MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Every time she opens her mouth interest rates go up, and the value of the line goes down.
Every time she opens her mouth interest rates go up, and the value of the line goes down.
The core problem is that she doesn't understand what the job is. When you're campaigning you can say what the hell you like, but once in power you have to analyse and react to events in the real world and decide the appropriate course of action. Truss is still in campaigning mode, and doesn't (or refuses to) understand that the nature of her role has completely changed. I have to admit that I massively underestimated how thick she is. I knew she'd be bad but this level of incompetence is off the scale. Gone by christmas, if she's lucky.
The IFS claims that to 'balance the books' on the £62bn spaffed could involve cutting 220,000 public sector jobs. Truss says she won't cut public spending but will cut taxes for the rich. If Bailey is stopping the bail-outs on Friday then it's QE, self-inflicted recession or modern magic. I think she believes in the latter.
Modern Magic Theory (MMT)?
I think she believes in the latter.
I've been saying for some time that Truss (and Johnson before her) are secret MMTers. Rees Mogg pretty much admitted it in an unguarded off the cuff comment when he admitted that the national debt doesn't ever get paid back. If true the problem is not that they're MMTers, but that they want to use it to enrich their friends in the city rather than use it to fund public services, infrastructure and all the other things that govt does.
Oh FFS I hadn't seen the wording:
During her leadership contest, the prime minister said, and I quote her exactly: ‘I’m very clear I’m not planning public spending reductions.’ Is she going to stick to that?” Starmer asked.
Truss replied: “Absolutely".
Liz Truss has apparently learnt the art of denial from Michael Heseltine
I can foresee no circumstances under which a challenge would take place," said Michael Heseltine in 1990, when asked about his ambitions to succeed an increasingly unpopular Margaret Thatcher.
Within two months, the circumstances he was previously unable to foresee had all of a sudden presented themselves.
Like many heirs apparent, however, he never actually won the prize so long forecast to come his way.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30005426
So no plans for today then.
I thought the leader of the Opposition was some big shot lawyer with forensic skills? How the **** could he not pin her down with a question along the lines of "Can you categorically deny that there will be any spending cuts?" Instead of asking her a question about what she is "planning"?
She will be able to say that she didn't lie to parliament.
Kier is lacking somewhat in the grab em by the balls and squeeze stakes.
The lawyers I know are right ruthless gits.
Yup. Big difference between not having plans to do something and not doing it. Luckily for Starmer, the press is on his side at the moment so this semantic point will probably not be used to pin him down. If it was Corbyn though I think we know what the media would be talking about.
Kier could absolutely tear Truss a new a hole, but he just never seems to get out of 2nd gear.
IANAL but can you really pin somebody on not doing something in the future? Realistically, plans adapt and change. I don't think any Prime Minister can categorically say what is going to happen at some point in the future beyond their current plans. You can however hold them to account on what they're planning today.
The other thing with her statement though... How I interpreted it, was that she only said spending wouldn't change. There was no mention of how it might be redistributed. Does that overall spend include the energy packages, with services being cut to pay for it?
Kier is lacking
I am waiting for Drakeford and Sturgeon to start moving from the 'we want to work with the new PM and cabinet' to 'hold my coat a moment...'
hold my
coatpint a moment…’
Kier could absolutely tear Truss a new a hole
I suspect it's something to do with not wanting to alienate current Tory voters, but get them onside. I think there's a lot more to being a politician than the baying mob realises.
The pair of them seem absolutely determined to drive the economy headlong, full pelt, flat out, pedal to the metal into a brick wall as hard as they fing can. It's mind boggling...
I suspect it’s something to do with not wanting to alienate current Tory voters, but get them onside. I think there’s a lot more to being a politician than the baying mob realises.
Good point well made!
I suspect it’s something to do with not wanting to alienate current Tory voters,
And the fact that an Election is still probably 2 years away so why burn your candles now?
Especially when your opponent seems hell-bent on self-immolation.
