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

First topic message reminder :

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

As I said the other day, Truss is quite possibly going to be out in her rear before too long. Ministers are already handing in letters of no confidence to 1922 committee.

Derek Smalls wrote:As I said the other day, Truss is quite possibly going to be out in her rear before too long. Ministers are already handing in letters of no confidence to 1922 committee.

Truss was outnumbered 242-113 in the members vote. There were 137 lunatics who wanted a continuation of the horrendous Johnson/Sunak era and doubtless still do. Sunak in as PM is a way to get Johnson back in the cabinet.

Truss is in a tougher political spot than Johnson was in 2019. Johnson was able to crush his dissenters and call a GE and renew the party in his own image. Truss can't call a GE, and wouldn't be allowed to, as Labour currently lead in the polls, and she can't crush the MP dissenters in her own party because there's too many of them.

Against this backdrop you have the Tory membership. 57% backed Truss, but that percentage will have increased in the time since then. They won't like any attempt to overhaul Truss.

Surely the recent Tory measures have led to a huge bounce back in the polls, as everyone can see how much better off we'll all be, and she could call a GE and get an increased majority.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:A former Conservative minister has accused Truss and her Treasury ministers of “playing A-level economics with people’s lives”. I think he meant to say "Duty-level".

Well at least Duty understands you can't engineer economic growth through handouts, which is something some on here struggle to grasp.

Which is why she's giving handouts to the rich people. Because when rich people spend its called growth but when the poor do it its call inflation.

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:A former Conservative minister has accused Truss and her Treasury ministers of “playing A-level economics with people’s lives”. I think he meant to say "Duty-level".

Well at least Duty understands you can't engineer economic growth through handouts, which is something some on here struggle to grasp.

Which is why she's giving handouts to the rich people.  Because when rich people spend its called growth but when the poor do it its call inflation.

No and no.

1) The richest are not getting any handouts from the state.
2) The poorest spending on whatever they choose is not inflation.

https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1574387228616396800

The pound is now higher against the dollar than where it finished on Friday.

Duty281 wrote:https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1574387228616396800

The pound is now higher against the dollar than where it finished on Friday.

Dead cat bounce.

How does that compare to before the fiscal event?

JuliusHMarx wrote:How does that compare to before the fiscal event?

Cat was quite happy dry bathing on a sunny spot on the sofa.

Pal Joey wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:How does that compare to before the fiscal event?

Cat was quite happy dry bathing on a sunny spot on the sofa.

Lazy sponger.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Duty281 wrote:https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1574387228616396800

The pound is now higher against the dollar than where it finished on Friday.

Dead cat bounce.

No cruelty to animals, please.

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:A former Conservative minister has accused Truss and her Treasury ministers of “playing A-level economics with people’s lives”. I think he meant to say "Duty-level".

Well at least Duty understands you can't engineer economic growth through handouts, which is something some on here struggle to grasp.

Which is why she's giving handouts to the rich people.  Because when rich people spend its called growth but when the poor do it its call inflation.

No and no.

1) The richest are not getting any handouts from the state.
2) The poorest spending on whatever they choose is not inflation.

1) Yes they are.  You can keep using all the semantics you want to deny it though.
2) If thats the case why not give them the £5k tax cuts instead of those earning over £200k? You know, those people who could really use that money.

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:A former Conservative minister has accused Truss and her Treasury ministers of “playing A-level economics with people’s lives”. I think he meant to say "Duty-level".

Well at least Duty understands you can't engineer economic growth through handouts, which is something some on here struggle to grasp.

Which is why she's giving handouts to the rich people.  Because when rich people spend its called growth but when the poor do it its call inflation.

No and no.

1) The richest are not getting any handouts from the state.
2) The poorest spending on whatever they choose is not inflation.

1) Yes they are.  You can keep using all the semantics you want to deny it though.
2) If thats the case why not give them the £5k tax cuts instead of those earning over £200k?  You know, those people who could really use that money.

1) If you earn money it is not a handout. A handout is when you get money for nothing. Further, handouts are given by the state, not a business.
2) You have to go up to about £37.5k of earnings before you discover people who even pay £5k in income tax. And those people are not the poorest in society.

