious, back of a fag packet attempt to shove as much money as possible into the pockets of the already wealthy. The sooner the Tories are honest about that, the better.

Of course it's down to courage. First sign of pressure and Truss folded and threw her chancellor under the bus to try and save her premiership. She didn't even, it seems, try to negotiate her way out. I know perfectly well what's going on, thank you, I have followed this story closely, we just have a different point of view on the matter. I'm heartened to see that you now seem to understand what's going on, after initially labelling the mini-budget as the same policy that the Tories have been pursuing for the last 12 years, when it was a clear break.

It's been terrible economic growth over the past 12 years, not just bad, with an immensely slow recovery (one of the slowest in the G7?), and then during Covid the economy went on an extreme downturn. We need strong economic growth as a nation. We currently have no plans to do so.

Data from the JRF indicates that the amount of people in poverty has been broadly stable in recent years. It peaked at 25% in 96/97, went down to a low of 20% in 04/05, before going up to 22% at the end of the last Labour government. It was then 22% in 2020. It may, of course, have gone up since then due to the disastrous lockdown policy pursued. Food bank use has gone up (it's gone up in most western European nations I believe), but this is at least partially down to the Tories expanding access to food banks. Under the last Labour government I believe you had to be referred by a GP or health professional to access a food bank; the Tories made access easier.

I'm not sure why you think my claims of 'stagnation' are ridiculous. Only a couple of months ago you were arguing that the economy was in stagflation. Of course the economy has grown in 2021, it can hardly do anything else after the huge downturn it suffered in 2020.

'the vast, vast majority of the UK's people are poorer today, relatively speaking, than they were in 2012' - yes, I agree with you. I have not supported the economic policies of the Tories since they've been in office under Cameron. Which is why it's a shame that a mini-budget which was a clear break from these failed policies, and something that could have created far-reaching economic growth, has been scrapped, meaning that we will return to the same old rubbish that the Tories have been doing for the last 12 years, with the tax burden being increased and spending being slashed.

Pre-Brexit our economy was roughly 90% of Germanys. Now its 70%.

Maybe time to admit leaving the single market was a bit of a silly idea.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:1) Exactly and that's the point. No one cares about the costing of various other things, we accept those things are funded through borrowing and increases the national debt.

Don't misinterpret my position as solely objecting to just that aspect. The whole bloody thing was uncosted. The tax breaks for the well off got a lot of the headlines, but the whole thing was worse than a dog's dinner.

Duty281 wrote:...5) And what if the middle road is not the right road? It may not also remove the 'wing nut' opinions. The Tories had to be propped up by the DUP in 2017; the Swedish Democrats are propping up the Swedish Conservatives and Swedish Liberals etc.

The Tories did not have to be propped up by the DUP. They chose to be. Big difference. It's also not a good argument to maintain the status quo, which is clearly unfit for purpose.

1) I liked the whole thing, if I'm honest. But Truss was defeated by the blob, no courage, and we'll continue with our high-tax, low-growth economy for at least the next seven years. Ode to Joy.

5) They didn't have to be propped up, fair, but they wanted to be because they wished to remain in government. This wish will remain even if PR happens. It's not an argument for the status quo, for FPTP, it's just to point out that PR does not remove options that are disparate from the centre, as seen in Sweden and many other countries. If we got PR in this country tomorrow, political parties to the right of the Tories would spring up and prosper under PR, win seats, and maybe even form part of a government in the future.

I mean this is getting daft. It wasn't her lack of courage and for you to say that shows how little you understand of what's actually going on. It was not going to make it through parliament. They weren't going to get the votes, she didn't have the backing of her parliamentary party. It's as simple as that. The plan was moronic and almost everyone that knows what they're talking about said as much.

People are also cottoning on to the simplistic, reductive and incorrect argument that growth is always good in whatever form. The UK has experienced net economic growth over the last 12 years and, before Covid, had experienced annual growth of between 1.5% and 3%. Not amazing but not bad either.

But are Britain's people better off? Unless they were already loaded to begin with, no they're almost certainly not. There are more people living in poverty now than there were before 2012, more children going hungry at school. Food bank use has exploded. But the rich are much richer, so there's that.

