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.

Holy moly, watching Truss on BBC being interviewed by Chris Mason and it's a car crash. She's stumbling around struggling to answer some admittedly tough questions but for the PM to be so uncertain and look so scared is pretty damning

She’s like a Woody doll out of Toy Story. Pull the string in her back and hear her say one of five fantastic talking points, including; “Global financial difficulties”, “The war in Ukraine” and “What I am commited to is increasing growth”.

Its painful. Atleast Johnson was a good enough cowpat artist he could make it through an interview relatively unscathed.

The chancellor used this morning’s cabinet meeting to tell ministers of the scale of spending cuts which are coming. He is currently preparing tax hikes and spending reductions to be announced at the end of the month. Cabinet ministers will not be happy to see their budgets slashed. For some, it could be a resigning issue.

Fantastic. The tax burden already the highest since the 1940s and now it's going to get even higher under the high-tax Tories. We had a brief glimmer of the prospect of economic growth and a new horizon with Kwarteng's mini-budget, but that's all gone now. The economy is junked for at least the next seven years. Of course, the richest in society will be fine, it'll be the poorest who suffer the most. Particularly with, at best, reduced energy support from April onwards.

And spending cuts as well. Well with no prospect of growth and the likelihood that higher corporation tax will equal a lower yield, something has to go to cover the £400bn cost of lockdown. I wonder how many people will die, or have their lives shortened, as a result of this new austerity drive?

Yeah, now you're bothered about rich people being fine but the poor being worse off.

Samo wrote:Yeah, now you're bothered about rich people being fine but the poor being worse off.

Always have been. Rich people will always be fine anyway. Even in a situation of Zimbabwean hyper-inflation, they can just up sticks and move to a different country. I've no issue with them being fine.

As I mentioned yesterday, we've had 12 years of failed economics from the Tories, which peaked in its ineptitude with Johnson and Sunak, but the mini-budget was a pathway to achieve genuine, high-powered economic growth which would have been beneficial to all and raised standards of living. You may disagree that it would have achieved good economic growth, that's fine, but I believe it would have done and I supported it. And one of the reasons for supporting it was that it would benefit the least well off, so these continual character attacks are tiresome.

Now it's been thrown away the opportunity has been lost, and it will be another seven years (minimum) of low-growth and high-tax under Hunt and then (probably) Labour, which will be horrific for the worst-off in society. A continuation of the last 12 years.

It doesnt matter how many times you or Ronald Reagan or the boys in Tufton Street say it: Trickle Down Economics doesnt work. Its never worked. All it does is help the rich and leaves the poor behind. Total. cowpat. You can disagree all you want but every credible economist agrees.

You want to stimulate growth? You invest in the working classes. You invest in public services. You want a happy, healthy workforce who dont have to rely on foodbanks or in work benefits. The people at the bottom of the ladder get more money in their pocket, they pump more money into the economy, they create the growth. Not the people at the top. Not the people who stick their money in the bank and forget about it.

The idea that rich people who have never struggled to afford anything will suddenly start throwing extra money into the UK economy is pure fantasy.

Samo wrote:It doesnt matter how many times you or Ronald Reagan or the boys in Tufton Street say it: Trickle Down Economics doesnt work.  Its never worked.  All it does is help the rich and leaves the poor behind.  Total.  cowpat.  You can disagree all you want but every credible economist agrees.

You want to stimulate growth?  You invest in the working classes.  You invest in public services.  You want a happy, healthy workforce who dont have to rely on foodbanks or in work benefits.  The people at the bottom of the ladder get more money in their pocket, they pump more money into the economy, they create the growth.  Not the people at the top.  Not the people who stick their money in the bank and forget about it.

The idea that rich people who have never struggled to afford anything will suddenly start throwing extra money into the UK economy is pure fantasy.

Your post shows a complete misunderstanding of supply-side economics. The aim of supply-side economics is not to simply give the rich more money and then vainly hope it trickles down. These are just lazy, ignorant pejoratives thrown around, sometimes by people who know better but are being malicious, and sometimes by people who don't. And to say it never works is to ignore the fantastic revival that occurred in the UK in the 80s, after the dark decade of the 70s, which led to the prosperity enjoyed for most of the 90s and early 00s.

