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.

It's gone quiet on these boards, hasn't it?

Surprised the celebrations died down as quickly as they did. You'd think with the great job Kwasi and Truss are doing there would be certain board members constantly rubbing it in our faces.

By the look of her, she must have accepted hospitality from every establishment in the land

I read a news headline yesterday - apparently Britain of all the major nations is going to be the hardest hit by inflation, economic slowdown and financial turmoil. It was already going to be bad thanks to the Tory Party Stewardship, then Boris Johnsons disastrous decision making when he should have been focusing on increasing trade and diplomacy in a Brexit Britain (that he himself wanted), and now tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum inheriting the reigns (Truss & Kwarteng).

When you can't even get this plan past your own party, it doesn't say much

One of the problems for the Conservatives is that Truss's whole leadership campaign was centred on cutting taxes. It was her main - only? - point of difference with Sunak in the final runoff. So there was no mistake. She did what she said she'd do. It was what a majority of party members wanted.

Or that an elected party can pretend it has a mandate to completely revert strategy from what it was elected upon by the entire country based on a tiny section of the population.

If they had any integrity they'd take their "plan" to the public to secure a mandate but they all know it would mean a heavy defeat

I just remember how pleased Truss was as Kwarteng announced the content of the mini-budget. She was sitting next to him, smiling like a Cheshire cat, relishing the reaction of MPs on the opposition benches. It's worth watching back.

Rumours that Kwasimodo is on the verge of getting the sack.

This party really is the gift that keeps on giving.

Sacking him just isn't going to cut it. It was as much her budget as it was his.

The friendly papers will try spinning it as a show of strength from Truss, but who's going to fall for that?

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Sacking him just isn't going to cut it. It was as much her budget as it was his.

The friendly papers will try spinning it as a show of strength from Truss, but who's going to fall for that?

Genuinely I dont think anyone will. Truss has been an unmitigated disaster and is wholly unpopular across the country. She's toast. Its just a case of whether she'll be able to hang on to lose a GE or if the Tories will get rid of her before then.

It's actually cowardice isn't it, sacking him. He was doing what she wanted him to do.

They're all just trying to survive another day really. they can't plausibly junk her after a month and elect a new PM without going to the country for a mandate. Equally voting in this budget would be political suicide. Kwasi gets sacrificed and the budget junked just to quiet down the noise in the short term

Just an embarrassment from Truss. She had the courage to announce policies to introduce much needed economic growth in the medium to long term, but had no courage to see it through in the face of pressure from her own party - a high-tax, centrist mob - and the media.

And someone who can't stand up to pressure doesn't deserve to be PM. Hope she resigns. If she wants to return to the low-growth, high-tax policies of the criminal duo Johnson and Sunak, she might as well return office to them.

Kwarteng has been martyred and will hopefully return to high office one day.

The Tory Party have deserved to lose every single one of the last four elections, but due to inept opposition have managed to win them. Hopefully the next one will be the one where they are destroyed as an electoral force, so a genuine Conservative Party can take its place, rather than this awful big-government entity which doesn't have a scintilla of Conservativeism and is mostly made up of MPs who should join the Lib Dems or Labour.

Probably wouldve helped if they'd bothered to explain how the numbers fit together before announcing tax cuts and spiking mortgage costs

Cant wait for Truss to announce the U-turn on tax cuts and join the rest of us in the Anti-Growth Coalition.

I can taste the neoliberal IEA tears already. Glorious.

Absolute omnishambles. In fact if Truss govt was an episode of The Thick of It we'd be calling it out as too unrealistic.
She is surely a goner. Started really badly and got a whole lot worse.

Think only one pleased about this (apart from Labour) must be Boris. Bet a lot of Tories who voted to get rid of him possibly regretting decision now.

Duty281 wrote:Just an embarrassment from Truss. She had the courage to announce policies to introduce much needed economic growth in the medium to long term, but had no courage to see it through in the face of pressure from her own party - a high-tax, centrist mob - and the media.

And someone who can't stand up to pressure doesn't deserve to be PM. Hope she resigns. If she wants to return to the low-growth, high-tax policies of the criminal duo Johnson and Sunak, she might as well return office to them.

Kwarteng has been martyred and will hopefully return to high office one day.

The Tory Party have deserved to lose every single one of the last four elections, but due to inept opposition have managed to win them. Hopefully the next one will be the one where they are destroyed as an electoral force, so a genuine Conservative Party can take its place, rather than this awful big-government entity which doesn't have a scintilla of Conservativeism and is mostly made up of MPs who should join the Lib Dems or Labour.

A genuine Conservative party - as you would define it - would have no more chance of winning a GE than a genuine socialist party. Mainly because despite your claim of "policies to introduce much needed economic growth in the medium to long term," most people recognise that they wouldn't do that, certainly not when introduced at this point in time. It's not a lack of courage that caused them to not to see it through, it was the knowledge that they would fail.

In any case these were her policies that she campaigned on. Should really follow with her resignation and a general election but seems too much to hope for

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Just an embarrassment from Truss. She had the courage to announce policies to introduce much needed economic growth in the medium to long term, but had no courage to see it through in the face of pressure from her own party - a high-tax, centrist mob - and the media.

