The whinging bitches politics poo-bin thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

mowlas

Member
Messages
1,732
@gb-gta, with respect, I think you have this completely upside down.

It also seems that the Bank of England really wanted rishi to win. It’s looks to me like they are just attacking the government because their man didn’t get in.
What evidence do you have of this? Can you offer some quotes or examples from the BoE?

Why did the BOE wait until this mini budget to react aggresively and causing the market disruption? Everyone knew what was coming surely?
They reacted to the disruption not caused the disruption! They only stepped in because your and my Pension funds were getting hammered and losing huge amounts of capital - Banks forcing them to make margin calls and liquidate assets - gilts. You (and Liz/Kwasi) should be thanking them, not blaming for cleaning up the mess the government triggered. (https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/2...asures-uk-pension-funds-losing-large-amounts/)

Sure, they have a policy of trying to get inflation to 2%, but they seem to be a one trick pony, nothing else matters.
As my reply to your question above showed, they are clearly not a one trick pony and were on their A-game in the way they handled the pensions issue.

Why is it an ‘emergency’ to them, like I said earlier, they knew this was going to be government policy many many weeks ago.
It just looks like a deliberate statement to fire up the media and cause panic for some reason known only to them.
It is an emergency because the ineptitude of the government has triggered genuine market concerns (and now they are saying they won't publish the OBR scrutiny until late November!!!) showed that the government were planning on seismic borrowing and debt without any plan to balance the books and without any independent scrutiny. The market's doubts HAVE forced interest rates to project higher than they otherwise needed to be to shore up a picture of fiscal discipline - we are seeing the sh1t show falling out of that anticipation.
 
Last edited:

CatmanV2

Member
Messages
48,735
I ask this from across the water...what's the feeling/consensus/opinion around Brexit being the reason for the fundamental instability? Is it possible that "buyer's remorse" around the "Leave" vote is really what's causal re: public sentiment?

Oh dear god, NO!

(As in Brexit 'discussions' were an absolute **** fest and a topic best avoided)
C
 

DLax69

Member
Messages
4,270
Oh dear god, NO!

(As in Brexit 'discussions' were an absolute **** fest and a topic best avoided)
C
Understood and not trying to engage specifically on the topic...was simply wondering vis-a-vis the public polling/Labour's newfound popularity/etc.

I mean, half the Republicans in the US still think Trump is president; the wife of a US Supreme Court justice is publicly and privately saying this, including to the J6 congressional committee...
 

gb-gta

Member
Messages
1,138
@gb-gta, with respect, I think you have this completely upside down.


What evidence do you have of this? Can you offer some quotes or examples form BoE?


They reacted to the disruption not caused the disruption! They only stepped in because your and my Pension funds were getting hammered and losing huge amounts of capital - Banks forcing them to make margin calls and liquidate assets - gilts. You (and Liz/Kwasi) should be thanking them, not blaming for cleaning up the mess the government triggered. (https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/2...asures-uk-pension-funds-losing-large-amounts/)


As my reply to your question above showed, they are clearly not a one trick pony and were on their A-game in the way they handled the pensions issue.


It is an emergency because the ineptitude of the government has triggered genuine market concerns (and now they are saying they won't publish the OBR scrutiny until late November!!!) showed that the government were planning on seismic borrowing and debt without any plan to balance the books and without any independent scrutiny. The market's doubts HAVE forced interest rates to project higher than they otherwise needed to be - we are seeing the sh1t show falling out of that anticipation.

Like I said, I’m no expert, and may well be upside down, I have no evidence, it just seems odd to me.

The point is, why did they not start raising interest rates sooner, rather than a headline grabbing ‘biggest single rise ever!!’ as soon as they knew Liz was going to win and cut taxes?

I thought they were experts, could they not see this coming? Everyone knew Liz truss was going to win and everyone was told that tax cutting was their intention. They’ve acted like they were shocked at the budget, but it’s exactly what they told everyone they were going to do in all the media since bojo left.
 

DLax69

Member
Messages
4,270
Like I said, I’m no expert, and may well be upside down, I have no evidence, it just seems odd to me.

