Liz Truss’s time is up

[tommers]

What I mean is…. It‘s so obviously not going to work. How can it work when things are so fucking bad that there is nothing left to draw on.

Cut taxes and raise borrowing doesn’t work if anyone below RICH can’t afford to buy shoes and borrowing pushes everything else off a cliff. Even I can understand that.

Teething problems. Everything will calm down soon.

 

[prunus]

So why didn’t they just do Thatcher then?

Even I know Thatcher would be less destructive than this. Because this just breaks everything. Thatcherism has pulls and toggles and levers and cogs and pulleys that keep the machine going, even if that machine chews up a substantial proportion of the citizenry there is enough benefit that it can at least keep itself going.


Am I asking a stupid question?

If you are I’m asking myself the same stupid question. I’d like an interviewer or MP in parliament or someone to ask “How is this supposed to work? What is the mechanism by which borrowing money to give to high earners and energy producers is supposed to grow the UK economy? What should we expect to see in the short, medium and long term as a result so we can assess if it’s working?”

 

[gosub]

Looking forward to the coverage if the tory conference

 

[story]

Thatcher broke everything in her first couple of years in power by following dogmatically the mad economic doctrine of monetarism - subsequently reversed cos it didn't work. They are doing a Thatcher.

Yes, but there was more leeway then, money was sluicing around more freely, and there wasn’t so much debt ( credit wasn’t a Thing then the way it is now). She broke everything but she had some kind of end point in mind and she had some people around her who seemed to have some kind of working knowledge of economics, not to mention politics.


Not saying Thatcher was better, but she was better at doing this. This dismantling thing for some projected end point.

 

[story]

I wrote a long answer but binned it. Short answer is they seem to believe in it. That this will produce growth in the economy.

Shame you trashed your longer post.


But it so obviously won’t. It can’t. There is nothing left that can grow. There is no industry, no service industry left. Are they really relying on the gig economy to get things going again? All those people who ere no longer unemployed because they were suddenly self employed ?Or are they expecting overseas investors to come in and build factories? Really?

So it’s really just stupidity?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes, but there was more leeway then, money was sluicing around more freely, and there wasn’t so much debt ( credit wasn’t a Thing then the way it is now). She broke everything but she had some kind of end point in mind and she had some people around her who seemed to have some kind of working knowledge of economics, not to mention politics.


Not saying Thatcher was better, but she was better at doing this. This dismantling thing for some projected end point.

I don't agree. The first two years of Thatcher involved following a policy that was disastrous for the UK economy and simply did not work the way it was supposed to. She was surrounded by dangerous fools, and of course was a dangerous fool herself. She tripled unemployment in those two years, having come into power on the back of a campaign that highlighted the high level of unemployment!

 

[story]

If you are I’m asking myself the same stupid question. I’d like an interviewer or MP in parliament or someone to ask “How is this supposed to work? What is the mechanism by which borrowing money to give to high earners and energy producers is supposed to grow the UK economy? What should we expect to see in the short, medium and long term as a result so we can assess if it’s working?”

So it’s one of these questions that’s so obvious that no one thinks to ask it and then the child pipes up and everyone goes…. “Eerrrmmmm….”

Really? Is that where we are right now?

 

[gosub]

Not the fall out, the idea, the “mini-budget” . They didn’t formulate that with the intention to fuck it uo. They made that plan because they thought it would work in some way. So what did they think it would do?


Setting aside the question of incompetence and ineptitude etc. what was the intention here? What did they think was actually going to happen as a result of this “financial intervention“.?

Why was Truss floated as a candidate at all if she was known to be this inept? So she must have been seen to have some kind of substance, right? Or is that wrong?

Or is this all and only KK’s idea and he’s the totally inept one? If so, was it given the nod?


What am I missing here?
Or am I mistaken in assuming they had any end point in mind? If so, what was the purpose of this ?

Is this a stupid question?

Quite hard not to let either a Home Sec or a Foriegn Sec consider standing when a PM needs to spend less time with his wallpaper

 

[Ax^]

hmm will Liz wind up Argentina to save her skin

 

[teuchter]

So it’s one of these questions that’s so obvious that no one thinks to ask it and then the child pipes up and everyone goes…. “Eerrrmmmm….”

