Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
Using questions on Albania to take up time.Dreadful
To summarise:
Would the Home Secretary agree with me that all Albanians should be drowned in the sea off Dover?
I do indeed agree with my right honourable friend and it’s a policy I intend to implement shortly
Rishi is neither politically smart enough and not ruthless enough to manage that pack of rabid pound shop facists.
His party discipline is already non existent, Suella ranting, some other scroat talking about litle chinese men, Boris doing either **** all or on a jolly to COP, Gove making promises Rishi can't keep, 30p Lee talking bollocks...
Its been a week.... and Rishi is already off Radar.
Rishi is neither politically smart enough and not ruthless enough to manage that pack of rabid pound shop facists.
A point expanded on by
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/01/rishi-sunak-errors-prime-minister-britain-week
What a surprise
https://twitter.com/charlotterlynch/status/1587346765107322882?t=5sLk0WS7TXPzfYQwRxUf-g&s=19
Rishi is neither politically smart enough and not ruthless enough to manage that pack of rabid pound shop facists.
Sunak's position as leader of the Tory Party is utterly secure, there is absolutely zero chance that he will be replaced before a general election.
Due to totally self-inflicted crises the Tories have had 3 different leaders over the last 3 months, the consequences of these crises have been truly devastating for them with an unprecedented collapse in their support.
Despite their apparent new-found ability to shoot themselves in the foot by creating these completely unnecessary crises I can't see them even considering creating yet another one by moving against their new current leader.
With that in mind since becoming PM Sunak hasn't imo had to look over his shoulder, the Tories aren't going to replace him. He didn't have to make Braverman Home Secretary, he doesn't have to keep her as Home Secretary, and if he doesn't the Tories won't sack him.
Instead of automatically assuming that Sunak either lacks the acumen to sack Braverman, or is having his arm twisted by others not to, perhaps more consideration should be given to the possibility that politically he shares a great deal her and that he actually wants her to be Home Secretary, a possibility which few seem to want to entertain - I have no idea why.
Times carrying an article on public sector pay rises being limited to 2% next year and inflation predicted to be above 9% for the next 12 months.
Richi saying the burden must fall on those with the broadest shoulders.
Yeah not the massive profits for "power" companies but nurse Jones will get 2% and also face a tax rise which will no doubt more than negate the rise.
I agree Ernie Sunak is unlikely to be replaced however that will not stop the internal machinations of the Tory party factions fighting for their agendas... this is the bit Sunak cant control and ultimately it will damage the Tories further.
Sunaks budget is going to destroy productivity, quality of life for ordinary folks, Austerity 2.0 if you like... but much worse than Osbornes effort.
This is the Tory death march, they will plough on because its ideologically correct.
Times carrying an article on public sector pay rises being limited to 2% next year and inflation predicted to be above 9% for the next 12 months.
Richi saying the burden must fall on those with the broadest shoulders.Yeah not the massive profits for “power” companies but nurse Jones will get 2% and also face a tax rise which will no doubt more than negate the rise.
we're all in this together...
aka privatise profit, nationalise debt..
Sunak you depraved moron there is no financial hole. It's a technical impossibility.
This should be nipped in the bud by anyone with half a financial brain.
He's the most dangerous of the Tories so far in my opinion. Anyone that ignores the actual function of a sovereign state's ability to produce money shouldn't be in high office. (Admittedly that would be 90% of people)
It's a death sentence for thousands.
The Tories and Labour are both utterly commited to draining the country of a positive outcome with these ridiculous choices.
Time and time again we never learn.
A country on its knees since early 2020 - that has been through all this now needs tax rises and interest rate rises?
If we get through 2023 without an absolute major economic incident I will stand hanging (and I'm not talking all the faux polava of currency moving up and down with the nuttiness of the unnecessary market connected gambling degenerates.)
Hopefully Sunak will be the Tories last stand. But he's edging popularity over Starmer - it's this pathetic idea of grown-ups in the room.
Grown-ups wouldn't shrink the money supply.
we’re all in this together…
Somewhat ironically, guess who Rishi presently has in number ten as an advisor?
The genius behind Austerity 1.0 also gets to direct the sequel…
Sunak’s position as leader of the Tory Party is utterly secure, there is absolutely zero chance that he will be replaced before a general election.