Economic growth is not the be all and end all. Society HAS to be taken care of and the growth has to be distributed. That, in my opinion, is one of the most crucial duties of government. Yes, the economy has grown since 2021 (despite Duty's ridiculous claims of "stagnation") but the vast, vast majority of the UK's people are poorer today, relatively speaking, than they were in 2012.

So let's just call this ridiculous, undemocratic, power-grabbing "mini-budget" for what it was. A cynical, ambitious, back of a fag packet attempt to shove as much money as possible into the pockets of the already wealthy. The sooner the Tories are honest about that, the better.

Well put Prawn.
The penultimate sentence explains why Duty was so much in favour of it.
I never actually said he wanted the poor to be worse off, I said he doesn't care if they are worse off or not - and I think that is a very fair statement, based on previous postings. His protestations to the contrary ring hollow.

This, again, is incorrect and I wonder why you persist in posting such falsehoods. I want this country to prosper economically, I want people to keep more of what they earn, and I want a smaller state.

It's disappointing that you cannot, at least, respect this view, even if you disagree with it, as I do with yours.

mountain man wrote:I'm not sure the ill-fated mini budget was a purposeful plan to enable the already wealthy to get even more, even if Truss was too dull to realise that wasn't going to go down well with anyone outside of her and KK. I'd say it was an attempt to get economy going but spectacularly back-fired and it was obvious to 99.9% of ordinary people that it was a disaster. How on earth did they think a tax cut for the rich was going to play out in the media? I suspect their intentions were genuine but I'm amazed there wasn't some advisor who didn't mention how bad it looked. Maybe there were but Truss/KK went for it anyway.

Whatever, Truss is surely on very limited time. I was suprised she won in first place and thought it was the wrong choice. Since becoming PM she has been an unmitigated clusterthing. From all accounts Tory MPs are openly discussing her removal so if she doesn't have backing of her own ministers she is doomed as the general public from what I can gather also think she should go.
I'm also surprised Hunt took job as chancellor as being associated with Truss will scupper any remaining hopes he may have of becoming PM one day.

I assume most have seen that meme of a lettuce? Will Truss outlast the life span of a cut lettuce, cruel but very amusing.

It's an interesting one because it has brought into even sharper view the disconnect between the Tory MPs and the Tory members.

If it had been purely up to the Tory MPs, with the members having zero say, then Rishi Sunak would have won by a lot and he would be PM now.

If it had been purely down to the members it would have been a closer race, with Badenoch the most likely to have won, but Sunak would have been way down the pecking order. Perhaps not even in the top 10.

This disconnect was clear at the time. It was pretty certain, for the duration of the race, that Sunak would make the final two but wouldn't have a chance of winning the members vote.  So, in effect, the MPs (who are much closer to the centre than the members) have had a leader foisted upon them that they did not want. I believe the last time this happened was in 2001, when Iain Duncan Smith beat the MPs' favourite Ken Clarke, and IDS didn't last long in the role (two years). I wonder if, as a result of Truss, the Tories will change their own leadership election rules?

I don't think Hunt being associated with Truss will end his meagre chances of being PM one day. He's not really seen as associated, he's seen as a de-facto PM, which is dismal stuff.

Just confirmed that everything is going in the mini-budget, bar the cut to stamp duty and the non-rise in National Insurance (falsely termed a cut, it's just staying the same).

The 1p cut in basic rate income tax has gone. Energy support is now guaranteed only until April (not two years as before). Freeze on alcohol duty has gone. And we can expect tax rises and spending cuts in the near-future.

Safe to say that the poorest will be worse off under Hunt's plans than Kwarteng's. But those who are motivated by envy of the rich may still remain content.

Truss has to resign. She is a lame-duck PM with zero credibility. PM in name-only, actually. The country is being run by Hunt and Sunak, plus their respective allies. It's as though the membership vote didn't happen. It's as though Johnson is still PM.

It's more the way they went off firing from the hip without waiting for any kind of review or advice. The offices they inherited come with a requirement to act responsibly and measured. The reaction has been largely driven by their failure to do that.

Not sure what is less credible, Truss pretending she has any kind of authority or the Tories considering a third leader will have any

So energy cap which was to be for two years now only until April 2023. This will hurt a lot of people.

mountain man wrote:So energy cap which was to be for two years now only until April 2023. This will hurt a lot of people.

Maybe, maybe not. A new decision will be made in April depending on the outlook at that point in time, actually think it makes more sense doing it like that.