Supply-side economics involves easing the tax burden to encourage overseas workers, business creation and the retention of domestic high-earners. People at the top do not stick their money in the bank and forget about it. That's silly. I don't know where you got this idea from. They happily spend their money. And, more importantly, they invest their money. They create businesses which the working classes work for. That's where jobs originate from. That's where growth happens. And this country sorely needs business because so many have been driven to the wall over the last few years.

'Every credible economist agrees' - I see, and these 'credible' economists just happen to be the ones that agree with your ideology? The ones who don't agree with you are not credible, presumably, which is an astonishing dismissal of some very lauded economists, some of whom have won the Nobel Prize.

'You invest in public services' - I agree. But to invest in public services you first need the wealth to be created.

'The idea that rich people who have never struggled to afford anything will suddenly start throwing extra money into the UK economy is pure fantasy.' - No it isn't. How do you think business starts and gets created? How do you think some rich people got rich in the first place?

Call it whatever you want, but its never been shown to have a meaningful impact on unemployment or growth. You could also easily argue that the boon in the 80's was in part due to our membership of the EEC in '73.

I know how it is supposed to work, Im telling you it doesnt. You know what really didnt help retaining overseas workers and keeping businesses from going to the wall? Brexit, but you're not ready to admit that yet.

Im sure you'll prove me wrong, but the only economist with a Nobel Prize I can find who supports trickle down is Robert Mundell, however it was his work in currency that won him the prize. He's also known as the "Father of the Euro". Seeing a pattern appear here.

Public services are funded through taxation. Less tax coming in, less spending going out.

Not every rich person is a business person. Not all rich people are self made. Most rich people have rich parents who paid for them to go to a good school which in turn leads to a higher payer job. Thats not to say there arent people out there who started with nothing, made something of themselves and do own businesses, putting people in work. They should be applauded, but they're a minority.

Samo wrote:Call it whatever you want, but its never been shown to have a meaningful impact on unemployment or growth.  You could also easily argue that the boon in the 80's was in part due to our membership of the EEC in '73.

I know how it is supposed to work, Im telling you it doesnt.  You know what really didnt help retaining overseas workers and keeping businesses from going to the wall?  Brexit, but you're not ready to admit that yet.

Im sure you'll prove me wrong, but the only economist with a Nobel Prize I can find who supports trickle down is Robert Mundell, however it was his work in currency that won him the prize.  He's also known as the "Father of the Euro".  Seeing a pattern appear here.

Public services are funded through taxation.  Less tax coming in, less spending going out.  

Not every rich person is a business person.  Not all rich people are self made.  Most rich people have rich parents who paid for them to go to a good school which in turn leads to a higher payer job.  Thats not to say there arent people out there who started with nothing, made something of themselves and do own businesses, putting people in work.  They should be applauded, but they're a minority.

I will indeed call it by its proper name, not by a lazy pejorative. The boon in the 80s had zero to do with our membership of the EEC, and everything to do with domestic economic policy (Thatcherism), that eased crippling taxation and sparked tremendous economic growth from '83 onwards. That certainly shows a meaningful impact.

I assumed you didn't because you referred to people sticking their money in the bank and forgetting about it. That isn't supply-side economics. Easing taxation and creating the conditions for business development and expansion is.

As shown before, being in the EU and having a discriminatory immigration policy actually harmed us getting overseas workers. We turned away skilled workers outside the EU just so we could manage the (largely unskilled) migration from Eastern Europe. Most businesses haven't been affected by Brexit because most don't trade with EU member states. In any case, short-term upheaval of that kind was inevitable, just as it was when we joined the EEC and had to recalibrate our trading relationships. Same upheaval. The real harm to businesses (the small and medium sized ones) has been through Covid.

Mundell, yes, he also opposed European fiscal union in the end, as far as I'm aware.

And sometimes you get more tax in by lowering the tax% and thereby creating the conditions for economic growth. Raising corporation tax, for instance, will deter foreign investment and create less incentive, thereby potentially diminishing the tax yield and harm GDP. There will be less tax coming in through raising the rate to 25%.