And someone who can't stand up to pressure doesn't deserve to be PM. Hope she resigns. If she wants to return to the low-growth, high-tax policies of the criminal duo Johnson and Sunak, she might as well return office to them.

Kwarteng has been martyred and will hopefully return to high office one day.

The Tory Party have deserved to lose every single one of the last four elections, but due to inept opposition have managed to win them. Hopefully the next one will be the one where they are destroyed as an electoral force, so a genuine Conservative Party can take its place, rather than this awful big-government entity which doesn't have a scintilla of Conservativeism and is mostly made up of MPs who should join the Lib Dems or Labour.

A genuine Conservative party - as you would define it - would have no more chance of winning a GE than a genuine socialist party. Mainly because despite your claim of "policies to introduce much needed economic growth in the medium to long term," most people recognise that they wouldn't do that, certainly not when introduced at this point in time. It's not a lack of courage that caused them to not to see it through, it was the knowledge that they would fail.

No it is entirely lack of courage, not knowledge they would fail. There wasn't even knowledge that they would fail, rather the opposite as many bodies, including the IMF, indicated that economic growth would happen. But to go through with it she would have to deal with short-term unpopularity and uncertainty, as Thatcher did. She did not have the courage to last through this.

Still, we're back to square one now. Anaemic growth. High tax. Businesses strangled. Inflation set to soar. This is what would have happened if Thatcher had turned in 81. It's going to be a grim decade now.

Jeremy Hunt as Chancellor - good lord. Let's hope the Tories get annihilated at the next GE.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Just an embarrassment from Truss. She had the courage to announce policies to introduce much needed economic growth in the medium to long term, but had no courage to see it through in the face of pressure from her own party - a high-tax, centrist mob - and the media.

And someone who can't stand up to pressure doesn't deserve to be PM. Hope she resigns. If she wants to return to the low-growth, high-tax policies of the criminal duo Johnson and Sunak, she might as well return office to them.

Kwarteng has been martyred and will hopefully return to high office one day.

The Tory Party have deserved to lose every single one of the last four elections, but due to inept opposition have managed to win them. Hopefully the next one will be the one where they are destroyed as an electoral force, so a genuine Conservative Party can take its place, rather than this awful big-government entity which doesn't have a scintilla of Conservativeism and is mostly made up of MPs who should join the Lib Dems or Labour.

A genuine Conservative party - as you would define it - would have no more chance of winning a GE than a genuine socialist party. Mainly because despite your claim of "policies to introduce much needed economic growth in the medium to long term," most people recognise that they wouldn't do that, certainly not when introduced at this point in time. It's not a lack of courage that caused them to not to see it through, it was the knowledge that they would fail.

No it is entirely lack of courage, not knowledge they would fail. There wasn't even knowledge that they would fail, rather the opposite as many bodies, including the IMF, indicated that economic growth would happen.

Still, we're back to square one now. Anaemic growth. High tax. Businesses strangled. Inflation set to soar. This is what would have happened if Thatcher had turned in 81. It's going to be a grim decade now.

Jeremy Hunt as Chancellor - good lord. Let's hope the Tories get annihilated at the next GE.

Perhaps I should have used the term 'fail' in a broader sense - they were policies that overall would damage the country a lot more than they would benefit it - with a small increase in growth only part of the overall picture. It may well be a grim decade, but it could have been a lot grimmer (except for the most wealthy - it would have been OK for them) and I'm glad that the public and the Tory MPs did have the common sense and the courage to stand against them. It's a shame about the damage already done.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Just an embarrassment from Truss. She had the courage to announce policies to introduce much needed economic growth in the medium to long term, but had no courage to see it through in the face of pressure from her own party - a high-tax, centrist mob - and the media.

And someone who can't stand up to pressure doesn't deserve to be PM. Hope she resigns. If she wants to return to the low-growth, high-tax policies of the criminal duo Johnson and Sunak, she might as well return office to them.

Kwarteng has been martyred and will hopefully return to high office one day.

The Tory Party have deserved to lose every single one of the last four elections, but due to inept opposition have managed to win them. Hopefully the next one will be the one where they are destroyed as an electoral force, so a genuine Conservative Party can take its place, rather than this awful big-government entity which doesn't have a scintilla of Conservativeism and is mostly made up of MPs who should join the Lib Dems or Labour.

A genuine Conservative party - as you would define it - would have no more chance of winning a GE than a genuine socialist party. Mainly because despite your claim of "policies to introduce much needed economic growth in the medium to long term," most people recognise that they wouldn't do that, certainly not when introduced at this point in time. It's not a lack of courage that caused them to not to see it through, it was the knowledge that they would fail.

No it is entirely lack of courage, not knowledge they would fail. There wasn't even knowledge that they would fail, rather the opposite as many bodies, including the IMF, indicated that economic growth would happen.

Still, we're back to square one now. Anaemic growth. High tax. Businesses strangled. Inflation set to soar. This is what would have happened if Thatcher had turned in 81. It's going to be a grim decade now.