Samo wrote:

1) Yes they are.  You can keep using all the semantics you want to deny it though.
2) If thats the case why not give them the £5k tax cuts instead of those earning over £200k?  You know, those people who could really use that money.

Stating a fact isn't semantics, tax reductions are not hand outs nor can you give someone a tax cut greater than the tax they actually pay.

That's by the by though to an extent. Trickle down economics worked for many in the 80's due to being able to purchase their affordable council house, that does not apply to today so you cannot stimulate economic growth in the same way, less disposable income. Housing is the cornerstone to any economy. Overall economic growth is also not the same as wage growth.

The lower tax band should have been reduced as well as increasing the threshold for the higher tax band (just for the aesthetics more than anything) rather than simply abolishing it all together. I pay a reasonable amount of tax, if that were to be reduced, i'm not rushing out to spend that money just because I can, it will sit there gathering dust until retirement.

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:A former Conservative minister has accused Truss and her Treasury ministers of “playing A-level economics with people’s lives”. I think he meant to say "Duty-level".

Well at least Duty understands you can't engineer economic growth through handouts, which is something some on here struggle to grasp.

Which is why she's giving handouts to the rich people.  Because when rich people spend its called growth but when the poor do it its call inflation.

No and no.

1) The richest are not getting any handouts from the state.
2) The poorest spending on whatever they choose is not inflation.

1) Yes they are.  You can keep using all the semantics you want to deny it though.
2) If thats the case why not give them the £5k tax cuts instead of those earning over £200k?  You know, those people who could really use that money.

1) If you earn money it is not a handout. A handout is when you get money for nothing. Further, handouts are given by the state, not a business.
2) You have to go up to about £37.5k of earnings before you discover people who even pay £5k in income tax. And those people are not the poorest in society.

1) Potato Potahto. Its money the government no longer has, its a handout with a missing step.
2) Thats true. Ah well, probably better to just leave the poor folk with their extra £13 a month and hope they dont freeze to death during the winter

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:A former Conservative minister has accused Truss and her Treasury ministers of “playing A-level economics with people’s lives”. I think he meant to say "Duty-level".

Well at least Duty understands you can't engineer economic growth through handouts, which is something some on here struggle to grasp.

Which is why she's giving handouts to the rich people.  Because when rich people spend its called growth but when the poor do it its call inflation.

No and no.

1) The richest are not getting any handouts from the state.
2) The poorest spending on whatever they choose is not inflation.

1) Yes they are.  You can keep using all the semantics you want to deny it though.
2) If thats the case why not give them the £5k tax cuts instead of those earning over £200k?  You know, those people who could really use that money.

1) If you earn money it is not a handout. A handout is when you get money for nothing. Further, handouts are given by the state, not a business.
2) You have to go up to about £37.5k of earnings before you discover people who even pay £5k in income tax. And those people are not the poorest in society.

1) Potato Potahto.  Its money the government no longer has, its a handout with a missing step.
2) Thats true.  Ah well, probably better to just leave the poor folk with their extra £13 a month and hope they dont freeze to death during the winter

1) No it isn't. That's a ludicrous argument. Imagine if I took 100% of your earnings, and I generously returned 50% to you. Would it be justified to claim that you were living on my charity? Of course not. You're essentially arguing that all earnings are state handouts.
2) No counterpoint again.

Duty281 wrote:https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1574387228616396800

The pound is now higher against the dollar than where it finished on Friday.

Ed Conway on 'hideously painful' interest rates to come.
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1574401503397400576

PS the pound is lower again.

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:A former Conservative minister has accused Truss and her Treasury ministers of “playing A-level economics with people’s lives”. I think he meant to say "Duty-level".

Well at least Duty understands you can't engineer economic growth through handouts, which is something some on here struggle to grasp.

Which is why she's giving handouts to the rich people.  Because when rich people spend its called growth but when the poor do it its call inflation.

No and no.

1) The richest are not getting any handouts from the state.
2) The poorest spending on whatever they choose is not inflation.