Pretty sure the gov has already started cutting back. Was supposed to have a meeting with some gov bods today, but they cancelled saying they had to review how they work.
You'd think that Truss would be exactly what the blue wall would want
Turns out, not!....
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1580226802617753600?t=p0iaF52puBv3262jxr7IYQ&s=19
I don’t think any Prime Minister can categorically say what is going to happen at some point in the future beyond their current plans.
What was being discussed at PMQ concerned the immediate situation to deal with the immediate crises, not "some point in the future".
The PM could have categorically said that there will no spending cuts.
In the same way that Kwarteng has categorically stated that corporation tax won't be increasing next April. It's not difficult.
We are facing an extremely serious cost of living crises right now, it is perfectly appropriate for the leader of the Opposition to demand that the Prime Minister explains precisely what she will be doing.
Spending cuts especially under current circumstances would have devastating consequences. It is not a trivial matter which can be ignored.
Truss is on the ropes, going easy on her because it might offend Tory voters sounds particularly daft. Especially as currently the Tories are polling less than half that of Labour.
Truss needs to understand that austerity to fund the freeze on corporation tax is not an option that she can consider.
It's OK Truss went to 1922cmttee to use her wit & charm to diffuse the situation...
https://twitter.com/henrymance/status/1580250196331888640?t=dAbbVheu1UbnkOCqsKcX_w&s=19
Kwatang is being absolutely demolished on channel 4 news right now. A New York financier just described his tax policy as ‘bollocks’ and described the UK as being like Italy under Berlisconi (not the first time I’ve heard that comparison).
They fear that we’re now so unpredictable that not only will international investors not touch us with a barge pole, they fear that our shithousery might start infecting other markets due to the sheer madness of those at the helm.
They need to start coming up with sums that actually add up. And fast!
They won’t of course, because they’re utter ****-wits!
Christ knows how much long term damage they’ll have done in such a short space of time by the time they’re done
We’re officially a banana republic
This appears to be where we’re now at
https://twitter.com/peston/status/1580262987402616837?s=21&t=JE3_QZurw66WkVbs-gbbLQ
I don’t think the semantics of categorically denying cuts vs planning to cut matters- most reporting on the radio is quoting “No cuts”. That’s what voters will hear so when the U-turn comes it will be a straight “You said no cuts”
on channel 4 news right now. A New York financier just described his tax policy as ‘bollocks’
C4 News researchers need to be a bit more thorough when they investigate the suitability of individuals that appear on their programme.
Quite disgraceful.
It’s simply frightful Ernie! I had to reach for my smelling salts at the sound of such industrial language
Anyway… this experiment with letting right wing thinktanks run the country is going really well, isn’t it?
Do you think her and Kwasi are still going to be around by the time he’s meant to deliver all his cuts to public services on Halloween?
kwarteng's tax policies being described as 'bollocks' is ok by me - particularly when done so on broadcast media.
Anyway… this experiment with letting right wing thinktanks run the country is going really well, isn’t it?
Problem is it isnt "right wing thinktanks" but "Thatcher was verging on being a lefty" wing pressure groups. They really shouldnt be dignified with the term "thinktanks". Thats just one of their disguises alongside the nontaxpayers alliance and so on.
Even they seem to be getting nervous though. I think the clever ones realise the way to victory is to slowly boil the frog as opposed to dousing it with jet fuel and tossing in a cigar.
The funeral-laughing half-wit is in New York this week where he’ll be grilled on his economic plan by economists, central bankers and finance ministers
Given his performance so far, I expect the pound will have achieved parity with the Mongolian groat by Friday and most UK pension funds will be bankrupt
C4 News researchers need to be a bit more thorough when they investigate the suitability of individuals that appear on their programme.
Quite disgraceful.
My mum thought it was brilliant, as did I - I think the New York editor of the FT is well placed to describe Jacob Rees Mogg's comments regarding "inflation as the cause" as Bollocks is entirely relevant and very suitable - clip below, and I particularly liked the somethingion of the legality of using Bollocks by Krishnan Gury Murphy on broadcast TV at the end of the show.