I'm going to say that an awful lot can happen in the next 2 years
Following on from Johnson & Truss, the threshold is going to be quite high, but if Sunak can't turn those polls around and the tory infighting continues then its more than possible he will go
I’m going to say that an awful lot can happen in the next 2
yearsweeks
FTFY
Would anyone actually be prepared to bang 50 quid of their own money on Suella Braverman still being Home Secretary in 2 weeks time? Because I certainly wouldn’t
IMO sadistic Su will be claiming ex-cabinet allowance again before the end of the week.
and the tory infighting continues
Suella Braverman is a highly divisive individual within Tory Party, both her actual appointment as Home Secretary and her behaviour as Home Secretary has received widespread condemnation from within the Party.
If Rishi Sunak was keen to avoid Tory infighting it is unlikely that he would have elevated Braverman to one of the Great Offices of State within hours of becoming PM, a move which he would have known from the very start would be highly controversial.
IMO he really doesn't care, he knows there is no realistic possibility that the Tories will replace him.
The comment below concerning Braverman was made by a Tory MP, it can't come as any particular surprise to Sunak.
"Her language yesterday, I’m afraid, suggested that she is only really interested in playing the right wing.
The fact of the matter is that, of course, I’m also defending my constituents’ interest because the facility at Manston was designed to turn people around in 24 hours, maximum 48 hours, and move them on, it’s a processing centre, not a refugee camp.
I was given a clear undertaking by Priti Patel as home secretary and by the minister of state that that is what would happen and that there would be no expansion of the facility.
Over the last few days, we have seen an almost doubling of the size of the number of people in Manston and a massive building of further accommodation, and that is not acceptable.
It’s in breach of the undertakings that I was given and I’m not prepared to accept it. I don’t accept or trust this home secretary’s work".
Don't they get a sizeable pay out if they leave a ministerial job? Has she returned this pay out or will she get another when is inevitably leaves again?
And just when you thought it couldn’t get any more farcical…
https://twitter.com/_natashadevon/status/1587396191704285185?s=46&t=JyoODLzAPwG18qKerwkmZg
Cruella might be highly divisive etc but judging by a white van WhatsApp group I'm subscribed to her views are highly popular.
Sunak had to get the ERG MPs to step aside... they went for an "either candidate is fine, choose who you want" approach, when they could have gone for "bring back Boris" and got him over the line and on the shortlist for members to pick from... and Sunak wouldn't be PM. Braverman is a key member of that ERG grouping in the party (she used to be their spokesperson/leader and it was her botched leaking to them that led to her recent sacking/resignation as a minister), and appointing her can easily be seen (in part*) as keeping that group in the parliamentary party "on side". It's not about "uniting" the parliamentary party, but the impossible juggling act of taking them all along for the ride despite the contradictions that arise. I don't think he'll manage it for long, and wouldn't bet against him failing to keep his working majority... er... working... and then all bets about him staying leader all the way to a last possible moment election could look very risky.
[ * I think there's far more to it... a "battle" over migration and asylum, in which his government can play on anti-immigrant fears and feeling, is a useful tool for Sunak in reassuring party activists and voters who wouldn't have picked him over Johnson. In Braverman he has someone who'll make all the right noises ("invasion") to keep that "battle" front and centre. ]
Is there any evidence Sunak doesn't fully support Braverman and her rhetoric?
He drastically cut foreign aid and his policies are resulting in what's left being used to prop up the detention centre costs.
There seems to be an assumption that whilst he's not been a member of the loony ERG, that he doesn't support them or have personal politics aligned with them
I've not seen anything from him that is moderate in policy.
Is there any evidence Sunak doesn’t fully support Braverman and her rhetoric?
By keeping her in her post, he is supporting her and her rhetoric. I think you're asking whether he wants what she says she wants, or if he purely sees it all as a political tool. Who knows?? And the same goes for what she is saying and doing... is it a tool to gain power, or her genuine aims and ideals? No idea. We know she sees herself as possible leader of her party, and the country, as she keeps standing... this could all be her pathing the way for that, in her mind.
By keeping her in her post, he is supporting her and her rhetoric.
And by actively choosing to re-instate her when he had a perfectly good option to keep her in the wilderness, it shows he must have a compelling reason for doing so.
