Macron:
"Do you accept France's territorial claim over Brittany"
Truss:
"Well it's got Britain in the name so we will never accept that claim.."
Anyone have the feeling that Johnson will pop up before next Friday and say “don’t worry about those bumbling fools, I’m still here as EU’s (ne Macron) friend and ready to carry on with Kwasi’s excellent new plan to help everyone!” ?
I wouldn’t put it past him, remembering he hadn’t yet resigned as PM.
Time being the great healer (with a lot of them not even needing time as they forgave him all along) I would expect most Tory members and voters would prefer to have Johnson back now that Truss and Sunak have made it clear how bad they will be.
**** me, but if it wasn't for playing the long game to make them unelectable come the next GE, I'D be considering letting him tear his resignation up.
I made a glib statement. I’m not very politically astute. I haven’t forgotten how angry I was - so angry that I couldn’t look at a picture of Boris without flying into a rage - when it became obvious they’d flouted the lockdowns, paid their cronies and - after viewing a couple of Select Committee meetings - that Boris and chums had barely lifted finger to do anything for the country and it’s people during his term.
Let’s not forget then, however inept the new world order is, it’s Boris Johnson’s lack of integrity, morals, leadership and his narcissistic tv antics that have in the main put us where we are today. Having him back will just continue the rot in a rather more outwardly flamboyant manner.
The UK almost certainly handled the pandemic better than if all the likely Tory alternatives to Johnson had been in charge.
Concern for the economic cost rather than the human cost was widespread among the parliamentry Tory party. So much so that Johnson even reached a point where he had to rely on the full support of Labour MPs, despite his huge majority, to pass lockdown measures.
Both leadership contenders are currently denouncing Johnson for being driven by the science during the pandemic. It could of course be argued that both are playing to gallery however the Telegraph claims that Sunak has received widespread support from senior Tory politicians for his attack on Johnson's science-driven strategy:
"Rishi Sunak wins support for criticism of over-powerful Covid lockdown scientists
MPs and former Cabinet colleagues rally behind ex-chancellor for saying it was a ‘mistake’ to empower Sage members"
Sunak isn't going to win the leadership election there is little benefit for former Cabinet colleagues to back his attack "lockdown scientists".
As for Liz Truss, the person who will be the next PM, she too has attacked Johnson's lockdowns, the idea that she would have handled the pandemic better is frankly ridiculous. Although she didn't have the same relaxed attitude to the rules which Johnson turned out to have, if that is what is important to you.
Please stop with this falsehood. We have done hundreds of posts on how the government finances things. It’s not through taxation.
If you want to learn one thing – then MMT is an incredibly useful tool for understanding government finances
I am not sure how the presence of hundreds of posts on a montainbiking forum is supposed to deal with an issue. Also, without even researching it specifically I am aware that Modern Monetary Theory is contested. Just because it is useful at explaining things doesn't make it right.
Some links to the arguments of the main proragonists in the debate, or to a good unbiased review would be helpful. Your post comes across as "do your own research".
Just because it is useful at explaining things doesn’t make it right.
It is right. It is part of the picture of how the economy works as regards government/state involvement and the levers and controls and options they have (and already use). What it isn’t is complete. Because your national government/state has to deal with the rest of the economy, in which many other state and non-state actors have influence also. It’s simple. It’s useful to understand it. It’s only part of the story though.
People get very excited about the chicken and egg nature of MMT (the state spending first, then taxing later) because it debunks some of the over simplistic “household budget” models of government finances (which were never really considered economically valid, just something to try and make economics understandable to people who aren’t really interested in it). But people (that is not a dig at @Rone , they understand the bigger picture well) can often read no further and think that means that tax and spending levels don’t matter anymore. They still do.
It’s simple. It’s useful to understand it. It’s only part of the story though.
Key is though @kelvin - it's an accurate description. Not what we get from the establishment.
There is no absolute complete model of an economy - there are linking theories and ideas, and dogma.
I will stick with MMT as that's how spending starts. Something we are told is finite.
The prescriptive side is only just getting going and a job guarantee is impressive in creating a backstop as fix for unemployment and better wages.
Also, without even researching it specifically I am aware that Modern Monetary Theory is contested. Just because it is useful at explaining things doesn’t make it right.
Anything can be contested. Just ask yourself where you get the money to pay your taxes from?
Fair point about an MTB group but I will challenge every single tax and spend post I see.
Check out Warren Mosler, Stephanie Kelton, Bill Mitchell if you want a decent source of info.
Warren Mosler was involved in Bond sales - who discovered the machinations of government spending through the back door! He's interesting but complicated and considered by many to be the father of MMT.
Some links to the arguments of the main proragonists in the debate, or to a good unbiased review would be helpful. Your post comes across as “do your own research”.
Sorry just spotted this.
It doesn't really need to be debated in its descriptive model as such. And Covid was a great example of huge spending without the taxation to make it work. How you put it to use is the debate.