Bollocks equals nonsense so was entirely justified.
https://youtube.com/shorts/dDBp5Ju6ONc?feature=share
Didn't think Americans used the word bollocks? Good of her to learn a new British word to describe the incompetent harpy.
Didn’t think Americans used the word bollocks?
That’s because she’s English. She’s the American editor for the FT
Had an interesting conversation with two colleagues of Indian heritage who were struggling to comprehend how we'd found a more unpleasant Home Secretary than Priti Patel.
They were rather forthright in how them and their Rwanda policy is viewed by most British Asians. The word "fascist" featured.
Bollocks equals nonsense so was entirely justified.
It might well have been justified but I'm just glad it wasn't on the telly when the vicar popped round for a cup of tea and a chat about the Christmas fete.
You always get a "strong language" and "may offend" warnings on Dave, they obviously need to extend those sort of warnings to C4 News.
ITV being absolutely scathing, or rather, reporting the utter dismay within the Tory party tonight. Some Tory MP's reported as saying they would support a no confidence vote... prompting a GE and almost certain Labour government.
Didn't know it was Gillian Tett.
She knows exactly what she's on about.
Her book Fool's Gold about derivatives and the 2008 banking crash is well worth reaading.
Re “glad it wasn’t on when the vicar popped round”…..
An Anglican priest was a defence witness in the obscenity trial over “Never Mind the Bollocks” to support the view that bollocks originally meant rubbish/nonsense
I don’t think the semantics of categorically denying cuts vs planning to cut matters- most reporting on the radio is quoting “No cuts”. That’s what voters will hear so when the U-turn comes it will be a straight “You said no cuts”
It matters, how much is debatable, but I reckon enough to need to get the correct attack line.
Liz Truss's conference speech writers will have chosen their words carefully. The Tories have form on this sort of semantics.
Whatever the radio reports are telling voters now if Truss is later challenged the very first thing she will do is point out is what she exactly said, and Starmer helpfully reminded everyone today.Then she will move on to explain that dispite not having any plans the situation changed, blah blah. And the attack on misleading the parliament and the public ends.
If Starmer had demanded that she categorically denies that there will be spending cuts that would have been a different kettle of fish.
If she had said no, she can't, that would have damned her, especially after saying just a few days ago at Conference that there were no plans.
If she had said yes she could say categorically that there would be no cuts then she would be in a much stickier position to deal with the reaction to a U-turn. It would make her appear less trustworthy and honest, she wouldn't be able to simply brush it aside. She could be pursued with "yes but you said....."
To ask the correct question requires no more effort than as asking one with a get out clause. I would expect a man who pledged a, quote: "Forensic, effective opposition to the Tories in Parliament" to ask it.
Austerity, especially during a cost of living crises, has the potential to be a huge issue affecting millions of people in the next couple of years, the new PM is already on the ropes, I don't see the point of pulling punches, or allowing her to have some wriggle room.
It might well have been justified but I’m just glad it wasn’t on the telly when the vicar popped round for a cup of tea and a chat about the Christmas fete.
You always get a “strong language” and “may offend” warnings on Dave, they obviously need to extend those sort of warnings to C4 News.
Bring back the red triangle
Even if he got her to categorically debt cuts, all she had to do is quote changing circumstances. As it stands most headlines are “She’s ruling out cuts”.
If she tries to wriggle away based on what she said it’ll just be seen (or should be) as using an excuse to get off the hook. Just like all the interest and currency problems are due to “the markets” and nothing whatsoever to do with the botched budget.
someone said bollocks on telly! oh my! won't someone think of the children?
it'll be the talk of the warm bank. real soup kitchen conversation stuff.
all she had to do is quote changing circumstances.
She doesn't even have to do that. Because she wasn't pressed into explaining exactly what "absolutely" meant her commitment is already worthless.