Jeremy Hunt as Chancellor - good lord. Let's hope the Tories get annihilated at the next GE.

Perhaps I should have used the term 'fail' in a broader sense - they were policies that overall would damage the country a lot more than they would benefit it - with a small increase in growth only part of the overall picture. It may well be a grim decade, but it could have been a lot grimmer (except for the most wealthy - it would have been OK for them) and I'm glad that the public and the Tory MPs did have the common sense and the courage to stand against them. It's a shame about the damage already done.

Even if we take the statement 'they were policies that overall would damage the country a lot more than they would benefit it' as true, which of course it isn't, what exactly is your alternative to producing strong economic growth?

What do you want Jeremy Hunt to do in his role as Chancellor?

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Just an embarrassment from Truss. She had the courage to announce policies to introduce much needed economic growth in the medium to long term, but had no courage to see it through in the face of pressure from her own party - a high-tax, centrist mob - and the media.

And someone who can't stand up to pressure doesn't deserve to be PM. Hope she resigns. If she wants to return to the low-growth, high-tax policies of the criminal duo Johnson and Sunak, she might as well return office to them.

Kwarteng has been martyred and will hopefully return to high office one day.

The Tory Party have deserved to lose every single one of the last four elections, but due to inept opposition have managed to win them. Hopefully the next one will be the one where they are destroyed as an electoral force, so a genuine Conservative Party can take its place, rather than this awful big-government entity which doesn't have a scintilla of Conservativeism and is mostly made up of MPs who should join the Lib Dems or Labour.

A genuine Conservative party - as you would define it - would have no more chance of winning a GE than a genuine socialist party. Mainly because despite your claim of "policies to introduce much needed economic growth in the medium to long term," most people recognise that they wouldn't do that, certainly not when introduced at this point in time. It's not a lack of courage that caused them to not to see it through, it was the knowledge that they would fail.

No it is entirely lack of courage, not knowledge they would fail. There wasn't even knowledge that they would fail, rather the opposite as many bodies, including the IMF, indicated that economic growth would happen.

Still, we're back to square one now. Anaemic growth. High tax. Businesses strangled. Inflation set to soar. This is what would have happened if Thatcher had turned in 81. It's going to be a grim decade now.

Jeremy Hunt as Chancellor - good lord. Let's hope the Tories get annihilated at the next GE.

Perhaps I should have used the term 'fail' in a broader sense - they were policies that overall would damage the country a lot more than they would benefit it - with a small increase in growth only part of the overall picture. It may well be a grim decade, but it could have been a lot grimmer (except for the most wealthy - it would have been OK for them) and I'm glad that the public and the Tory MPs did have the common sense and the courage to stand against them. It's a shame about the damage already done.

Even if we take the statement 'they were policies that overall would damage the country a lot more than they would benefit it' as true, which of course it isn't, what exactly is your alternative to producing strong economic growth?

What do you want Jeremy Hunt to do in his role as Chancellor?

"Of course it isn't". Question is, should I believe you because you're such an expert, or should I believe pretty much all the actual economic experts?

Preferably not double the cost of my mortgage

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Just an embarrassment from Truss. She had the courage to announce policies to introduce much needed economic growth in the medium to long term, but had no courage to see it through in the face of pressure from her own party - a high-tax, centrist mob - and the media.

And someone who can't stand up to pressure doesn't deserve to be PM. Hope she resigns. If she wants to return to the low-growth, high-tax policies of the criminal duo Johnson and Sunak, she might as well return office to them.

Kwarteng has been martyred and will hopefully return to high office one day.

The Tory Party have deserved to lose every single one of the last four elections, but due to inept opposition have managed to win them. Hopefully the next one will be the one where they are destroyed as an electoral force, so a genuine Conservative Party can take its place, rather than this awful big-government entity which doesn't have a scintilla of Conservativeism and is mostly made up of MPs who should join the Lib Dems or Labour.

A genuine Conservative party - as you would define it - would have no more chance of winning a GE than a genuine socialist party. Mainly because despite your claim of "policies to introduce much needed economic growth in the medium to long term," most people recognise that they wouldn't do that, certainly not when introduced at this point in time. It's not a lack of courage that caused them to not to see it through, it was the knowledge that they would fail.

No it is entirely lack of courage, not knowledge they would fail. There wasn't even knowledge that they would fail, rather the opposite as many bodies, including the IMF, indicated that economic growth would happen.

Still, we're back to square one now. Anaemic growth. High tax. Businesses strangled. Inflation set to soar. This is what would have happened if Thatcher had turned in 81. It's going to be a grim decade now.

Jeremy Hunt as Chancellor - good lord. Let's hope the Tories get annihilated at the next GE.

Perhaps I should have used the term 'fail' in a broader sense - they were policies that overall would damage the country a lot more than they would benefit it - with a small increase in growth only part of the overall picture. It may well be a grim decade, but it could have been a lot grimmer (except for the most wealthy - it would have been OK for them) and I'm glad that the public and the Tory MPs did have the common sense and the courage to stand against them. It's a shame about the damage already done.

Even if we take the statement 'they were policies that overall would damage the country a lot more than they would benefit it' as true, which of course it isn't, what exactly is your alternative to producing strong economic growth?