One thing I would have kept was the income tax cut, but then again if it can't be funded, then in the medium/long-term the poor would end up worse off by implementing it. Also means more money for public services, which mostly benefit those less well off, so they should gain in that area.
Encouraged by the plan for next April to target the energy cap to benefit those less well off. Suspect my bill will skyrocket, but I can cope with that and will be pleased if it means extra help for those who can't.

Soul Requiem wrote:

mountain man wrote:So energy cap which was to be for two years now only until April 2023. This will hurt a lot of people.

Maybe, maybe not. A new decision will be made in April depending on the outlook at that point in time, actually think it makes more sense doing it like that.

Additionally, the new plan will be targetted, so I would expect/hope that the only people who would get hurt financially are the ones for whom it will make very little difference i.e. very little hurt.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Suspect my bill will skyrocket, but I can cope with that and will be pleased if it means extra help for those who can't.

Thats a silly idea, it’ll never catch on.

mountain man wrote:So energy cap which was to be for two years now only until April 2023. This will hurt a lot of people.

I wouldn't expect it to come back, it'll be kicked into the long grass and forgotten about.

More hurt to the economy will come through the axing of VAT-free shopping for international visitors.

Good to know, however, that the silly bankers bonus cap will still be axed.

Well the number one issue for most people(according to news etc) is cost of energy to heat and cook. Any policy which doesn't allay peoples fears that they won't be able to heat their home or cook their meals is going to play badly. As it happens I think Hunt is a smart guy and would hope he knows better than all of us on here for sure but its how it plays out and reaction to it will be another matter.

Labour have their request for an Urgent Question in Parliament accepted for 15:30. They want to get to the bottom of why she sacked Kwasi Kwarteng.

Its understood Truss is sending Penny Mordaunt into the firing line instead of appearing herself.

I don't know why Truss doesn't just resign, the world and his wife know Hunt, Sunak and Mourdant are running things now.

Doubt they want her to until they can agree on who replaces her.

She should certainly resign. 4/9 to go this year. I'd then expect the Tories to vote in another leader in double quick time without consulting the members. This could further exacerbate the growing divide between the membership and the MPs. Will the Tory tribalists finally lose their loyalty to the blue rosette?

I suppose the criminal Sunak would be the overwhelming favourite to become PM in this scenario, of an MPs-only vote. Some have forgotten how he trashed the economy last time, but it will soon be re-remembered if he comes back. This would, of course, also be a backdoor for Johnson to return to the levers of power. The only other viable option on the table is the incredibly lightweight Wallace.

It's sad really. The Conservative Party has been the home of political titans, such as Peel, Disraeli, Churchill and Thatcher. Now it's reduced to Sunak or Wallace.

For the first time in my life the Tory Party are actually worse than Labour. In my life I've always known the Tory Party to be a heap of rubbish. But Labour have always been just that bit worse. Until now. Of course, there's not actually going to be much difference when/if Labour get in, as the Tories have aped their policies.

The only hope is the Tories get utterly routed and smashed to smithereens in 2024/25.

Duty281 wrote:She should certainly resign. 4/9 to go this year. I'd then expect the Tories to vote in another leader in double quick time without consulting the members. This could further exacerbate the growing divide between the membership and the MPs. Will the Tory tribalists finally lose their loyalty to the blue rosette?

I suppose the criminal Sunak would be the overwhelming favourite to become PM in this scenario, of an MPs-only vote. Some have forgotten how he trashed the economy last time, but it will soon be re-remembered if he comes back. This would, of course, also be a backdoor for Johnson to return to the levers of power. The only other viable option on the table is the incredibly lightweight Wallace.

It's sad really. The Conservative Party has been the home of political titans, such as Peel, Disraeli, Churchill and Thatcher. Now it's reduced to Sunak or Wallace.

For the first time in my life the Tory Party are actually worse than Labour. In my life I've always known the Tory Party to be a heap of rubbish. But Labour have always been just that bit worse. Until now. Of course, there's not actually going to be much difference when/if Labour get in, as the Tories have aped their policies.

The only hope is the Tories get utterly routed and smashed to smithereens in 2024/25.

Demonstrable nonsense unless you were born after 2010*

* which would explain a lot.

Penny Mordaunt looks like she would rather be anywhere else but standing at the box.