The point is, why did they not start raising interest rates sooner, rather than a headline grabbing ‘biggest single rise ever!!’ as soon as they knew Liz was going to win and cut taxes?

I thought they were experts, could they not see this coming? Everyone knew Liz truss was going to win and everyone was told that tax cutting was their intention. They’ve acted like they were shocked at the budget, but it’s exactly what they told everyone they were going to do in all the media since bojo left.
Didn't Truss and the others literally write a book that broadcast their ideas before taking office? Or am I recollecting wrongly?
 

Nibby

Member
Messages
2,076
I mean, half the Republicans in the US still think Trump is president; the wife of a US Supreme Court justice is publicly and privately saying this, including to the J6 congressional committee...
Tbh Den, he could be once again be at the next election going by oddschecker. To be fair to him he did try and warn some in Europe not to be at the mercy of Russia for gas, which we find now was good advice. https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics
 

mowlas

Member
Messages
1,732
Like I said, I’m no expert, and may well be upside down, I have no evidence, it just seems odd to me.

The point is, why did they not start raising interest rates sooner, rather than a headline grabbing ‘biggest single rise ever!!’ as soon as they knew Liz was going to win and cut taxes?

I thought they were experts, could they not see this coming? Everyone knew Liz truss was going to win and everyone was told that tax cutting was their intention. They’ve acted like they were shocked at the budget, but it’s exactly what they told everyone they were going to do in all the media since bojo left.
This is a good, fairly objective and simple overview and explanation. Definitely worth watching the first half...

 

gb-gta

Member
Messages
1,138
Didn't Truss and the others literally write a book that broadcast their ideas before taking office? Or am I recollecting wrongly?
Pretty much, yes.
It was a crystal clear stance between Truss and Sunak. Truss openly said she was going to cut taxes and Rishi said he was going to raise them.
 

Oneball

Member
Messages
11,113
Like I said, I’m no expert, and may well be upside down, I have no evidence, it just seems odd to me.

The point is, why did they not start raising interest rates sooner, rather than a headline grabbing ‘biggest single rise ever!!’ as soon as they knew Liz was going to win and cut taxes?

I thought they were experts, could they not see this coming? Everyone knew Liz truss was going to win and everyone was told that tax cutting was their intention. They’ve acted like they were shocked at the budget, but it’s exactly what they told everyone they were going to do in all the media since bojo left.

She said she would cut tax by scrapping the planned rise in corporation tax next year and removing the NI increase of the last budget. She went way further and caused absolute panic as she’d not laid out how she’d pay for it.

To be fair the one thing she has been consistent about is that, when asked in the leadership election how she’d afford the cuts she change the subject or left the interview!
 

gb-gta

Member
Messages
1,138
She said she would cut tax by scrapping the planned rise in corporation tax next year and removing the NI increase of the last budget. She went way further and caused absolute panic as she’d not laid out how she’d pay for it.

To be fair the one thing she has been consistent about is that, when asked in the leadership election how she’d afford the cuts she change the subject or left the interview!
I guess extras were the 45-40 cut (along with the bankers bonus thing) a political big mistake, but this is supposed to increase tax take, but she didn’t mention the 20-19 cut, which I guess is the expensive one.
Didn’t she also say she’d cut corp tax from 19-15? But didn’t do that?
 

Oneball

Member
Messages
11,113
I guess extras were the 45-40 cut (along with the bankers bonus thing) a political big mistake, but this is supposed to increase tax take, but she didn’t mention the 20-19 cut, which I guess is the expensive one.

I think the figures estimated by some papers were

45-40 cut £4bn
20-19 cut £15bn
Business tax cuts £20bn
Energy bill cap £116bn
 

gb-gta

Member
Messages
1,138
I think the figures estimated by some papers were

45-40 cut £4bn
20-19 cut £15bn
Business tax cuts £20bn
Energy bill cap £116bn
I wonder if there are other buisness cuts elsewhere then because the current corp tax is 19 and I believe it’s staying at 19.
I wonder if it is classed as a cut because rishi was going to hike it to 25% but never got the chance, but it’s being costed as a 25-19 as they had already priced in the 25? Otherwise that bit is zero, not £20bn.
 