What do you want Jeremy Hunt to do in his role as Chancellor?

"Of course it isn't". Question is, should I believe you because you're such an expert, or should I believe pretty much all the actual economic experts?

You're very welcome to pick and choose which experts you believe in, of course.

But what's your solution for producing economic growth?

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Just an embarrassment from Truss. She had the courage to announce policies to introduce much needed economic growth in the medium to long term, but had no courage to see it through in the face of pressure from her own party - a high-tax, centrist mob - and the media.

And someone who can't stand up to pressure doesn't deserve to be PM. Hope she resigns. If she wants to return to the low-growth, high-tax policies of the criminal duo Johnson and Sunak, she might as well return office to them.

Kwarteng has been martyred and will hopefully return to high office one day.

The Tory Party have deserved to lose every single one of the last four elections, but due to inept opposition have managed to win them. Hopefully the next one will be the one where they are destroyed as an electoral force, so a genuine Conservative Party can take its place, rather than this awful big-government entity which doesn't have a scintilla of Conservativeism and is mostly made up of MPs who should join the Lib Dems or Labour.

A genuine Conservative party - as you would define it - would have no more chance of winning a GE than a genuine socialist party. Mainly because despite your claim of "policies to introduce much needed economic growth in the medium to long term," most people recognise that they wouldn't do that, certainly not when introduced at this point in time. It's not a lack of courage that caused them to not to see it through, it was the knowledge that they would fail.

No it is entirely lack of courage, not knowledge they would fail. There wasn't even knowledge that they would fail, rather the opposite as many bodies, including the IMF, indicated that economic growth would happen.

Still, we're back to square one now. Anaemic growth. High tax. Businesses strangled. Inflation set to soar. This is what would have happened if Thatcher had turned in 81. It's going to be a grim decade now.

Jeremy Hunt as Chancellor - good lord. Let's hope the Tories get annihilated at the next GE.

Perhaps I should have used the term 'fail' in a broader sense - they were policies that overall would damage the country a lot more than they would benefit it - with a small increase in growth only part of the overall picture. It may well be a grim decade, but it could have been a lot grimmer (except for the most wealthy - it would have been OK for them) and I'm glad that the public and the Tory MPs did have the common sense and the courage to stand against them. It's a shame about the damage already done.

Even if we take the statement 'they were policies that overall would damage the country a lot more than they would benefit it' as true, which of course it isn't, what exactly is your alternative to producing strong economic growth?

What do you want Jeremy Hunt to do in his role as Chancellor?

"Of course it isn't". Question is, should I believe you because you're such an expert, or should I believe pretty much all the actual economic experts?

You're very welcome to pick and choose which experts you believe in, of course.

But what's your solution for producing economic growth?

Personally I'd take action that increases everyone's mortgage payments, puts pension funds in danger, increases the cost of government borrowing to an unsustainable rate to create a funding black hole for years to come, slash public services to pay for it, and provide the rich a bit more money in case they wish to throw a few breadcrumbs for the poor to scavenge over. That's the kind of Britain I want to live in.

Maybe time to admit leaving the Single Market wasnt the greatest idea ever?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Just an embarrassment from Truss. She had the courage to announce policies to introduce much needed economic growth in the medium to long term, but had no courage to see it through in the face of pressure from her own party - a high-tax, centrist mob - and the media.

And someone who can't stand up to pressure doesn't deserve to be PM. Hope she resigns. If she wants to return to the low-growth, high-tax policies of the criminal duo Johnson and Sunak, she might as well return office to them.

Kwarteng has been martyred and will hopefully return to high office one day.

The Tory Party have deserved to lose every single one of the last four elections, but due to inept opposition have managed to win them. Hopefully the next one will be the one where they are destroyed as an electoral force, so a genuine Conservative Party can take its place, rather than this awful big-government entity which doesn't have a scintilla of Conservativeism and is mostly made up of MPs who should join the Lib Dems or Labour.

A genuine Conservative party - as you would define it - would have no more chance of winning a GE than a genuine socialist party. Mainly because despite your claim of "policies to introduce much needed economic growth in the medium to long term," most people recognise that they wouldn't do that, certainly not when introduced at this point in time. It's not a lack of courage that caused them to not to see it through, it was the knowledge that they would fail.

No it is entirely lack of courage, not knowledge they would fail. There wasn't even knowledge that they would fail, rather the opposite as many bodies, including the IMF, indicated that economic growth would happen.

Still, we're back to square one now. Anaemic growth. High tax. Businesses strangled. Inflation set to soar. This is what would have happened if Thatcher had turned in 81. It's going to be a grim decade now.

Jeremy Hunt as Chancellor - good lord. Let's hope the Tories get annihilated at the next GE.

Perhaps I should have used the term 'fail' in a broader sense - they were policies that overall would damage the country a lot more than they would benefit it - with a small increase in growth only part of the overall picture. It may well be a grim decade, but it could have been a lot grimmer (except for the most wealthy - it would have been OK for them) and I'm glad that the public and the Tory MPs did have the common sense and the courage to stand against them. It's a shame about the damage already done.