Liz Truss is no longer promising to increase state pensions in line with surging inflation, as she asks ministers to look for spending cuts.

Two weeks ago the PM said she was "committed" to the triple lock, so payments rise by whatever is higher: prices, average earnings or 2.5%.

That's the end of the core Tory vote.

You forgot to mention who, apart from Mundell, won the Nobel Prize?

Duty281 wrote:

I will indeed call it by its proper name, not by a lazy pejorative. The boon in the 80s had zero to do with our membership of the EEC, and everything to do with domestic economic policy (Thatcherism), that eased crippling taxation and sparked tremendous economic growth from '83 onwards. That certainly shows a meaningful impact.

Tremendous economic growth until the 90’s when the bubble burst and we entered a recession. They couldnt control it and inflation shot back up only this time the gap between the top end and bottom end was wider than ever before and continues to get wider. The financial regulations that were eased led to the credit crunch in ‘08. Unemployment remained largely unchanged, and although it had dropped to ~2m by ‘89 it shot back up to 3m by ‘92 after the bubble burst. House prices tripled, and selling off council houses without replacing them has had a major long term impact on homeownership in the modern day.

So if its all the same to you I’ll continue to use a lazy perjorative because trickle down is cowpat and doesnt work. It only helps those who dont need help, depsite your insistance on altruism. We still feel the negative affects to this day whilst any good it did has long since disappeared.

This is not going to play well :
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63311533

Grassroot conservative support includes a lot of retired people.

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

I will indeed call it by its proper name, not by a lazy pejorative. The boon in the 80s had zero to do with our membership of the EEC, and everything to do with domestic economic policy (Thatcherism), that eased crippling taxation and sparked tremendous economic growth from '83 onwards. That certainly shows a meaningful impact.

Tremendous economic growth until the 90’s when the bubble burst and we entered a recession.  They couldnt control it and inflation shot back up only this time the gap between the top end and bottom end was wider than ever before and continues to get wider. The financial regulations that were eased led to the credit crunch in ‘08. Unemployment remained largely unchanged, and although it had dropped to ~2m by ‘89 it shot back up to 3m by ‘92 after the bubble burst. House prices tripled, and selling off council houses without replacing them has had a major long term impact on homeownership in the modern day.

So if its all the same to you I’ll continue to use a lazy perjorative because trickle down is cowpat and doesnt work. It only helps those who dont need help, depsite your insistance on altruism. We still feel the negative affects to this day whilst any good it did has long since disappeared.

The bubble didn't burst, though. The recession was largely caused by British membership of the ERM, and after this hiccup Britain had economic growth for 15 years afterwards. Inflation didn't shoot up in the early 90s, it had a minor bump to 8% (after being around 25% in the 70s) but was almost entirely under control from around 83 onwards. Unemployment was higher because the focus of monetarism is inflation and defeating it, not focusing on full employment. House prices have tripled due to a separate reason - not enough homes being built and the population expanding, in part due to huge levels of (mostly uncontrolled) immigration and in part due to people living longer.

To say it doesn't work is laughable when you analyse the living and economic standards of the 70s compared to those of the 90s, plus the state of the country as a whole. Still, we're heading back to the 70s now.

mountain man wrote:This is not going to play well :
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63311533

Grassroot conservative support includes a lot of retired people.

Yes, as I indicated yesterday, it would be the end of the core Tory vote. Hopefully it would mean the Tories getting smashed so hard they're only left with double digit seats.

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

I will indeed call it by its proper name, not by a lazy pejorative. The boon in the 80s had zero to do with our membership of the EEC, and everything to do with domestic economic policy (Thatcherism), that eased crippling taxation and sparked tremendous economic growth from '83 onwards. That certainly shows a meaningful impact.

Tremendous economic growth until the 90’s when the bubble burst and we entered a recession.  They couldnt control it and inflation shot back up only this time the gap between the top end and bottom end was wider than ever before and continues to get wider. The financial regulations that were eased led to the credit crunch in ‘08. Unemployment remained largely unchanged, and although it had dropped to ~2m by ‘89 it shot back up to 3m by ‘92 after the bubble burst. House prices tripled, and selling off council houses without replacing them has had a major long term impact on homeownership in the modern day.