Oneball

Member
Messages
11,113
I wonder if there are other buisness cuts elsewhere then because the current corp tax is 19 and I believe it’s staying at 19.
I wonder if it is classed as a cut because rishi was going to hike it to 25% but never got the chance, but it’s being costed as a 25-19 as they had already priced in the 25? Otherwise that bit is zero, not £20bn.

I think the business tax “cuts” are 2 fold. There’s not implementing the corporation tax increase from the last budget as you mentioned (it was already in the budget and not part of his manifesto) and I’d imagine the employer’s side of the NI is also included in that figure the papers came up with.
 
Messages
1,687
Like I said, I’m no expert, and may well be upside down, I have no evidence, it just seems odd to me.

The point is, why did they not start raising interest rates sooner, rather than a headline grabbing ‘biggest single rise ever!!’ as soon as they knew Liz was going to win and cut taxes?

I thought they were experts, could they not see this coming? Everyone knew Liz truss was going to win and everyone was told that tax cutting was their intention. They’ve acted like they were shocked at the budget, but it’s exactly what they told everyone they were going to do in all the media since bojo left.

The PM and Chancellor seem to have come up with a plan that wasn't consulted on with anyone else.
By anyone else, I mean the Governor of the Bank of England and whomever else is critical these days
to acceptance of a government's economic plan. Maybe the 1922 Committee, as the last thing you want
as a new Prime Minister is feeling the ebbing away of support of key backbenchers. In your first week or so as PM!
It appears that neither of these blithering idiots has the least clue how macro economics work. That's a staggering thing to say, considering Truss is supposed to have studied PPE at Oxford. Kwarteng's behaviour is just as shocking
as he has a PhD in economic history from Cambridge.
The dogs in the street knew that after Covid, the government's debt, while not catastrophic, at the very least needed a cautious hand while we found out over the next few months, whether there was to be a recession and if so, how bad. Instead, Truss decided she'd borrow to finance current spending, which is a no-no under any circumstances except the most dire. But to make matters worse, she also made a huge cut in Corporation Tax, as well as eliminated the 45% Income Tax rate. I'm no economist, however, I suspect that all that was needed if anything, was to indicate that Corporation Tax would be cut, say by 1% a year over five years, if economic indicators allowed it. Business would've been happy with that, as it would've given them certainty until at least the next election.
At the same time as announcing increases in spending, Truss announced the tax cuts mentioned. That makes no sense whatsoever, unless the government is sitting on a huge surplus of cash and it isn't. The reverse is true.
There is NO EXCUSE for the gross stupidity, to put it very mildly, of Truss & Co. Only the completely self obsessed, who have learnt nothing from the actions of past governments, could possibly make so many foolish errors so quickly and on such an epic scale.

Sorry. To answer your questions specifically. Politicians may say they're going to do something. They may even promise to do something. Known as a 'political promise'. But, neither mean anything. Politicians are forever putting up what are known as trial balloons, to see how the public and media respond to possible future legislation that they announce they're considering. Thus, nobody in their right mind in any public or private institution would do anything material, on the basis of what a politician says. Is that clear enough? Without going down the rabbit hole.

Nobody knew until the final week or so of voting, that Truss was likely to win. And even then, it wasn't a certainty.
It wasn't even a certainty the day Truss went to see the Queen. She might've been savaged by a pack of zombie corgies in Balmoral and the Conservative and Unionist Party might've had to rerun the leadership election.
 