Even if we take the statement 'they were policies that overall would damage the country a lot more than they would benefit it' as true, which of course it isn't, what exactly is your alternative to producing strong economic growth?

What do you want Jeremy Hunt to do in his role as Chancellor?

"Of course it isn't". Question is, should I believe you because you're such an expert, or should I believe pretty much all the actual economic experts?

You're very welcome to pick and choose which experts you believe in, of course.

But what's your solution for producing economic growth?

Personally I'd take action that increases everyone's mortgage payments, puts pension funds in danger, increases the cost of government borrowing to an unsustainable rate to create a funding black hole for years to come, slash public services to pay for it, and provide the rich a bit more money in case they wish to throw a few breadcrumbs for the poor to scavenge over. That's the kind of Britain I want to live in.

So...you don't have an answer?

Samo wrote:Maybe time to admit leaving the Single Market wasnt the greatest idea ever?

What are you missing from the Single Market?

I'm not nearly clever enough to come with a strategy for running an economy that affects millions of people.

But when pretty much every expert thinks it's a very stupid idea, and two politicians think it's a good one, I'm inclined to side with the experts

It all started so promisingly for Kwarteng, being coked off his head at the queen's funeral. Had hopes that he would become the Beefy of politics, sad to seem him being made a scapegoat in this fashion.

Truss saying sacking the man implementing her policies was in the national interest is very funny

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Just an embarrassment from Truss. She had the courage to announce policies to introduce much needed economic growth in the medium to long term, but had no courage to see it through in the face of pressure from her own party - a high-tax, centrist mob - and the media.

And someone who can't stand up to pressure doesn't deserve to be PM. Hope she resigns. If she wants to return to the low-growth, high-tax policies of the criminal duo Johnson and Sunak, she might as well return office to them.

Kwarteng has been martyred and will hopefully return to high office one day.

The Tory Party have deserved to lose every single one of the last four elections, but due to inept opposition have managed to win them. Hopefully the next one will be the one where they are destroyed as an electoral force, so a genuine Conservative Party can take its place, rather than this awful big-government entity which doesn't have a scintilla of Conservativeism and is mostly made up of MPs who should join the Lib Dems or Labour.

A genuine Conservative party - as you would define it - would have no more chance of winning a GE than a genuine socialist party. Mainly because despite your claim of "policies to introduce much needed economic growth in the medium to long term," most people recognise that they wouldn't do that, certainly not when introduced at this point in time. It's not a lack of courage that caused them to not to see it through, it was the knowledge that they would fail.

No it is entirely lack of courage, not knowledge they would fail. There wasn't even knowledge that they would fail, rather the opposite as many bodies, including the IMF, indicated that economic growth would happen.

Still, we're back to square one now. Anaemic growth. High tax. Businesses strangled. Inflation set to soar. This is what would have happened if Thatcher had turned in 81. It's going to be a grim decade now.

Jeremy Hunt as Chancellor - good lord. Let's hope the Tories get annihilated at the next GE.

Perhaps I should have used the term 'fail' in a broader sense - they were policies that overall would damage the country a lot more than they would benefit it - with a small increase in growth only part of the overall picture. It may well be a grim decade, but it could have been a lot grimmer (except for the most wealthy - it would have been OK for them) and I'm glad that the public and the Tory MPs did have the common sense and the courage to stand against them. It's a shame about the damage already done.

Even if we take the statement 'they were policies that overall would damage the country a lot more than they would benefit it' as true, which of course it isn't, what exactly is your alternative to producing strong economic growth?

What do you want Jeremy Hunt to do in his role as Chancellor?

"Of course it isn't". Question is, should I believe you because you're such an expert, or should I believe pretty much all the actual economic experts?

You're very welcome to pick and choose which experts you believe in, of course.

But what's your solution for producing economic growth?

Personally I'd take action that increases everyone's mortgage payments, puts pension funds in danger, increases the cost of government borrowing to an unsustainable rate to create a funding black hole for years to come, slash public services to pay for it, and provide the rich a bit more money in case they wish to throw a few breadcrumbs for the poor to scavenge over. That's the kind of Britain I want to live in.

So...you don't have an answer?

It's not my job to have an answer. But it is easy to spot when someone (you, Truss, Kwarteng) has the wrong answers, and makes a huge man sausage-up that damages the country (not that you did that personally, but you supported it).

mountain man wrote:Absolute omnishambles. In fact if Truss govt was an episode of The Thick of It we'd be calling it out as too unrealistic.
She is surely a goner. Started really badly and got a whole lot worse.

Think only one pleased about this (apart from Labour) must be Boris. Bet a lot of Tories who voted to get rid of him possibly regretting decision now.

Decision to get rid of that , Boris Johnson, was absolutely correct. Problem is who/what replaced him and the poor process for doing so. The idea that people are suggesting that Johnson should be brought back is laughable, but pretty much typical of this country these days.

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:Maybe time to admit leaving the Single Market wasnt the greatest idea ever?

What are you missing from the Single Market?