The best straight forward entry is The Deficit Myth by Stephanie Kelton.
MMT is much banded about by the right as just simple money printing. That's bollocks. MMT covers the way FIAT systems work with a central bank.
There is a complex paper charting the spending process between Government/ Treasury and Clearing at the BoE. That is tricky follow but shows the path and clearly shows the spending taking places and being cleared later by bond/deficit matching. (I've linked the site for it.) In other words the government spends before it 'borrows' aka bond issuance - the bit we call debt.
Looks like in two weeks time we’ll have Truss as PM, Suella Braverman as Home Secretary, Kwasi Kwartang as Chancellor, Rees Smug in charge of levelling up and IDS, John Redwood and Lord Frost back in cabinet
Just when you thought it was impossible for it to conceivably get any worse, we’re going to have that gang of clowns in charge as we enter a huge financial crisis.
I didn’t think it was possible but we’ll soon be looking back at Johnson’s time as a golden age of political competence
Well I'm still only getting one side of the MMT debate as far as I can see. Who should I look to for the arguments against it?
Jesus H christ.. I'm already looking back at Camerons tenure as 'halcyon'.
Unfortunately Braverman is her thicker sibling, with just as many nasty ideas.
My old boss met both Johnson and Patel through work. Said Johnson was exactly as you would expect but she was actually on top of her brief and had obviously done her homework before the visit. From everything I've seen of Braverman I'm willing to bet she is not and does not.
Civil Servants don’t decide nor dictate policy, it’s politicians.
Yup and?
Braverman is a nightmare tbh. She genuinely thinks that if she's upsetting people she's doing it right, and that having rights makes people sad. But even leaving that aside, being the Attorney General who defended a criminal prime minister should be a career ender. Or rather being the AG who defended the country breaking international law should have been. And also being the AG who said that it was OK to break the ministerial code because it's not legally enforcable. And also being the AG that not only defended Dominic Cummings but said "any parent should do the same"
Cruella Suella.
There have been many loathsome Tory politicians over the years. I think she might just be the worst of the lot.
Her appointment would signal that the next administration intends to dial the culture war up to eleven...or twelve.
I think she would do everything in her power to conjure up not just social division but serious social discord. Just as well her predecessor has banned civil protests.
Well I’m still only getting one side of the MMT debate as far as I can see. Who should I look to for the arguments against it?
What's the one side you talk of?
MMT is not an opinion piece. It's a description of how monetary operations currently work.
What is one sided is to give the impression that you can spend whatever you want without negative consequences. That isn’t MMT. You continually sail very close to that simplification by dismissing any concern people have on the balance between state spending, and taxation and “borrowing” going forward.
What is one sided is to give the impression that you can spend whatever you want without negative consequences.
All depends what else you are doing and whether spending money to avoid further losses is a good idea (it is). Could have chosen not to spend the ~400 billion on pandemic but if they didn't the consequences could have been worse although that was also health related so not a good example.
A better example is the energy issue this coming year where spending 50 billion to provide financial safety to people and businesses is quite easily going to get a good return, i.e. if you don't do that then the personal and business losses will be greater than 50 billion and all those billions are money in the economy so doesn't matter where they are.
That is the simple answer when the cliched question of "where is the money coming from?" is asked,
I think she would do everything in her power to conjure up not just social division but serious social discord. Just as well her predecessor has banned civil protests.
Oh dear that only leaves uncivil protests 🙁
They haven’t really thought this one out.
A better example is the energy issue this coming year where spending 50 billion to provide financial safety to people and businesses is quite easily going to get a good return, i.e. if you don’t do that then the personal and business losses will be greater than 50 billion and all those billions are money in the economy so doesn’t matter where they are.
It’s a bit like the covid support,could have just let the market play out and the end results would have been catastrophic in human cost as well as financial as everything went bankrupt.
I’d prefer them to nationalise the energy but I’m expecting some mad scheme to protect the profits,it’s insane how they just don’t seem to get it, their detachment from reality is truely astounding and The hole they have dug themselves probably comes out in aus.
All depends what else you are doing and whether spending money to avoid further losses is a good idea (it is).
Absolutely.
And it’s not just a “good idea”, it has to happen, and will happen. And it’ll likely cost more because it happens too late, too slowly and targeted too much towards the wrong businesses and people. Shame we can’t force an election and have to sit back and watch this unfold.
Well the government simply has to spend when there's issue with the economy that the private sector has failed to address.
That's not MMT - that's just good politics unless everyone is happy with underwhelming essential services.
All the debates around spending are heavily biased around where is the money coming from so MMT is and will continue to be the roadmap.
On another note I was thinking the other day how the 202x manifestos will be more or should be more extensive than 2017/2019.
That's a wake up call.
I'm of the opinion that things getting so bad could ultimately be a good thing as it could force the hand on the way things are operated.
That's how I can deal with the current anxiety.
"Oh dear that only leaves uncivil protests 🙁
They haven’t really thought this one out."