Straight after Liz Truss's comment during PMQs Downing Street was already talking about "difficult decisions".
You can be fairly certain that the "difficult decisions" will involve not increasing government spending in line with inflation. So while there might not be a cash cut in spending there will in real terms. With inflation at 10% that will represent a significant real term cut.
Truss also in her Conference speech promised to increase Defense spending very significantly to 3% of GDP by the end of the decade.
As far as I am aware she hasn't ring-fenced any spending so that if she increases Defence spending but reduces spending on say the NHS or the police by the same amount then she will have met her obligation not to cut government spending.
PMQs provides an opportunity for the Opposition to demand answers from the PM, it would be useful if the PM was cross-examined in a more precise and forensic manner.
PMQs provides an opportunity for the Opposition to demand answers from the PM, it would be useful if the PM was cross-examined in a more precise and forensic manner.
When the PM can literally answer "No comment", only an error on her part is an issue.
When the PM can literally answer “No comment”, only an error on her part is an issue.
Was going to post something similar - SKS did point out, at least twice, that she didn't even pretend to answer the question.
Whilst she can get away with this, there must be more value in the question and the answer that is perceived, rather than the precise wording/semantics, no?
PMQs provides an opportunity for the Opposition to demand answers from the PM, it would be useful if the PM was cross-examined in a more precise and forensic manner
Truss is just continuity Boris in this respect. She just completely ignores the question and waffles her way through a selection of pre-prepared soundbites
The problem isn’t Starmer, its the spineless speaker who continues to let this happen, completely unchallenged
Anyway, back on topic: Cleverly has been on Radio 4 just now, doubling down and saying that in their alternative universe there will be no more u-turns and no cuts to public spending and their ‘plan’ is credible
Literally living on another planet!
I’m sure ‘The Markets’ will continue to express their disbelief of this nonsense and the pound will go through the floor when the B of E switches off its life support tomorrow
Bring back the red triangle
That won't be enough. Ban this filth!
Ernie going all 'Points of View Letter Writer' is some funny shit!
no u-turns and no cuts
Well what they said was there was no plans to reduce spending. In a 10% inflationary situation no increase is still a cut, and then there's things you've not yet spent, like 40 'new' hospitals that could be removed from future budgets in order to reduce whats already committed, leaving you no 'cuts' to services, but failing to make the improvements that were promised. Its all semantics, but I think its perfectly possible for them to come out the end of this arguing they made no 'cuts' while the infrastructure of the country burns.
The problem isn’t Starmer, its the spineless speaker who continues to let this happen, completely unchallenged
Exactly! Hoyle was slightly less than useless during Johnson's tenure and looks like he wants to set the bar lower for Truss's. As long as the government can get away with spouting mindless drivel then they will. The importance of a strong speaker has never been more evident than now!
Semantics aside just thinking you've implemented a "growth strategy" by crippling household budgets and kicking the legs from under the public sector requires a particular type of stupidity. It will fail and millions of people will suffer as a result while a few tossers make a quick buck. On the plus side it might burn the tory party. Brave New World.
Despite his strong Lancashire tones that Hoyle geezer has been an utter disaster and entirely complicit. He can line up against the wall too.
Ban this filth!
The interesting thing about the bollocks lady, Gillian Tett, is firstly that the comment was clearly premeditated and not spontaneous as expletives often are.
I suspect that she was a little nervous about saying what she said on national television as she actually fluffed her line. She made two attempts to say "non-technical" when she made the "to use a non-technical term it's bollocks" comment.
And secondly, even more interesting imo, Gillian Tett isn't actually an economist and has no qualifications on the subject - she is in fact a social anthropologist. And yet based on her expertise on social anthropology the Financial Times assistant editor was able to correctly predict the global banking crisis 2 years before it occurred.