Me personally? Nothing really. But nothing says "increasing growth" like making it a hell of a lot easier for companies and businesses to trade with our closest and largest neighbours.

Duty281 wrote:...What do you want Jeremy Hunt to do in his role as Chancellor?

Sod off and die? Resign immediately? Retire? Another huge ego who thinks he's perfection incarnate. Think this country has had just about enough of that recently.

Complete car crash of an press conference. Not sure "you need me to fix the problems I created" is a winner

GSC wrote:Complete car crash of an press conference. Not sure "you need me to fix the problems I created" is a winner

Totally disassociated from reality. I think "I am determined to deliver economic stability and thats why I have taken these decisions today" should be on her tombstone.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Just an embarrassment from Truss. She had the courage to announce policies to introduce much needed economic growth in the medium to long term, but had no courage to see it through in the face of pressure from her own party - a high-tax, centrist mob - and the media.

And someone who can't stand up to pressure doesn't deserve to be PM. Hope she resigns. If she wants to return to the low-growth, high-tax policies of the criminal duo Johnson and Sunak, she might as well return office to them.

Kwarteng has been martyred and will hopefully return to high office one day.

The Tory Party have deserved to lose every single one of the last four elections, but due to inept opposition have managed to win them. Hopefully the next one will be the one where they are destroyed as an electoral force, so a genuine Conservative Party can take its place, rather than this awful big-government entity which doesn't have a scintilla of Conservativeism and is mostly made up of MPs who should join the Lib Dems or Labour.

A genuine Conservative party - as you would define it - would have no more chance of winning a GE than a genuine socialist party. Mainly because despite your claim of "policies to introduce much needed economic growth in the medium to long term," most people recognise that they wouldn't do that, certainly not when introduced at this point in time. It's not a lack of courage that caused them to not to see it through, it was the knowledge that they would fail.

No it is entirely lack of courage, not knowledge they would fail. There wasn't even knowledge that they would fail, rather the opposite as many bodies, including the IMF, indicated that economic growth would happen.

Still, we're back to square one now. Anaemic growth. High tax. Businesses strangled. Inflation set to soar. This is what would have happened if Thatcher had turned in 81. It's going to be a grim decade now.

Jeremy Hunt as Chancellor - good lord. Let's hope the Tories get annihilated at the next GE.

Perhaps I should have used the term 'fail' in a broader sense - they were policies that overall would damage the country a lot more than they would benefit it - with a small increase in growth only part of the overall picture. It may well be a grim decade, but it could have been a lot grimmer (except for the most wealthy - it would have been OK for them) and I'm glad that the public and the Tory MPs did have the common sense and the courage to stand against them. It's a shame about the damage already done.

Even if we take the statement 'they were policies that overall would damage the country a lot more than they would benefit it' as true, which of course it isn't, what exactly is your alternative to producing strong economic growth?

What do you want Jeremy Hunt to do in his role as Chancellor?

"Of course it isn't". Question is, should I believe you because you're such an expert, or should I believe pretty much all the actual economic experts?

You're very welcome to pick and choose which experts you believe in, of course.

But what's your solution for producing economic growth?

Personally I'd take action that increases everyone's mortgage payments, puts pension funds in danger, increases the cost of government borrowing to an unsustainable rate to create a funding black hole for years to come, slash public services to pay for it, and provide the rich a bit more money in case they wish to throw a few breadcrumbs for the poor to scavenge over. That's the kind of Britain I want to live in.

So...you don't have an answer?

It's not my job to have an answer. But it is easy to spot when someone (you, Truss, Kwarteng) has the wrong answers, and makes a huge man sausage-up that damages the country (not that you did that personally, but you supported it).

What is certainly the wrong answer is continuing on the same course that this country has been on for years.

It is indeed not your job to have an answer, but I would have thought someone as opinionated as yourself would have alternative ideas for economic growth?

Duty281 wrote:What is certainly the wrong answer is continuing on the same course that this country has been on for years.

It is indeed not your job to have an answer, but I would have thought someone as opinionated as yourself would have alternative ideas for economic growth?

There are some things worse than continuing on the same course i.e. going down a worse course, as we have seen in the last few weeks.

Any policies I have would be based on levelling up and reducing the rich/poor divide (which Truss/Kwarteng trashed), as that is a moral imperative for a just society. The specifics are in the same locked box as the specific EU laws you wish to see repealed and the specific aspects of GDPR you wish to see reformed.

Obviously I would have to run them by the OBR, to ensure the numbers add up, because not to do so would be an error only an amateur or an egotist would make.

What I wouldn't do is blame my mistakes on other people's imagined cowardice, rather than accept them as mistakes.

Duty281 wrote:What is certainly the wrong answer is continuing on the same course that this country has been on for years.

...alternative ideas for economic growth?

Not an economist, but I don't think trashing so much a la Truss/Kwarteng was ever going to work. There's no way they could ram that lot through, while appearing to actively diss any respected interrogation/analysis of how they were going to properly finance it, and expect it to stick. It was totally idealistic/dogmatic and stupid.

