Rishi! Sunak!

I think there’ll be a significant number of Tory grandees thinking that maybe their best bet is lose an election now, give Labour the economic poisoned chalice, and give themselves five years to sort their internal crap out. In five years time, if Labour haven’t turned the economic situation around, the Tories are back in.

Are you suggesting our new millionaire PM may only be in for another 40-odd days before bailing out and collecting his £115k a year? 😉

Even if Labour have, it will have been off the back of some very unpopular things

I don’t get this. Why is it assumed that economic recovery involves “very unpopular things”?

Is it because when Tory governments are screwing ordinary working people they talk of “difficult decisions” in an attempt to suggest that there is no alternative and people assume that it must be true?

The UK economy was on its knees after World War 2, the country was skint, no one talked about “very unpopular things”.

On the contrary, they talked about highly popular things such as creating free universal healthcare, a huge building programme for decent affordable housing, and a modern welfare state.**

Even though the country was skint.

Edit : ** And they achieved it.

I’ll concede that having a non white PM will project a more progressive image of the UK to an international audience for the first time in quite a few years but im not sure how much of a positive it is domestically.

Well his progressive policies include cutting bank taxes, overseeing the biggest fall in living standards since the 50’s, voting against more funding for local councils, welfare state and low-carbon energy.

Couldn’t care less about his skin colour or religion, he’s not a positive choice for PM.

Why is assumed that economic recovery involves “very unpopular things”?

Well, I think (and I’m very happy to be told different by the way), that we have historically huge levels of debt to GDP, and any government of any colour needs to pay down some of it, which means increasing tax rates and/or cutting spending. If we don’t pay down some of our existing debt, any more borrowing is going to become increasingly more expensive. Neither raising taxes or cutting spending are popular.

If this isn’t the case, then, genuinely, if someone can explain it to me I’d be really interested.

Couldn’t care less about his skin colour or religion, he’s not a positive choice for PM.

Perfectly said!

we have historically huge levels of debt to GDP

Check what it was like in 1946 two years before the NHS was created.

Debt to GDP in 1946 is a complete irrelevance today.
It’s the sort of drivel typical of ree-smug.

we have historically huge levels of debt to GDP

But Rishi is the man who can help us with the interest payments given his millions.

That’s how it works I think, we are all in this together 😉

Debt to GDP in 1946 is a complete irrelevance today.

Not when the point, quote, “we have historically huge levels of debt to GDP” is being made.

Depends on what period ‘historically’ refers to.
Why not assume it was a turn of phrase instead of taking it literally?
No doubt you will comment further as you (appear to) have a pathological need to have the last word; see posts and threads passim.

Couldn’t care less about his skin colour or religion, he’s not a positive choice for PM.

i dont know, hes probably the best of teh bunch available ( well he was the ONLY one!) – as long there is a bit of stability and he doesnt rock the boat too much he might be OK.

I mean its going to be really super hard for ANYONE regardless of their party, bit like when May took over – its a poisoned chalice and no one really wants it.

basically like that angry Tory the other week – we just need someone not completely and utterly out of their depth. being a bit rubbish is fine and probably to be expected.

an election would be nice but its not gonna happen as its basically political suicide for the torys and why would they want that?

Depends on what period ‘historically’ refers to.
Why not assume it was a turn of phrase instead of taking it literally?

threads are difficult enough (for me at least) to follow as it is, being accurate is a good thing imho

I’m probably wrong but since abandoning the gold standard, doesn’t our (and most other countries’ (I think) rely on debt as part of the economy? Furthermore, I’d suggest that national debt is a narrative that suits the Conservative party, and justifies their own spending policies.

A quick Google suggests that high national debt does not particularly hinder a nations economy or describe quality of life for their respective citizens. For example, Japan has the 2nd highest national debt as a percentage of GDP (266%), USA 128%, France 98%, Belgium 98% & the UK 80%.

Contrast that with countries with low national debt as a percentage of GDP; Nigeria 17.5%, Libya 16.5%, Palestine 16.4%, Russia 12.1% & Afghanistan 7.2%.

One thing that strikes me about this is that it’s not how much is spent, but rather how it is spent. One lazy glance at the list found here:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/debt-to-gdp-ratio-by-country

Is that it strikes me that some of the countries with the lowest national debt to GDP also have war and turmoil in their recent past or have questionable human rights records where they literally spend nothing on their population. It also shows the countries where the gap between the haves and have nots is the widest.

we have historically huge levels of debt to GDP

So what?