Which proves just how important behaviour and culture can be when it comes to banking and wider economic issues. And why things such as bankers bonuses do actually matter.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/oct/31/creditcrunch-gillian-tett-financial-times
"I happen to think anthropology is a brilliant background for looking at finance," she reasons. "Firstly, you're trained to look at how societies or cultures operate holistically, so you look at how all the bits move together. And most people in the City don't do that. They are so specialised, so busy, that they just look at their own little silos. And one of the reasons we got into the mess we are in is because they were all so busy looking at their own little bit that they totally failed to understand how it interacted with the rest of society."
That's irrelevant. Of
Many people predicted the financial crash in 2008 and your degree/training is not a barometer of wider knowledge and overall intelligence.
Which explains why Lehman Brothers collapsed - because everyone was predicting it two years before it happened.
Any predictions for what happens tomorrow when the Bank of England pulls the plug?
Now that's one big bollock.
Edit: Is that the clue....... someone's dropped a bollock?
Any predictions for what happens tomorrow when the Bank of England pulls the plug?
They won't pull the plug. They'll save face by ending the current scheme, and replace it with something else that does the same thing. Probably QE. The existing scheme is funded from bank reserves, not new money. QE is something that the govt instructs the BoE to do. I suspect Bailey is trying to force the hand of the govt to start a new round of QE, rather than leaving it to him to use reserves to buy the bonds. Of course the major risk is that nothing will happen as a result of both sides trying to force the other to own the responsibility. This is why BoE independence needs to be abolished. They should be working together not against each other.
To be fair to Ernie, we have a chancellor qualified in Social Economics rather than the more traditional quantitative form. How’s that going?
I have no traditional qualifications for the job I do, but 25 years experience and a questioning mind go a long way.
I suspect Bailey is trying to force the hand of the govt
But has he got the government by the bollox? To use a non-technical term.
TiRed I'm not doubting Gillian Tett's qualifications to comment on economic matters, I am actually doing the reverse which is why I quoted her.
I have no qualifications beyond how to swing a hammer or cut a piece of 4x4, it's never stopped me from commenting on all sorts of issues including economics!
Cleverly: "we're not going to be cutting public services"
Has he dropped a bollock? Or the is only avenue left benefits - annihilate universal credit?
"Which explains why Lehman Brothers collapsed – because everyone was predicting it two years before it happened."
Most people who ramraid a warehouse will hear the alarms going off but it doesn't stop them trying to load as many TVs as they can into the van before the cops show up.
Thats where we were in 2008 and its where we are now - except the cops are 2 years away
If the quotes are right, the comments by Charlie at this week's meeting with PM Trussed Up are absolutely priceless.
'Back again? Dear oh dear...'
Meanwhile Cruella wants to have modern slavery handled by default as an illegal immigration issue. That's really going to help improve safety for the victims.
highlandman
Free MemberIf the quotes are right, the comments by Charlie at this week’s meeting with PM Trussed Up are absolutely priceless.
‘Back again? Dear oh dear…’
The quote is correct, again I'm no monarchist but I found it very amusing. The tone was very much a veneer of politeness over "****s sake, haven't they got rid of you yet, you ****ing ****"
eta video
https://twitter.com/bmay/status/1580281365899096065
eta 2, oops sorry hadn't seen bruneep already posted it a page or two back, i'm leaving it up anyway
That’s really going to help improve safety for the victims.
I'm pretty confident that's not high on the list of Cruella's priorities - she's a horrific ethical vacuum, and there's still Kemi Badenoch out there to the right of her in reserve.
I have no traditional qualifications for the job I do, but 25 years experience and a questioning mind go a long way.
You still ended up with letters after your name
It looks like everything Not-So-Cleverly had to say on his morning media rounds is about to become null and void…
https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1580517767299547136?s=21&t=zg0OWdlme3YON5fOsFhC7A
When she is gone she can get a job at Meta with cleggly boy she will fit right in.
In hindsight, I think this was always going to happen.
It didn't look like the budget was going to get through the Commons, too many rebels. So Truss and her cabinet would be a busted flush.
They couldn't of elected another new leader, it would of been too ridiculous.