Correcting this country's malaise is a decades long piece of work, which is why it'll not be done easily as there's too much distance between the dysfunctional Tories and Labour. Too much dogma on both sides. I would suggest introducing PR into this country as one of the best ways to improve matters, but that's probably too advanced for the standard of politician we have these days.

If they want to borrow billions, borrow to invest in modern infrastructure and industry.
Get the multinational, tax dodging corporations to pay their way.
Fix the tax laws so that it's chuffing difficult to avoid paying your headline rate.
Destroy the idea that housing is some sort of damnable 'market'; that's the root of so many problems.
Promote industries that have an actual future; promote a nation that has one.
Actually have a bit of altruism at the heart of what they do.
Actually have an honest conversation with the population about the cost of stuff cf. what that population claims to want, and the actual cost of supplying services.
Stop.****ing.Lying.
Maybe realise, and point out to the nation, that this isn't the Empire of Victoria at its late 19th century height?
Stop selling off what few assets we have left.
Maybe consider a coalition Government in the national interest? (WTF am I thinking? In the national interest? They have no idea what that even means.)
Re-engage with the EU for goodness sake and neuter the ERG.

I would never have been in support of it even 12 months ago, but now I think we really do need a general strike that brings the country to a complete halt. Stuff it. For all the inconvenience to so many, there needs to be a complete reset.

I love the idea that she is still a Lib Dem and has been playing the long game undercover to tear down the Tory party from within.

It makes as much sense as her thinking this would actually fly with the public.

Samo wrote:I love the idea that she is still a Lib Dem and has been playing the long game undercover to tear down the Tory party from within.

It makes as much sense as her thinking this would actually fly with the public.

Both are wrong. She's not a Lib Dem, she never was. She's not a Conservative, either. She's just vacuous ambition, willing to say or do anything to get to that office.

She never wanted any of it to fly with the public. She never cared what the public thought.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:What is certainly the wrong answer is continuing on the same course that this country has been on for years.

It is indeed not your job to have an answer, but I would have thought someone as opinionated as yourself would have alternative ideas for economic growth?

There are some things worse than continuing on the same course i.e. going down a worse course, as we have seen in the last few weeks.

Any policies I have would be based on levelling up and reducing the rich/poor divide (which Truss/Kwarteng trashed), as that is a moral imperative for a just society. The specifics are in the same locked box as the specific EU laws you wish to see repealed and the specific aspects of GDPR you wish to see reformed.

Obviously I would have to run them by the OBR, to ensure the numbers add up, because not to do so would be an error only an amateur or an egotist would make.  

What I wouldn't do is blame my mistakes on other people's imagined cowardice, rather than accept them as mistakes.

It's not imagined cowardice. Truss has a clear set of economic reforms she wants to put through - she went through a leadership election pledging them, selected a chancellor who was on the same wavelength, and then announced them in Parliament. She backed down through pressure from her own MPs and the media. That is a desertion of moral courage. And it was always going to come after she climbed down on the 45p tax cut. She announced weakness and was pounced upon.

Reducing the rich/poor divide will make us all poorer in the long run, which is why it's not a moral imperative or even something desirable. Policies should focus on economic growth to enable the standard of living of all people to improve; not obsess with jealousy of the rich and taxing them more just for the sake of bringing their wealth down.

Realising that you/someone else has made a huge mistake causing a lot of economic damage to millions of people, and so reversing it, is not cowardice, it's common sense. It's in the national interest to do so.

As to your other 'moral' opinions, I seem to recall you don't wish me to comment on them.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:What is certainly the wrong answer is continuing on the same course that this country has been on for years.

...alternative ideas for economic growth?

Not an economist, but I don't think trashing so much a la Truss/Kwarteng was ever going to work. There's no way they could ram that lot through, while appearing to actively diss any respected interrogation/analysis of how they were going to properly finance it, and expect it to stick. It was totally idealistic/dogmatic and stupid.

Correcting this country's malaise is a decades long piece of work, which is why it'll not be done easily as there's too much distance between the dysfunctional Tories and Labour. Too much dogma on both sides. I would suggest introducing PR into this country as one of the best ways to improve matters, but that's probably too advanced for the standard of politician we have these days.

If they want to borrow billions, borrow to invest in modern infrastructure and industry.
Get the multinational, tax dodging corporations to pay their way.
Fix the tax laws so that it's chuffing difficult to avoid paying your headline rate.
Destroy the idea that housing is some sort of damnable 'market'; that's the root of so many problems.
Promote industries that have an actual future; promote a nation that has one.
Actually have a bit of altruism at the heart of what they do.
Actually have an honest conversation with the population about the cost of stuff cf. what that population claims to want, and the actual cost of supplying services.
Stop.****ing.Lying.
Maybe realise, and point out to the nation, that this isn't the Empire of Victoria at its late 19th century height?
Stop selling off what few assets we have left.
Maybe consider a coalition Government in the national interest? (WTF am I thinking? In the national interest? They have no idea what that even means.)
Re-engage with the EU for goodness sake and neuter the ERG.

I would never have been in support of it even 12 months ago, but now I think we really do need a general strike that brings the country to a complete halt. Stuff it. For all the inconvenience to so many, there needs to be a complete reset.