By keeping her in her post, he is supporting her and her rhetoric. I think you’re asking whether he wants what she says she wants, or if he purely sees it all as a political tool. Who knows?? And the same goes for what she is saying a doing… is it a tool to gain power, or her genuine aims and ideals? No idea.
Yep, that's what i'm asking
I have a feeling that he is a rightwing nutjob too, he just doesn't voice it like some of the others.
He’s the most dangerous of the Tories so far in my opinion. Anyone that ignores the actual function of a sovereign state’s ability to produce money shouldn’t be in high office. (Admittedly that would be 90% of people)
Sunak knows exactly what he's doing and how money is 'created', but it suits his ideology for folk to think that the UK can't afford (some) stuff. Note that it's never the stuff that Sunak & his like want to spend money on.
We can still "afford" to let the fossil fuel companies keep huge windfall profits made taking money off us all (directly via our bills and indirectly via government subsidy) during this energy crisis. Ka-ching! Hoping Sunak realises he'll pay for that politically if he sticks to it, and that the government u-turns when we finally get a budget (or whatever we call budgets that aren't budgets these days).
BP profits doubled ... $8.2 billion
I thought they’d trebled?
Nice to see the banks also getting their snouts in the trough for a bit of profiteering and massive hiking of interest rates. They’ll be the next ones reporting bumper profits
Never waste a good crisis eh? Especially one that your mates caused in the first place
So, @rone - how does this work?
We've now got around £2.4tn of public debt which must be serviced at around 5% currently and later perhaps around 7%. That interest payment is around £85bn a year, which is currently around 5% of public finances. Unless you collect more money or spend less money, then you're increasing debt each year, no? Public finances must be reported, incomings and outgoings have an effect on the rate of credit rating of the UK in international markets and if we're not seen to be balancing the books, that rating will change and the interest will go up, further incurring debt or attrition of services. A significant part of UK debt (~60%) is not held by the BoE.
We’ve now got around £2.4tn of public debt which must be serviced at around 5% currently and later perhaps around 7%.
No we don't. Interest rates on gilts is fixed. If someone bought a 10 year gilt 5 years ago at 1%, they'll still be getting 1% today until it matures. You're getting confused between the nominal rate of a gilt and the yield. Remember gilts can be traded on the secondary market so the yield is the nominal rate relative to the price at any one point in time. So when the media says that gilt yields have increased, that's because the price of them has gone down. The interest the govt pays remains the same. The only debt that must be serviced at current interests rates is newly issued debt.
As always, do some reading...
A significant part of UK debt (~60%) is not held by the BoE.
Good job too because none of us would have any savings. The major buyers of uk govt bonds are financial institutions. They buy gilts because firstly they pay interest so don't devalue over time due to inflation (assuming inflation is relatively stable), and secondly because they are guaranteed to be repaid as the govt can't default on debts issued in sterling. That means they can protect the money deposited with them by savers. Privately held UK govt debt essentially represents all the savings in the country. Why is that a bad thing?
Interest rates on gilts is fixed.
Index linked gilts vary with RPI (not base rates) IIRC, so get costlier to service with inflation, no matter what the BofE does with interest rates.
Index linked gilts vary with RPI
Yes you're right. I was talking about conventional gilts which represent the majority of those sold. According to the link I posted index linked gilts only about 25% of the total sold by the govt.
I'll have a read. 25% sounds low to me. I thought most sold now were index linked.
Ah, right, 25% of the current portfolio... most gilts were issued long before index linked was the norm.
But even so, the more the debt, the greater the number of Gilts issued by the HM Treasury to cover it, the more the interest which has to be paid. If Tax revenue does not increase, that increased payment comes from the available budget. So you either increase taxes to service the debt OR you reduce services...
UK Debt is almost 100% of GDP up from around 85% of GDP just a few years ago. Germany by contrast had similar levels of debt in 2010-12, but growth and repayment dropped it to 55% of GDP, now 69% of GDP.
Privately held UK govt debt essentially represents all the savings in the country.
What about equities, overseas investments etc.?