So if its all the same to you I’ll continue to use a lazy perjorative because trickle down is cowpat and doesnt work. It only helps those who dont need help, depsite your insistance on altruism. We still feel the negative affects to this day whilst any good it did has long since disappeared.

The bubble didn't burst, though. The recession was largely caused by British membership of the ERM, and after this hiccup Britain had economic growth for 15 years afterwards.  Inflation didn't shoot up in the early 90s, it had a minor bump to 8% (after being around 25% in the 70s) but was almost entirely under control from around 83 onwards. Unemployment was higher because the focus of monetarism is inflation and defeating it, not focusing on full employment. House prices have tripled due to a separate reason - not enough homes being built and the population expanding, in part due to huge levels of (mostly uncontrolled) immigration and in part due to people living longer.

To say it doesn't work is laughable when you analyse the living and economic standards of the 70s compared to those of the 90s, plus the state of the country as a whole. Still, we're heading back to the 70s now.

Ahh, we're back to this again.

Currently it is not about one political party or another getting smashed (politicians always land on their feet) nor is it about the rights or wrongs of Brexit - which is a done deal.  The issue is about having a competent government focused on making the post Brexit environment work.  

They could admit that they were political chancers and hadn't a clue what to do in a post Brexit environment apart from using it as a political opportunity to gain power and gain a platform to throw their weight about on the global stage: all those politicians that campaigned on a Brexit platform including characters such as David Cameron who put the referendum on his manifesto declaring the people would decide and that he would lead the country post referendum no matter what the decision.  Cameron's resignation proved he also hadn't a clue what to do if the people voted to leave.  It seems the majority of the British political class are incompetents when it comes to good governance, foresight and planning.

The Tories seem to be treating tonights vote on fracking as a confidence vote according to memos sent out by the deputy chief whip.

The second debate is the main event today and is 100% a hard 3 line whip! ///

This is not a motion on fracking. *This is a confidence motion in government*

We cannot, under any circumstances, let the Labour Party take control of the order paper and put through their own legislation and whatever other bit of legislation they desire.

We are voting NO and I reiterate, this is a hard 3 line whip with all slips withdrawn.

We then come onto the Government amendment which is also a 3 x line whip.

I know this is difficult for some colleagues, but we simply cannot allow this, Please speak with your whip with any issues.

Thank you for your support.

Craig Whittaker
Deputy Chief Whip

So in order to try and save her skin Liz Truss is threatening to withdraw the whip from any members who vote against breaking a 2019 manifesto pledge. Could be fireworks tonight.

Will Wragg (MP for Hazel Grove) confirms in parliament he has sent a letter of no confidence in Truss to the 1922 committee, but has to vote with the whip tonight despite not agreeing with it because if not he loses the whip and his letter becomes invalid. Tories are tearing themselves apart.

Labour also have the targetted attack ads ready to release as soon as voting finishes. Its a win/win for them.

Hunt forces out the Home Secretary. There is zero point in Truss' premiership. And there was zero point in the elongated leadership contest and asking the members to vote.

Apart from Nadine Dorries I cant think of another person so unsuitable for high ranking office. Good riddance to that horrible women. She can spend her newly found free time screaming into the void about the “Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati”

Agreed - she is the worst kind of Tory. Wonder what her 'honest mistake' was?

Apparently she was “mishandling confidential documents on a personal phone”.

Also she has "concerns about the direction of this government" which presumably in no way influenced her decision to "accept responsibility" for her mistake and resign. Clearly she's a quitter, not a fighter.

A puppet pm running a government that can exert little authority on its back benchers. Guess we just keep going

If you ever needed an indication of the state of the Tory party since Brexit, a man who once used fake names to sell get rich quick schemes on the internet and lied about it for years is now in charge or law and order.

Grant Shapps as Home Secretary.

A coalition of the losers is massing in government. The final step will be to remove Truss and to install one of Sunak, Wallace or Mordaunt, with a quick vote.