That’s a useless metric. Useless.

Rishi Sunak's speaking style makes Liz Truss look relaxed and fluid. pic.twitter.com/lCD1Wolh74

— Adam Bienkov (@AdamBienkov) October 24, 2022

Did someone forget to charge his batteries?

’m probably wrong but since abandoning the gold standard, doesn’t our (and most other countries’ (I think) rely on debt as part of the economy? Furthermore, I’d suggest that national debt is a narrative that suits the Conservative party, and justifies their own spending policies.

You are 100% correct.

National debt is just the countries savings account. A positive spend into the economy – with matched bond issuance. The money to purchase bonds came from previous government spending.

It’s all a charade designed to use against us with terms like debt/bonds. It’s all under the control of the government/BoE if they choose the decisions to take control of the situation.

I feel Austerity this time will be the final nail in the coffin for the Tories. And is entirely the wrong thing to do.

Is that it strikes me that some of the countries with the lowest national debt to GDP also have war and turmoil in their recent past or have questionable human rights records where they literally spend nothing on their population. It also shows the countries where the gap between the haves and have nots is the widest

Absolutely – the government spends less then there is less £ sloshing around.

Financial establishment carries out the exact opposite of what is needed for society to flourish. It’s designed currently to concentrate wealth. Let’s not be suprised at the Tory pathway.

Did someone forget to charge his batteries?

Quality media training there – did anyone expect anything else?

Did someone forget to charge his batteries?

It does look like his brain is far too occupied with thinking “Oh ****, this is bad, very bad! I thought Boris was meant to win and take the flak! What the hell do I do now?!?”

So what?

I don’t really know, as I said, I’m happy for someone to explain to me if/how that’s not actually a big deal, as we’re told that it is.

**EDIT** – sorry, I see we crossed posts on your later explanation.

frankconway Full Member

No doubt you will comment further as you (appear to) have a pathological need to have the last word; see posts and threads passim.

Posted 33 minutes ago

Oh thank you for the completely uncalled for personal insult, it’s what every thread needs.

A positive spend into the economy – with matched bond issuance.

So (and again, these are genuine Qs), to take an extreme example, what’s to stop a government just issuing an infinite amount of bonds, and being to pay for everything, and we all live at home on massive state incomes with free hoverboards for all?

I don’t really know, as I said, I’m happy for someone to explain to me if/how that’s not actually a big deal, as we’re told that it is.

**EDIT** – sorry, I see we crossed posts on your later explanation.

Yeah sorry don’t mean to be snipey.

The real take is that government spending is technically not limited by spending in itself and can’t run out of cash. The absolute metric is too much inflation (money with not enough resources to spend on.) But not the current type of inflation which is a whole bag of different.

There can’t be more GDP unless there is some form of government spending driving the private money anyway. Private money can’t simply just grow without government spending.

So someone somewhere in the midst of time decided debt/GDP was a useful metric when it’s used mainly as a barrier to government spending. It is not an appropriate metric of spending. Inflation is.

Rishi Sunak’s speaking style makes Liz Truss look relaxed and fluid.

FFS, so f— what? I think, if we should have learned anything over the past few years, is that we should more interested in our politicians’ competence, and less in their charisma.

**EDIT** – I make no judgment yet on his competence, BTW, I just don’t give a shit what his speaking style is like, and neither should anyone else.

One thing that strikes me about this is that it’s not how much is spent, but rather how it is spent.

Yup, it always boils down to priorities. Gordon Brown’s priorities he would claim were investment, Liz Truss would claim that her’s were tax cuts for the wealthy.

You decide which is likely to lead to more growth.

So (and again, these are genuine Qs), to take an extreme example, what’s to stop a government just issuing an infinite amount of bonds, and being to pay for everything, and we all live at home on massive state incomes with free hoverboards for all?

Productive capacity.

You have to generate something in return for the money with your Labour and resources to grow the economy in a way that is beneficial to society – so you need a hospital? Then build it. The money is there.

That’s where the politics gets in the way. It takes someone to step and say we are going to do this.

I will take a hover board though.

One thing that strikes me about this is that it’s not how much is spent, but rather how it is spent.

Absolutely – but you always see politicians claiming we don’t have the money though. Most days on most media outlets.