So you either increase taxes to service the debt OR you reduce services…
Or you do what governments have done for as long as we've had money, which is inflate away the debt by ensuring that inflation outstrips interest rates. Taxes are not spent on servicing debt, new money is. Taxes simply maintain the balance by removing money from the economy. Reducing services is a political choice not a monetary one. Did we have to reduce services when they paid people's wages during covid? Did we have to raise taxes to pay for the banks bailout? No, in both cases.
UK Debt is almost 100% of GDP up from around 85% of GDP just a few years ago.
So? In the 40s the national debt peaked at 270% of GDP. Did the economy collapse? Did we have to reduce spending after the war? No, we built the NHS and the welfare state an massively increased govt spending compared to pre-war levels. UK GDP vs debt is a completely arbitrary and meaningless indicator.
What about equities, overseas investments etc.?
What about them? Equities are mostly held by foreign investors. Uk banks and pension funds own a tiny proportion of UK equities. Most of their cash is in raw currency or uk govt bonds.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/investmentspensionsandtrusts/bulletins/ownershipofukquotedshares/2020
Reducing services is a political choice not a monetary one.
GDP vs debt is a completely arbitrary and meaningless indicator
Absolutely this ^^^
It has been used to cut public spending by this Tory party who believe in “small state” government, where the gap between the haves & have nots is getting wider by the day.
But if we want to use it as a measure:
UK Debt is almost 100% of GDP up from around 85% of GDP just a few years ago. Germany by contrast had similar levels of debt in 2010-12, but growth and repayment dropped it to 55% of GDP, now 69% of GDP.
When the Conservative party came to power they inherited national debt of only 69% of GDP, and this was after Labour bailed the banks out following the financial crash of 2007/2008. Whilst virtually every area of public spending was cut under so called austerity measures (because apparently Labour left the books in such bad order), they managed to borrow a whole lot more and created more debt. I can’t work out how they can simultaneously spend less yet borrow more.
My (conspiracy theory like) suspicions are that there has been a massive shift of money from public services to lining someone’s pockets - I’m just not bright enough to work it out 😩. Otherwise where has it all gone? How have they borrowed so much and managed to cut spending?
Privatisation ain't cheap you know.
How have they borrowed so much and managed to cut spending?
If you want to go back to the beginning of the rot, Google 'George Osborne quantative easing' and look where the money went. It didn't go into public coffers that were under his assault for austerity measures. That very slappable little turd set the blueprint for exactly what you're questioning
What about them? Equities are mostly held by foreign investors. Uk banks and pension funds own a tiny proportion of UK equities. Most of their cash is in raw currency or uk govt bonds.
@dazh, you said "all", as if there were some necessary mathematical eqivalence. It isn't all is it? Do you have figures for UK savings overall (including ISAs and what they are invested in, direct personal savings, funds under management and so on)?
It isn’t all is it?
Are you campaigning for the role of pedant-in-chief on here? The point was that the national debt is not a bad thing, because it represents the money people and businesses hold in banks and savings accounts. The relative amount compared to equities is irrelevant.
Are you campaigning for the role of pedant-in-chief on here?
It's a hard fought competition
Slimy ****ing shapeshifting **** yet again refuses to provide answers at PM's questions, meanwhile that useless tory lickspittle **** is squatting in the speakers chair ticking off the days till he gets moved to the House of Lords, Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh - come the 5th November I hope the ghost of Guy Fawkes has been roused.
Are you campaigning for the role of pedant-in-chief on here?
So basically everything you proclaim as fact should be treated as "true most of the time" or "roughly true".
So basically everything you proclaim as fact should be treated as “true most of the time” or “roughly true”.
Mate this is a pointless internet forum not a courtroom. Lighten up a bit.
Are you campaigning for the role of pedant-in-chief on here?
It all depends on how you define pedantry
Let's apply that to MMT.
Rishi is now confused (by most things)
Rishi has a limited response to Starmer (Corbyn/Labour are voting against us)
Rishi is no better than the two previous incumbents.
Rishi is about to piss off most of UK population.
It is reasonable to state that the Tories have no one fit for PM.
They're now (apparently) dumping the overflow asylum seekers in central London...
Bunch of ****ers (the current govt, not the asylum seekers)
Are you campaigning for the role of pedant-in-chief on here?
It all depends on how you define pedantry
That deserves more recognition! Chapeau!