Labours bill to ban fracking falls, however points of order raised regarding rumours that the Chief Whip has resigned, allegations of MP's being forced into the No lobby, and claims that most of them didnt know if this was or was not a confidence vote so didnt know how to vote.

326 Against, 230 For.

Neither Kwasi or the (ex) chief whip voted with the government. Be funny if they weren't our government

Confirmation that both the Chief and Deputy Chief whip have resigned. Looks like the lettuce might actually beat Truss.

Truss herself didn't even vote

I went on to the BBC site this (Australian) morning to read headlines of a "chaotic fracking vote" in Parliament.

I assumed it must have been a typo...

Chaos reigns.

Duty281 wrote:Grant Shapps as Home Secretary.

A coalition of the losers is massing in government. The final step will be to remove Truss and to install one of Sunak, Wallace or Mordaunt, with a quick vote.

This is surely going to happen.

Remember when Theresa May was the worst prime minister ever?

Galted wrote:Remember when Theresa May was the worst prime minister ever?

Which she probably wasn't, although she wasn't a 'lucky' one* in that the position she picked up was practically impossible. However, even if she was, she's third from bottom of the list now...

* I think luck is an extremely under-rated requirement for politicians, making some potentially competent leaders look worse and poor leaders look better - would the world think differently of George W Bush if 9/11 hadn't happened on his watch?

dummy_half wrote:

Galted wrote:Remember when Theresa May was the worst prime minister ever?

Which she probably wasn't, although she wasn't a 'lucky' one* in that the position she picked up was practically impossible. However, even if she was, she's third from bottom of the list now...

* I think luck is an extremely under-rated requirement for politicians, making some potentially competent leaders look worse and poor leaders look better - would the world think differently of George W Bush if 9/11 hadn't happened on his watch?

Quite right. I think John Major and Gordon Brown should both be rated higher than they often are, coming into power with exhausted governments and difficult circumstances. Neither were lucky but did better than could have been expected.

Should be a general election rather than bypassing democracy to shove another Tory leader who doesn't command the loyalty of half the party in

Truss currently meeting with Graham Brady. This could be it.

It’s like the night before Christmas

Someone sit down when the music stops.

No. 10 to make a statement at 13:30. Buckle up kids.

Viva las lettuce

I'm guessing she's going then? Can't see what else she has to talk about, unless it's a GE?

But tough to get a GE through as at least some Tory MPs would need to vote for it, and they'd be voting to lose their jobs.

What a bizarre Premiership. She's been PM for 44 days - she's done a Clough he lasted 44 days at Leeds - and is short of Canning's 119 days.

I don't see how any leader bar maybe Boris could have any credibility to lead the party without going to the country.

She's gone.

Johnson will do a Bob Monkhouse - "just when you thought it was safe to turn on your TV again, here I am."

Truss goes. The King has made a good start on catching up on his mother's PM total.

Leadership election inside a week - so screw the members. Time to install the criminal Sunak and sod what the members think.

I respect Truss' resignation. She stated she was elected to deliver a mandate (true) and she can't deliver on that because her own MPs have sabotaged her. That's fair.

Its tough enough to get a new leader elected by the membership, bypassing the membership altogether is something else.

There absolutely needs to be a general election.

Blah blah blah, Sunak installed in a week, other side of the party rebels, Kemi installed within 2 months.

Just call a general election and get it over and done with

Rishi elected by MPs, replacing Liz who was elected by MPs and membership, replacing Boris who was elected by the country

Mordant I reckon.

GSC wrote:Blah blah blah, Sunak installed in a week, other side of the party rebels, Kemi installed within 2 months.

Just call a general election and get it over and done with

Yes, there were 113 MPs who voted for Truss. A sizable minority and it'll be interesting to see how they respond to the new leader.

And, going forward, will the Tory Party have leadership elections in the future where they consult the members, or will they revert to the old days and not do such a thing? They have effectively established a new precedent for their party where they can ignore the members wishes.

Less likely, but a consideration, is will the Tory Party split on this basis, under the new leader's tenure?