It’s a both a simple and complex lie / misappropriation. It needs taking apart and challenging constantly.

IHN, that’s what I keep asking, if it was possible without consequence there would be another country out there laughing themselves silly. Whilst I get the countries finances don’t equate to household finances I still can’t see how we can borrow indefinitely without something going horribly wrong. I think Liz Truss may have just proved that with her increase spending / reduce taxes approach that then caused my mortgage payments to go up.

A positive spend into the economy – with matched bond issuance.

So borrowing to fund spending.

So borrowing to fund spending.

I think borrowing to fund investment is more accurate (although I guess the argument is then about what classes as an investment)

FFS, so f— what? I think, if we should have learned anything over the past few years, is that we should more interested in our politicians’ competence, and less in their charisma.

I agree with those sentiments but to be fair when I saw it live I felt as if he was talking deliberately slowly because he thought he was talking to either a small child or a complete idiot. I was a bit taken aback.

It is not a particularly good way for a prime minister to communicate his message to voters.

Still, he’s a Tory so it suits me fine.

So borrowing to fund spending.

No no no! You don’t need to borrow what you are the sole issuer of!

The spending takes place first and is not dependent on bond issuance.

They do this control liquidity/intrest rates. It’s a choice that the government could choose not to do.

There’s a plethora of great podcasts here covering most topics discussed here. Scroll down to find your topic!

#149 is an excellent breakdown of the recent budget.

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9waWxldXNtbXQubGlic3luLmNvbS9yc3M/episode/OWVlN2Q3MjktYjViMS00YWRlLWExOWEtOGMwYTY5NTM2OGE3?sa=X&ved=0CAUQkfYCahcKEwig69GVn_n6AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQaA

Sunak:

But there is no doubt we face a profound economic challenge

Has he forgotten that he was Chancellor from 13 February 2020 – 5 July 2022 ???

He does have the education to understand and respect institutions like BofE, OBR etc – so we shouldn’t get a repeat of last month’s debacle. It’s more of the same, though; low tax, low growth, low investment, low skills, low wages…

Where’s the vision for the country and leadership of people?
How about some honesty on the choices we face / have made e.g. Brexit/Ukraine/Inflation
It won’t be long before this situation re-appears.

Has he forgotten that he was Chancellor from 13 February 2020 – 5 July 2022 ???

And pretty much immediately inherited a global pandemic, closely followed by a war in Europe that’s sent energy prices up the hoo-hah, so it would be slightly unfair to blame him for the current situation. One of the reasons he quit was because he couldn’t get ‘Let the good times roll’ Johnson to grasp, or at least be honest with the public about, the financial shitstorm that was coming.

I’d like to add it’s funny he didn’t get in last month (and we could have avoided that nasty blackspot). My hunch; this was due to Tory members being prejudiced about backing a ‘darkie’. LMAO

Has he forgotten that he was Chancellor from 13 February 2020 – 5 July 2022 ???

Collective amnesia seems to be a common trait.

The last muppet completely forgot that she’d been in the cabinet for the previous ten years

In all honesty, though I utterly despise the Tory party, I’m relieved that someone is finally in charge who isn’t absolutely barking mad

It’s a sign of how far we’ve sunk as a country when this is now the benchmark

It does look like his brain is far too occupied with thinking “Oh ****, this is bad, very bad! I thought Boris was meant to win and take the flak! What the hell do I do now?!?”

An expression perfected over the years that started with Johnson and Gove looking very worried in July 2016 when Leave won and they had to work out what the actual **** that meant.

Repeated many times over the years when asked minor questions like “what does Brexit mean?”

Symbolic of the absolute cluelessness of these charlatans.

Sunak should be fine but whether his technical ability will keep Tories in power in the next GE will be tested very soon. If he can pull this off then Tories will have hope.

The first non-white PM in Uk history is certainly a thing to be lauded but a Tory millionaire non white! Do the two cancel each other out?

Ah there’s only one colour that the tory party worry about – the colour of money.

I’m just hoping for small wins like the removal of Mogg and Coffey and their pet projects and personal biases.

He will create Austerity 2.0 and tell you it isn’t.

He will cut services by freezing budgets and pay.

He will introduce lots of stealth tax and not mention it.

He will not cut tax but will freeze allowances

He will quietly remove the contents of your wallet and tell you its all for your benefit.