And there we go again with claims of 'how to properly finance it'. £10bn of tax cuts and the sky falls in. Never mind the billions more thrown around on the NHS, HS2, track and trace, energy support etc. no one really cares where that's coming from.

I support PR (narrowly) but I'm not sure it'll improve the standards of politicians. Ideally we'll come to a point where political parties are abolished, and MPs are paid a heck of a lot more rather than the pittance they currently get (in relation to their role).

On some of your points:

I agree infrastructure needs to be improved, especially with regards to public transport and roads.

Tax laws can never be reformed in a satisfactory way because the UK doesn't have jurisdiction over other nations, if corporations choose to base themselves abroad in these well known tax havens. This is why a rise in corporation tax is so harmful, because it's the small and medium-sized enterprises that will suffer, not the big corporations.

There does need to be a lot more housing built. The population of the nation has increased dramatically over the past 70 or so years due to people living longer and immigration (a lot of it uncontrolled).

What industry would you like to see the UK focus on? We are a service economy now for a reason.

Stop lying - yes, absolutely. But politicians and political activists lie because they know many on their own 'team' will support it and regurgitate it; and others won't even bother to do basic research on things if it supports their biases, well seen on here and on Twitter. The standard of journalism, which when properly used can be used to hold politicians to account, is also on the floor.

Hardly anyone thinks it's Pax Britannica. The  only one I know who bangs on about the Empire is you. Just who on earth thinks it's Rule Britannia these days?

Coalition government is a tricky one and one of the reasons I only narrowly support PR. In a coalition government, voters will struggle to get what they want. We saw that in 2010. Many people voted Lib Dem in good faith, and then Clegg went for a meeting with Cameron, and the Lib Dem manifesto changed dramatically. This type of mystery is more popular on the continent, especially in the Netherlands.

We are engaged with the EU as a trading partner.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Realising that you/someone else has made a huge mistake causing a lot of economic damage to millions of people, and so reversing it, is not cowardice, it's common sense. It's in the national interest to do so.

As to your other 'moral' opinions, I seem to recall you don't wish me to comment on them.

If we take this statement to be true, which I don't believe it is, then yes it's common sense.

But it isn't a huge mistake to keep corporation tax at 19% or cut the highest rate of tax back to what it was in the Blair and Major years. What wonders are we going to see by forcing business to shell out more tax money during a time of economic trouble?

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Realising that you/someone else has made a huge mistake causing a lot of economic damage to millions of people, and so reversing it, is not cowardice, it's common sense. It's in the national interest to do so.

As to your other 'moral' opinions, I seem to recall you don't wish me to comment on them.

If we take this statement to be true, which I don't believe it is, then yes it's common sense.

But it isn't a huge mistake to keep corporation tax at 19% or cut the highest rate of tax back to what it was in the Blair and Major years. What wonders are we going to see by forcing business to shell out more tax money during a time of economic trouble?

Once again, should I go with the opinion of a poster on a sports forum, or the opinion of the large majority of economic experts/bodies? If you were neutral in this debate, which would you advise?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Realising that you/someone else has made a huge mistake causing a lot of economic damage to millions of people, and so reversing it, is not cowardice, it's common sense. It's in the national interest to do so.

As to your other 'moral' opinions, I seem to recall you don't wish me to comment on them.

If we take this statement to be true, which I don't believe it is, then yes it's common sense.

But it isn't a huge mistake to keep corporation tax at 19% or cut the highest rate of tax back to what it was in the Blair and Major years. What wonders are we going to see by forcing business to shell out more tax money during a time of economic trouble?

Once again, should I go with the opinion of a poster on a sports forum, or the opinion of the large majority of economic experts/bodies? If you were neutral in this debate, which would you advise?

I would advise you to do your own research and thinking, and then arrive at your own conclusions.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Realising that you/someone else has made a huge mistake causing a lot of economic damage to millions of people, and so reversing it, is not cowardice, it's common sense. It's in the national interest to do so.

As to your other 'moral' opinions, I seem to recall you don't wish me to comment on them.

If we take this statement to be true, which I don't believe it is, then yes it's common sense.

But it isn't a huge mistake to keep corporation tax at 19% or cut the highest rate of tax back to what it was in the Blair and Major years. What wonders are we going to see by forcing business to shell out more tax money during a time of economic trouble?

Once again, should I go with the opinion of a poster on a sports forum, or the opinion of the large majority of economic experts/bodies? If you were neutral in this debate, which would you advise?

I would advise you to do your own research and thinking, and then arrive at your own conclusions.

Indeed, and I would advise you to be guided by reality and not ideology. If only Truss/Kwarteng had done the same, they would still be in power, and with a chance of pushing through some of their more radical changes at a potentially more suitable time (assuming their less radical changes worked - a big 'what if' admittedly). Unfortunately they paid the price of taking the compassion out of 'compassionate Conservatism'.

Btw in the Blair and Major years that you seem to wish to hark back to, what was the rate of corporation tax?

Edit - should probably add that my own research and thinking has led me to conclude that Truss/Kwarteng were economically ignorant, lacked the necessary skills to do the job, and were egotistically driven and morally bankrupt.