I'm sure that in their fantasies the Tories believe they can instrumentalise the Police to quell dissent like what Thatcher did with the Miners Strike, thus reafirming themselves as the party of law and order.
Unfortunately the Police are about 20,000 short of what they were a decade ago. That's not to say Braverman wouldn't consider calling out the army though...
Well the government simply has to spend when there’s issue with the economy that the private sector has failed to address
In theory, but I think in this case that’s wishful thinking
Truss has reiterated this morning that there will be no direct assistance to households. She really means it. Tax cuts that disproportionately favour the better off are her only answer. There will be no change of heart once in power, not least because she doesn’t have one
She appears to be aping her hero by showing the same callous disregard for the millions about to be thrown into poverty as Thatcher did during the deindustrialisation of the north during the 80’s.
Anyone expecting anything different from ‘The Market’ being left to sort things out (or not) is in for a big disappointment. Her entire cabinet will be made up of hardline free market ideologes. The only economists she listens to are the far right loons who confirm her prejudices
This winter is looking more and more grim by the day
In theory, but I think in this case that’s wishful thinking
Truss has reiterated this morning that there will be no direct assistance to households. She really means it. Tax
I think there's all sorts of mix messages coming out but just like I was saying massive spend was needed just before covid lockdown - it will happen again. Remember unprecedented times ? - they're back.
It's irrelevant what she's saying to get elected.
Politicians are what the do not what they say as they're clumsy speakers trying to do the media thing, trying to walk fine line of old Tory and populist.
Tax cuts that disproportionately favour the better off are her only answer. There will be no change of heart once in power, not least because she doesn’t have one
That's just singing a regular Tory song. There will be absolutely change of heart. I bet you a crisp £10+CPI.
The government will spend.
Anyone expecting anything different from ‘The Market’ being left to sort things out (or not) is in for a big disappointment.
Look you have a precedent - in covid for what governments have to do in crisis. The market doesn't really exist any longer - there is no free-market left for energy. So what you are saying is not accurate.
is it not simply a case of letting everyone shit themselves for a while about the forthcoming winter (goaded by the constant doom and gloom headlines in the media) such that once she’s installed and finished decorating she’ll finally release some help and people will be so relieved that they’ll think she’s great ?
(goaded by the constant doom and gloom headlines in the media)
You mean people like Martin Lewis, who just love winding people up for fun?
she’ll finally release some help and people will be so relieved that they’ll think she’s great
Which will be too late and the entire economy will be trashed.
The energy market underpins everything, you can't make, store, sell, cook or transport anything without it.
A market which is charging more than their customers can afford to pay is finished.
erm, I wasn’t suggesting that there isn’t an absolute need to do something now rather that there’s a reason they aren’t doing something now
Well as terrible and unjustified as it is - the leadership thing has got in the way.
And also the Tory way is to do things at the last minute.
Look you have a precedent – in covid for what governments have to do in crisis
If the rumours of who she’s putting in cabinet are true - and I’ve no reason to doubt that they are - these are the people who spent the last 2 years calling Johnson and Sunak socialists for the covid support.
This will be a very different administration with a very different ideology. I think that she means what she says and there really will be no direct support for households or business
there really will be no direct support for households or business
If so the government will fall.
Business electricity going from 15p kWh to 90p KWh is unstainable.
I am protected for 2 more years, after that the prices I will have to charge will finish my business.
We can find money to fight Covid, we can find money to fight wars, we can't find money to fight unsustainable energy price rises, and protect jobs, businesses and families?
Exactly @morecashthandash.
The money is always there - if not the political will.
@binners - all irrelevant as their poll ratings will plummet off the earth.
Above all else the Tories want to be elected.
There must be people out there happy to have a real terms pay cut through inflated prices and rising interest rates as, according to Johnson, it's all part of the war effort against Putin. He also says impoverishing people will make us more prosperous.
There must be people out there happy to have a real terms pay cut through inflated prices and rising interest rates as, according to Johnson, it’s all part of the war effort against Putin
Maybe all Express readers can shoulder the price increases between them then?
Lol
according to Johnson, it’s all part of the war effort against Putin
Even by the usual standards of his third rate Churchill tribute act, he looked like a man who’d really bought into his own manufactured ‘war hero’ schtick
When he fully indulged his narcissistic personality disorder in Ukraine, he looked absolutely unhinged. To say he was laying it on a bit thick was an understatement
Think she'll tell queenie your time is up............
She terrifies me.
She’ll have declared Martial law and have troops on the streets by mid-November
To say he was laying it on a bit thick was an understatement
Personally despite the crisis we are facing at the moment I am relieved that at least he is doing the fighting part by proxy. One up on Thatcher whose incompetence made the Argentinians think it was open for them.
I wonder if he is going to finish his Shakespeare book or if he is going to listen to the famous quote* from Churchill "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.".
* Okay by famous it should be "made up" but lets face it Johnson isnt likely to bother beyond the "sounds good" level of research.