Rishi has a limited response to Starmer (Corbyn/Labour are voting against us)
[ paraphrasing ... ]
"Why are have your policies on asylum seekers been so shit, for so long?"
"Well, the opposition voted against them!"
Yes, they did, because they're shit, and are never designed to address issues for people, just to send out messages to certain voters highly motivated by the fear of "invasion"... a fear further stoked up by results of the same shit policies. Of course the opposition voted against the polices, they're shit.
It is reasonable to state that the Tories have no one fit for PM.
[ nods ]
A summary of Thursday front page headlines re economy...
base rate to increase by 75 bips - so following the fed; windfall tax on energy companies to be increased, scope widened and duration extended; tax rises and spending cuts to be more than expected.
Yep, that's definitely rolling the wicket.
Just for good measure, some senior bod at Nationwide is touting house price falls of c30% if we enter a prolonged recession.
Reasons to be cheerful...
windfall tax on energy companies to be increased, scope widened and duration extended
I'll put money on the fossil fuel companies keeping their loophole... and the "scope widening" being hitting the renewable electricity sector hard, and in addition not offering them the same "investing in future capabilities" loophole as the oil and gas extractors.
That loophole:
https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1585563962783010823?s=20&t=bSuNi9SyFDPcXyUVMKnDDg
https://twitter.com/doug_parr/status/1587710170829840386?s=20&t=bSuNi9SyFDPcXyUVMKnDDg
https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1585647922992930821?s=20&t=bSuNi9SyFDPcXyUVMKnDDg
Sunak created the loophole as Chancellor, to encourage more fossil fuel extraction operations in the North Sea longer term.
I note the comments but sunak definitely is for turning.
If he doesn't the political fallout will be massive and will be used against the tories every day until the next election.
sunak will take a pragmatic approach; if he wishes to continue parroting the line of fiscal responsibility he will have to u-turn.
Personal opinion only on a pointless internet forum - thanks for that one daz.
He's cunning though... as my example shows... the government "gave in" to calls for a windfall tax before, and he framed it so that Shell could avoid it... while setting back net zero plans with a tax break for increasing work on preparing for more future extraction. All his budget announcements were the same... he'd announce something in parliament, but do pretty much the opposite in the details. Yes, there will be an announcement on "extending" the windfall tax, presumably as part of the budget that is not a budget, or maybe hinted at before to have ready to bat off questions at COP28, but in the details, when they are eventually published, he'll screw the plans for renewables, and carry on encouraging fossil fuel extraction. Hope I'm wrong.
His duplicitous behaviour is well known; he knows that labour and the media understand the game he's played previously so that will influence his behaviours this time.
Only two weeks to wait.
It's still a pointless debate on an internet forum but periodically provides a little mental stimulation and entertainment.
Let’s apply that to MMT
Do some reading on the subject.
It's not an opinion piece.
Are you campaigning for the role of pedant-in-chief on here? The point was that the national debt is not a bad thing, because it represents the money people and businesses hold in banks and savings accounts. The relative amount compared to equities is irrelevant.
People still falling for the idea that public debt is a problem for them rather than a thing that governments use to batton the public with?
Listen up - without expansion of public debt you aren't getting a better economy or improved services.
Just not happening.
So get on the right side of real economics.
The more people align themselves with the debt/GBP narrative and our 'grandchildren' rubbish the more you will starve the country of money to spend for its own good.
Are you on the side of mythical balance sheets or government spending to correct everything we're deprived of?
It's not happening through taxation or windfall taxes despite what they tell you.
There's only one reason we made it through the pandemic economically and that is deficit spending.
I don't know how much more evidence you need. Also, LMAO at the government economics - 500bn (pandemic) spending no problem, but now we have an 40bn black hole - problem.
You can't make it up. But they did.
The government isn't a household and the Tories and Labour are in full on squeeze mode because balance sheets...
It's shockingly bad behaviour from those who's intentions should be to serve us.
Interest rates shooting up again still driving inflation - the idiots are in charge. Inflation is going to duck of its own accord whilst the rest of us pay more for mortgages.
rone - MMT is not the accepted economic orthodoxy and there are no signs that will change.
You, daz, richard murphy and others banging on about it won't change anything; it's like a dog barking at the moon.