1) Yes they are.  You can keep using all the semantics you want to deny it though.
2) If thats the case why not give them the £5k tax cuts instead of those earning over £200k?  You know, those people who could really use that money.

1) If you earn money it is not a handout. A handout is when you get money for nothing. Further, handouts are given by the state, not a business.
2) You have to go up to about £37.5k of earnings before you discover people who even pay £5k in income tax. And those people are not the poorest in society.

1) Potato Potahto.  Its money the government no longer has, its a handout with a missing step.
2) Thats true.  Ah well, probably better to just leave the poor folk with their extra £13 a month and hope they dont freeze to death during the winter

1) No it isn't. That's a ludicrous argument. Imagine if I took 100% of your earnings, and I generously returned 50% to you. Would it be justified to claim that you were living on my charity? Of course not. You're essentially arguing that all earnings are state handouts.
2) No counterpoint again.

1) Im not arguing they're state handouts, Im arguing its the same thing. Does that have a different outcome from your employer giving you 100% of your earnings and then the government takes 50%? You've still got 50%. If the government takes 5% less is the exact same Frak outcome as them taking 50% then rebating 5%. You still end up with 55%.
2) I was obviously being hyperbolic, but the point is that there is more than enough money in this country to rework and redistribute wealth so the people who need help the most get the most help. This policy is literally the opposite of that and you're cheering from the rooftops.

Soul Requiem wrote:...Housing is the cornerstone to any economy....

It's not; or at least, it shouldn't be in the sense that speculators see them purely as an investment. The fact that it appears so central (and consistently outstrips wage growth) to the dog's dinner of a UK economy, is one of the main problems.

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:A former Conservative minister has accused Truss and her Treasury ministers of “playing A-level economics with people’s lives”. I think he meant to say "Duty-level".

Well at least Duty understands you can't engineer economic growth through handouts, which is something some on here struggle to grasp.

Which is why she's giving handouts to the rich people.  Because when rich people spend its called growth but when the poor do it its call inflation.

No and no.

1) The richest are not getting any handouts from the state.
2) The poorest spending on whatever they choose is not inflation.

1) Yes they are.  You can keep using all the semantics you want to deny it though.
2) If thats the case why not give them the £5k tax cuts instead of those earning over £200k?  You know, those people who could really use that money.

1) If you earn money it is not a handout. A handout is when you get money for nothing. Further, handouts are given by the state, not a business.
2) You have to go up to about £37.5k of earnings before you discover people who even pay £5k in income tax. And those people are not the poorest in society.

1) Potato Potahto.  Its money the government no longer has, its a handout with a missing step.
2) Thats true.  Ah well, probably better to just leave the poor folk with their extra £13 a month and hope they dont freeze to death during the winter

1) No it isn't. That's a ludicrous argument. Imagine if I took 100% of your earnings, and I generously returned 50% to you. Would it be justified to claim that you were living on my charity? Of course not. You're essentially arguing that all earnings are state handouts.
2) No counterpoint again.

1) Im not arguing they're state handouts, Im arguing its the same thing. Does that have a different outcome from your employer giving you 100% of your earnings and then the government takes 50%?  You've still got 50%.  If the government takes 5% less is the exact same Frak outcome as them taking 50% then rebating 5%.  You still end up with 55%.
2) I was obviously being hyperbolic, but the point is that there is more than enough money in this country to rework and redistribute wealth so the people who need help the most get the most help.  This policy is literally the opposite of that and you're cheering from the rooftops.

1) "she's giving handouts to the rich people" "Yes they are [handouts from the state]"

2) People who need the most help already get the most help.

Duty281 wrote:

2) People who need the most help already get the most help.

Even if true, it doesn't mean they get enough help, does it?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

2) People who need the most help already get the most help.

Even if true, it doesn't mean they get enough help, does it?

Definitely true.

It doesn't mean in of itself they get enough help, but I think the welfare state works well enough to provide for the least well-off, helped by further government initiatives this year. Are there areas where you think the welfare state is lacking in its support?

Duty281 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Duty281 wrote:https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1574387228616396800

The pound is now higher against the dollar than where it finished on Friday.

Dead cat bounce.

No cruelty to animals, please.