A GE at the moment is out of the question, too many would of lost their jobs.
Rock and a hard place for the Tory party in general.
What now? try to get some credibility back before the GE? Bring back the fat, bumbling liar in 12 months?
When she is gone she can get a job at Meta with cleggly boy she will fit right in.
Is this a general comment or referring to the story just coming out that he has been named as one of those who alledgedly took bribes from Onlyfans to help suppress visibility of adult performers not working for onlyfans?
That petition to hold a GE is being debated on Monday - I'm sure the answer will be f-off but I hope Labour and others can use it to stick the boot in
I'm just looking forward to tomorrow with the BoE decision and the hinted at big uturn.
I wonder about her post PM as she's clearly going to need a new job soon. On her CV should she
A) have worst PM ever proudly at the top or
B) leave these dates empty and claim she was away travelling or similar?
Kwasi has said he is 100% staying on as chancellor.
See ya.
If he gets the sack while he's in the states, does he have to pay his own airfare home?
It appears that the next U-turn is very likely to be over corporation tax. No doubt Kwarteng and Truss will justify it by claiming that it is necessary to calm the markets, and perhaps emphasis that their goal is still low taxes but that it will be put on hold for now.
But even if it does calm the markets that won't necessarily stop the threat of serious Tory backbench revolt - how many Tory MPs are going to vote in favour of fracking, which is never going to enhance their standing with their electorate, or vote to support building developments in their Green Belt constituencies?
Whatever the result of the next general election it is certain that a great many Tory MPs will lose their seats, pissing off their electorates will be something which they will be very keen not to do.
As far as an early general election is concerned a couple of weeks ago I would have thought absolutely no chance whatsoever, not with polls consistently showing support for Labour more than double that for the Tories.
But now I'm not so sure, imo it depends on just how serious the crises within the Tory Party actually is, and I'm starting to think that it might be even more serious than I had previously imagined.
If a ruling party is experiencing serious internal strife and chaos it doesn't make for stable government. I have no doubt that most Tory MPs now accept that the next government won't be a Tory government. Getting rid of Truss would probably only minimise their losses.
The situation now could eventually end up trigging an early general election, especially if the Tories replace Truss and they feel that they have no option but to call an early election.
Many Tory MPs will be aware that whilst backing an early election might not be good for the Tory Party it might enhance their own personal political fortunes if they distance themselves from a deeply unpopular government.
And some Tories might genuinely not want to see the UK economy trashed.
Who could have predicted a couple of months ago that Labour would be leading the Tories by more than 30%? No one can predict what will happen in the next couple.
Their climate policy is unlawful, so presumably a u-turn on that too
https://goodlawproject.org/news/nz_update/
You still ended up with letters after your name
I had a few before I changed career direction, albeit with some transferrable quantitative skills 😉 .
When is her probationary period up? Must be soon. Is it still three months or can we make an exception?
You know that date when all the Junior Doctors rotate in the NHS. This new cabinet feels the same. I mean, James Cleverly. At least the NHS has the Consultants and Registrars to step in. Government has the Civil Servants. And what did the new rotation into the Treasury role do. Sacked his Consultant on Day 1.
You know we're up the swanny when George Osbourne is a voice of reason
https://twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/1580553190881497088?t=rWnZVnpze6oaX8phwPwyGw&s=19
It appears that the next U-turn is very likely to be over corporation tax.
They were planning to launch their 'death by a thousand cuts' policy later this month, not be the subject of it.
I've been really enjoying these guys recently
https://twitter.com/Exploding_Heads/status/1580459121840910342?t=njuYHnt4cvnHsq0gPdqs6A&s=19
Well Liz Truss's Home Secretary certainly isn't just a "superficial" Tory, she's a proper Tory Home Secretary:
Indian ministers are said to be furious with her remarks as the agreement is reportedly “on the verge of collapse”.
She aired concerns about the deal last week because it might increase migration, telling the Spectator “the largest group of people who overstay are Indian migrants”.