DLax69

Member
Messages
4,270
The PM and Chancellor seem to have come up with a plan that wasn't consulted on with anyone else.
By anyone else, I mean the Governor of the Bank of England and whomever else is critical these days
to acceptance of a government's economic plan. Maybe the 1922 Committee, as the last thing you want
as a new Prime Minister is feeling the ebbing away of support of key backbenchers. In your first week or so as PM!
It appears that neither of these blithering idiots has the least clue how macro economics work. That's a staggering thing to say, considering Truss is supposed to have studied PPE at Oxford. Kwarteng's behaviour is just as shocking
as he has a PhD in economic history from Cambridge.
The dogs in the street knew that after Covid, the government's debt, while not catastrophic, at the very least needed a cautious hand while we found out over the next few months, whether there was to be a recession and if so, how bad. Instead, Truss decided she'd borrow to finance current spending, which is a no-no under any circumstances except the most dire. But to make matters worse, she also made a huge cut in Corporation Tax, as well as eliminated the 45% Income Tax rate. I'm no economist, however, I suspect that all that was needed if anything, was to indicate that Corporation Tax would be cut, say by 1% a year over five years, if economic indicators allowed it. Business would've been happy with that, as it would've given them certainty until at least the next election.
At the same time as announcing increases in spending, Truss announced the tax cuts mentioned. That makes no sense whatsoever, unless the government is sitting on a huge surplus of cash and it isn't. The reverse is true.
There is NO EXCUSE for the gross stupidity, to put it very mildly, of Truss & Co. Only the completely self obsessed, who have learnt nothing from the actions of past governments, could possibly make so many foolish errors so quickly and on such an epic scale.

Sorry. To answer your questions specifically. Politicians may say they're going to do something. They may even promise to do something. Known as a 'political promise'. But, neither mean anything. Politicians are forever putting up what are known as trial balloons, to see how the public and media respond to possible future legislation that they announce they're considering. Thus, nobody in their right mind in any public or private institution would do anything material, on the basis of what a politician says. Is that clear enough? Without going down the rabbit hole.

Nobody knew until the final week or so of voting, that Truss was likely to win. And even then, it wasn't a certainty.
It wasn't even a certainty the day Truss went to see the Queen. She might've been savaged by a pack of zombie corgies in Balmoral and the Conservative and Unionist Party might've had to rerun the leadership election.
Corollary here is a bunch of Yale Law grads ("Ted" Cruz, Josh the Running Fist-Pumper) who act like they can't read the US Constitution, on the federal level; at the state level we have politicos who pass gas and call it a bill, without a care for (or clue of) the consequences...unintended or otherwise. And there continue to be enough folks who vote against their own interests because they like the rhetorical flourishes...plus the racism.
 

mowlas

Member
Messages
1,732
Well you knew it was coming… the ineptitude of this ‘cause and defect’ government is playing out in all sorts of ways…
  1. Truss’ loyal levelling up minister has presaged a new age of austerity to try to calm the markets
  2. More details emerged yesterday of Crispin Odey personally cooking lunch for his former employee, Kwarteng, weeks before shorting the pound
106509
106510
 

MarkMas

Chief pedant
Messages
8,899
I ask this from across the water...what's the feeling/consensus/opinion around Brexit being the reason for the fundamental instability? Is it possible that "buyer's remorse" around the "Leave" vote is really what's causal re: public sentiment?

At risk of opening up the Brexit can of worms, I think there are a few factors here:
  • The economic reality of Brexit has undoubtedly had a negative effect (so far) on the UK economy, but probably not as much as some people predicted, and not enough to result in 'fundamental instability' compared with, say, Italy. Coronavirus and global supply chain issues are also major factors.
  • The narrow margin of the Brexit referendum result certainly exposed and exacerbated instability in the political machinery of the UK, with big splits within both Labour and Conservative parties, which has, I think, hampered their ability to maintain good governance and good government, contributing to poor choices of Conservative leadership, in particular.
  • The divisiveness and poisonousness of the whole Brexit referendum also harmed public discourse, and trust in politicians and institutions, which has probably resulted in a reduction in their quality, probity and accountability.
  • The Brexit win has emboldened the 'anti-establishment' sentiment in the population, not helped by the tone of the Remain campaign, facilitating opportunities for demagogues and charlatans.
This might all have happened anyway, as part of a general decline in the quality of public discourse, but Brexit probably hastened it.

I'm not sure there is much 'buyer's remorse' around the Leave vote, although this is often claimed in the Press. Polling suggests that the vast majority of Leave voters are still happy with their choice, while accepting that there have been negative consequences. One view is that this is because they are idiots, who don't change their minds when they see the evidence of their folly. Another interpretation is that Remainers still don't understand that Leavers always knew that leaving would be painful, but were willing to take some pain to get out of such an evil cabal. (oops, have I given my position away???)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.