As Jim Morrison said-
" Dead cats ,dead rats,can't you see where they were at?dead cat in a top hat."

I can think of no better example of him being a prophet.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

2) People who need the most help already get the most help.

Even if true, it doesn't mean they get enough help, does it?

Definitely true.

It doesn't mean in of itself they get enough help, but I think the welfare state works well enough to provide for the least well-off, helped by further government initiatives this year. Are there areas where you think the welfare state is lacking in its support?

The NHS, the homeless, drug rehabilitation programmes, free school meals, poverty prevention, covering the basics such as heating and food - that's just the obvious ones off the top of my head.

Not an exact science, but the top 10% of income tax earners pay around £138bn in income tax which covers nearly the entirety of the welfare state (minus pensions). Of course this doesn't include NI contributions or all the other taxes.

Sounds like a good bit of redistribution.

Of course it does.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

2) People who need the most help already get the most help.

Even if true, it doesn't mean they get enough help, does it?

Definitely true.

It doesn't mean in of itself they get enough help, but I think the welfare state works well enough to provide for the least well-off, helped by further government initiatives this year. Are there areas where you think the welfare state is lacking in its support?

The NHS, the homeless, drug rehabilitation programmes, free school meals, poverty prevention, covering the basics such as heating and food - that's just the obvious ones off the top of my head.

You want another budget increase for the NHS, or reform? Expanded access for free school meals, or universal?

Agree about the homeless, but tend to think of it as something for local authorities. When you say poverty prevention, do you mean a UBI?

Duty281 wrote:Not an exact science, but the top 10% of income tax earners pay around £138bn in income tax which covers nearly the entirety of the welfare state (minus pensions). Of course this doesn't include NI contributions or all the other taxes.

Sounds like a good bit of redistribution.

But not good enough for some of the super-rich - https://www.intaxwetrust.org/

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Not an exact science, but the top 10% of income tax earners pay around £138bn in income tax which covers nearly the entirety of the welfare state (minus pensions). Of course this doesn't include NI contributions or all the other taxes.

Sounds like a good bit of redistribution.

But not good enough for some of the super-rich - https://www.intaxwetrust.org/

Hopefully those British signatories will lead the way by paying voluntary amounts of extra tax to the treasury. They can lead so that others might follow, until the time when a 'fairer' tax is imposed on the high-earners.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Not an exact science, but the top 10% of income tax earners pay around £138bn in income tax which covers nearly the entirety of the welfare state (minus pensions). Of course this doesn't include NI contributions or all the other taxes.

Sounds like a good bit of redistribution.

But not good enough for some of the super-rich - https://www.intaxwetrust.org/

Hopefully those British signatories will lead the way by paying voluntary amounts of extra tax to the treasury. They can lead so that others might follow, until the time when a 'fairer' tax is imposed on the high-earners.

Why do you put 'fairer' in quotes?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Not an exact science, but the top 10% of income tax earners pay around £138bn in income tax which covers nearly the entirety of the welfare state (minus pensions). Of course this doesn't include NI contributions or all the other taxes.

Sounds like a good bit of redistribution.

But not good enough for some of the super-rich - https://www.intaxwetrust.org/

Hopefully those British signatories will lead the way by paying voluntary amounts of extra tax to the treasury. They can lead so that others might follow, until the time when a 'fairer' tax is imposed on the high-earners.

Why do you put 'fairer' in quotes?

Because I'm quoting from the link you provided. Not my words - they want a 'fair' tax system.

Labour members overwhelmingly back PR at their party conference...but the Labour leadership will ignore it.

Starmer will apparently quote Blair during his speech this afternoon. That will hack off the Corbynite left in his ranks even more.

Yes but it's of nought compared to being ejected thanks to the smear campaigns of lobbyist mouthpieces like Luke Akehurst. I'm sure they can handle it.
I hope everyone is going to watch the Al Jazeera three parter on this, the second one is at nine on tonight.
As an aside, it doesn't make Schtarmer another 'heir to Blair",
more like a Neil Kinnock throwback.

Haven't seen the Labour files yet. Seems to be manna from heaven for the Corbyn cultists and their victim mentality, from the reactions I've seen, as well as increasing the division in the Labour Party.