Unless and until it's proponents can effect a policy change it will remain heterodox.
Pointless posts by people who, generally, don't know each othe on an internet forum.
Not exactly policy debate within or between Treasury and BoE supported by economic and monetary experts.
Surely if the Truss debacle taught us anything it is that it doesn’t matter how clever your economic theory is or how much you believe in it. If the markets don’t like it (and they don’t like defecit spending) then you are stuffed.
frankconway
Full Memberrone – MMT is not the accepted economic orthodoxy and there are no signs that will change.
Mmm. This is really complicated, though. MMT as an orthodoxy certainly isn't accepted or being implemented. And also, there's not really such a thing as the accepted economic orthodoxy, either in academia or in the real world or in the financial world or in politics and ideology (as if those things weren't all intertwined) And if you take all of that vague interaction and squash it together and say behold, the accepted economic orthodoxy, you soon realise that it doesn't represent or model the real world.
This is kind of a sliding scale, with "there is no magic money tree" at one end and full MMT at the other. Recent years have proved that we're waaaay over >>>> that way towards MMT and away from the tree deniers, both in reality and in policy. But the orthodoxy isn't, it's almost as far in the other direction. So we have an economy that for 15 years has been kept afloat only by a raft made out of magic money trees but which simultaneously doesn't want to admit that they exist.
As the man says, the problem with QE is that it works in practice but doesn't work in theory. The rational takeaway from that is to admit that the theory is wrong. But, that's not happening. There's a strong argument that it can't happen, because in the end it's all just theory that we pretend works in practice and it's the pretending that actually matters. The modern economy is made entirely out of about 500 years of fictions and numbers in spreadsheets and if we admit that the patchwork of theory that we've built to explain it and support it and drive it doesn't work in practice, then the whole thing falls apart. So there's very strong motivations for people to try and shape reality to the theory, or more often to just deny that they don't meet.
Like ork technology, modern economics only works if you believe in it really hard.
So, yes MMT is quite far from the status quo and that's not changing in a hurry. But at the same time, that doesn't mean it's not true. It also doesn't mean that core concepts of it aren't being used right now, or that major players aren't increasingly accepting of it. It's just that if they admit to it- even in private- then the suspension of disbelief fails and the financial world breaks, and one of the consequences of all this is that the financial world is now more important than the real one, perhaps because the real world just keeps going by itself and you can see it out the window, while the financial world needs constant imagination and belief and effort just to stop it from popping like a bubble
I haven't suggested that any economic or monetary theory isn't complicated; if it wasn't, we would all be experts.
Ah, scrub that - this is STW.
Interesting take on theory v reality and a belief system.
Ah, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that! I just led with "it's complicated" since I was blowing up a single line into an essay.
I used to be a bit brutal about the whole "what we believe" vs "what we observe" and "what we say we believe" thing but a post of Brad Delong's made me rethink it all... I've enough economics to know that much of it is horseshit and my instinct is to reject it completely, but I hadn't really thought about what the impact of that much horseshit is.
Enough of anything in one place has gravity, even horseflops, and there's no use stamping my feet about the fact that we're trapped in orbit round a pile of shit like I used to do, the point is the orbit.
I can't remember exactly what Brad said, it was something like the church exists independently of the god.
I was only clarifying my position and didn't take any of your post personally.
If the markets don’t like it (and they don’t like defecit spending)
They love deficit spending! If it wasn't for deficit spending 'the markets' would be a lot smaller and a lot poorer. What the markets don't like is uncertainty and instability. Deficit spending is perfectly sustainable as long as the govt is up front about how much of it they will do, and what they're going to spend it on. If the markets think that's a good investment, as they did during the banks bailout and covid then they won't worry about it.
Well put Daz.
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-2-3-november-2022/
There appears to be a Sunak bounce among Tory supporters :
Among 2019 Conservative voters, 49% approve of Rishi Sunak’s job performance as Prime Minister. Only 8% disapprove.
I find it disappointing to see the Labour lead over the Tories reduced from over 30% to now 17%, in the latest Redfield & Wilton poll.
But nevertheless the Labour lead is still significantly higher now than it was in the first couple of weeks of Liz Truss's premiership.