UK msm almost radio silence on it.

Latest YouGov polling has Labour 17 points in front. Long way to go before the next GE though.

Disgusting racism again by a Labour MP, this time Rupa Huq. Apparently black people have to talk in a certain way, otherwise they're only 'superficially black'.

Remove the whip, Sir Kier.

Duty281 wrote:Labour members overwhelmingly back PR at their party conference...but the Labour leadership will ignore it.

Starmer will apparently quote Blair during his speech this afternoon. That will hack off the Corbynite left in his ranks even more.

They're idiots then. If they signed up for that one thing, and only that, they'd have my vote.

The Times reporting that several bank bench Tories have already submitted letters of no confidence to the 1922 committee.

Its only Tuesday.

If we can't vote out the incumbent government for fear of what the alternative is, then democracy in Britain has failed, or rather the political class has failed and is failing us.

Samo wrote:The Times reporting that several bank bench Tories have already submitted letters of no confidence to the 1922 committee.

Its only Tuesday.

Yeah I said the same yesterday, I can't see how replacing the Truss-Bot helps so near.to an election..it's a gift to Labour as the worst look ever for a party is an unhappy, divided one

Duty281 wrote:Disgusting racism again by a Labour MP, this time Rupa Huq. Apparently black people have to talk in a certain way, otherwise they're only 'superficially black'.

Remove the whip, Sir Kier.

Thank you, Sir Kier.

Duty281 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Disgusting racism again by a Labour MP, this time Rupa Huq. Apparently black people have to talk in a certain way, otherwise they're only 'superficially black'.

Remove the whip, Sir Kier.

Thank you, Sir Kier.

Dont think many people can argue against this tbh.

Duty281 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Disgusting racism again by a Labour MP, this time Rupa Huq. Apparently black people have to talk in a certain way, otherwise they're only 'superficially black'.

Remove the whip, Sir Kier.

Thank you, Sir Kier.

Easy win for Keir (note the spelling), near on perfect week for him and he's had very little to do.

Duty281 wrote:Disgusting racism again by a Labour MP, this time Rupa Huq. Apparently black people have to talk in a certain way, otherwise they're only 'superficially black'.

Remove the whip, Sir Kier.

Good enough for you?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63050482

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Disgusting racism again by a Labour MP, this time Rupa Huq. Apparently black people have to talk in a certain way, otherwise they're only 'superficially black'.

Remove the whip, Sir Kier.

Good enough for you?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63050482

Sir Keir (thank you, Soul) has done the right thing, however there is still a toxic undercurrent in the PLP and its wider membership base. The leader has worked hard to deal with this, but this is a reminder of how far there is to go.

Oops! And it was all looking so good:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63041679

Racist MP or an economy in turmoil? Hmmm, distractions won't work this time.

There is one hell of a u-turn coming up.

Soul Requiem wrote:Racist MP or an economy in turmoil? Hmmm, distractions won't work this time.

There is one hell of a u-turn coming up.

Already had to make a u-turn of my own on buying a new house.  Not doing a thing until it all settles down.  

Issue for the tories at the moment is that in addition to setting fire to their own party, Starmer isn't giving them any easy points of attack.

Soul Requiem wrote:Racist MP or an economy in turmoil? Hmmm, distractions won't work this time.

There is one hell of a u-turn coming up.

Yep. At that speed, not sure any tyres on the planet are going to cope.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63049044

This is what you get when a dogma-driven, economic non-entity (degree in Classics & History FFS) is given the keys to #11 and is supported by a PM as dumb as this one. Judging by Kwarteng's academic career, he's in no way dumb, but this all smacks of a self-centred, ego-driven God complex. He's right - the rest can go and do one.

From Wiki (so must be true):

"Kwarteng criticised the Help to Buy housing scheme as inflationary in 2013."

Contrast with what he's precipitating now. You numbskull. You really couldn't make it up, could you?

Samo wrote:The Times reporting that several bank bench Tories have already submitted letters of no confidence to the 1922 committee.

Its only Tuesday.

Clearly they're no fans of uncertainty, either.