Ten days after Liz Truss became Prime Minister a Redfield & Wilton poll put the Labour lead at 8%, that changed dramatically after the mini budget.
Rishi Sunak hasn't yet done a great deal apart from showing a remarkable lack of judgement over the rehabilitation of a disgraced Cabinet Minister, and preforming a spectacular U-turn over the decision not to attend Cop27 climate summit, when he discovered that he would be upstaged by Boris Johnson.
It remains to be seen how Tory support fares after Sunak's "difficult decisions" are eventually revealed.
Surely if the Truss debacle taught us anything it is that it doesn’t matter how clever your economic theory is or how much you believe in it. If the markets don’t like it (and they don’t like defecit spending) then you are stuffed.
If the last 40 years have taught us anything it's that the markets don't always know best. And it is precisely this staunch belief that the markets always know best that has led to crises after crises.
The interesting aspect of the Truss debacle is the sweet irony of a Tory Prime Minister with an impressive faith in the free market seeing her premiership destroyed by the free market.
Been busy today… not caught any media… but an interest rate rise resulting in a fall in the pound is a very, very worrying sign.
As a market trader, you would surely prefer instability. You can make money on each trade, regardless of the outcome. In this way, instability means lots of trading, so potential to make more money.
Anyone can see this shit show developing, markets only bet on two things..
1. Safe bets the £1 in £1.25 out but they bet big.
2. Unsafe bets the £1 in £1 million out but they only bet small amounts - money they can afford to loose.
Our economy appears to offer nether bet.
This is going to be a long drawn out process.. again.
However the employment market will fix itself, housing will become more affordable (for fewer people) wages will drop further (this is going to be very painful and bring real hardship particularly to the redwalls) Osborne and Thatcher may feel like the good old days
As a market trader, you would surely prefer instability.
Bull Market vs. Bear Market innit.
The interesting aspect of the Truss debacle is the sweet irony of a Tory Prime Minister with an impressive faith in the free market seeing her premiership destroyed by the free market
Neither Truss nor Kwatang had the remotest understanding of how this stuff actually works. They had their own Fisher Price version because economically they’re like toddlers. Tax cuts = economic growth. Simple
Well… no
‘The Markets’ soon showed them the cold harsh reality of that bollocks
No, a Bull market is where prices are rising. Bear markets; falling.
Tax cuts = economic growth. Simple
Well… no
Tax cuts can result in growth.
Tory Chancellors Reginald Maudling's tax cuts did result in growth in 1963-64, as did Anthony Barber's tax cuts result in growth in 1972-7, and Nigel Lawson's tax cuts growth in 1986-88.
The problem however is that the booms they all three created were followed by severe economic crisis.
Edit: And didn't Ronald Reagan also achieve significant growth through tax cuts, albeit with also massive defense spending, also a KK/Truss aim?
Bear markets; falling.
And are bear markets not highly volatile?
Tax cuts can result in growth
Not when they’re exclusively benefit the rich and are paid for by borrowing, Tory Boy
Maybe. Could fall slowly and steadily. Instability would suggest prices go up, down, down again, up a bit. One commodity goes up, a related one goes down but no one knows why...
Tory Boy
Is that how you see it - if someone points out historical facts they must be a "Tory Boy"?
GDP grew over one-third during Reagan's presidency, Federal debt held by the public nearly tripled, from $738 billion to $2.1 trillion. This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.
You don't think that Reagan's tax cuts were exclusively for the benefit of the rich?
The dire negative consequences of Reaganomics was to come much later, but it did indisputably result in growth.
Same with Maudling’s dash for growth, Barber’s boom, and Lawson's boom, all led by tax cuts, all led to growth, but none were sustainable. Ultimately they all resulted, as I pointed out, in "severe economic crisis".
But you think that proper "anti-tories" deny historical facts.
Edit: Gordon Brown's mantra "no return to boom and bust" was in reference to the Tories boom and bust cycles. Do you think that Gordon Brown was a bit of a "Tory Boy" for accepting that booms occurred under Tory governments?
"Tax cuts can result in growth"
Trickle down economics eh...never worked in the past but these days it's not even trickle down, the ever increasing super rich tend to just sit on humongous piles or squirrel it away offshore.
I wonder what percentage of global wealth is completely separated from economic activity.