Really? Is that where we are right now?

No of course it's not. I don't know why everyone seems to be pretending there is no answer.

The broad answer to "how is it supposed to work" is hardly hard to find.

Reaganomics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Supply-side economics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Trickle-down economics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Free market - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's a political / economic ideology just like communism or anarchism.

Of course, because a bunch of people believe something works, doesn't mean that it works.

 

[cesare]

hmm will Liz wind up Argentina to save her skin

She doesn't need to, we have Ukraine already

 

[Raheem]

So why didn’t they just do Thatcher then?

Even I know Thatcher would be less destructive than this. Because this just breaks everything. Thatcherism has pulls and toggles and levers and cogs and pulleys that keep the machine going, even if that machine chews up a substantial proportion of the citizenry there is enough benefit that it can at least keep itself going.


Am I asking a stupid question?

I don't think they had a clue that what is happening would happen.

I suspect they thought the opposite - that the markets would soar. It might seem unlikely, because we are used to government's having mountains of data and advice. But they deliberately cut themselves off from anyone with the slightest clue about anything complicated. They wanted to liberate themselves from "the orthodoxy". So, I reckon their thinking didn't really go any deeper than "city types are gonna love these tax cuts, aren't they?"

A clue to this is a deleted tweet by a treasury minister (Andrew Griffith's, I think) just after KK's speech on Friday. Just as the pound was starting to tank, he tweeted that it was great to see the pound gaining ground as a result of the announcement. I don't think he was looking at the graph upside down. I think it was a pre-written tweet ill-advisedly released by a comms
person. They thought an instant positive reaction from the markets was a certainty.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

I think the really worrying thing is your idea they might see this as that final adjustment where the welfare state is wiped out and public spending permanently cut below the bone. You could be right that through some mixture of ideology and Naomi Klein type idea of crisis as opportunity, they could be seeing an end game in all this. And certainly, markets would be happy to see that 'reassurance'. It's just how do they think they will carry it off politically?

I agree that working out what’s going on is a matter of guesswork. But what’s nagging is that the Tories (surely?) have considered the consequences of dumping the ‘red wall’ and moving decisively and visibly away from the 2019 realignment? With the cities gone, Scotland gone, Wales gone and now the red wall surely gone after the mini budget how do the Tories think they win in 2024?

The realignment was built on Brexit, borders, taking on the sneering middle class in a culture war and on the promise of investment in left behind areas who’d turned their backs on labour.

Of that list, having delivered Brexit neither Johnson and now Truss seem to have a clue what they want to do with it, border control is over as KK’s statement paves the way for the importation of cheap labour to undermine the organised working class and keep wages low and the rest of his statement put a bullet in the head of levelling up. The 2019 Tories aren’t going to vote for the party of bankers bonuses and tax cuts for the rich and corporations.
A culture war with ‘the blob’ isn’t alone going to save them in the Midlands, Wales and the North.

Given that the Tories know this as well as we do, asking and trying to work out what is going on here seems worthy of serious thought and debate. And, as you say, working out where our side goes now.

 

[two sheds]

Truss met some hedge fund owners a short while before the mini budget didn't she? I'd love to know what was said. I don't believe she didn't tell them what she was going to do - even if by a nudge nudge. How would they reply: "Yes Liz that's a great plan it will totally lead to growth and a strong economy" and then go out and immediately short the pound to fuck?

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

S'posed to be anarchist site, but you're all moaning now we have an anarchist in Downing St;

week 1 kills the queen
week 3 smashes the capitalist 'economy' to smithereens, not just smashing the cistern but upperdecking the whole country

 

[Rob Ray]

A lot of this behaviour makes more sense if Truss and co. are working on the assumption that they can't win an election by using any of the normal logics, so are essentially free to ignore the lot of it and go ham with the hope that their ideology will come up trumps by sparking an economic renaissance. And if it doesn't work who cares? They weren't on course to win anyway and now the opposition are going to have a giant pile of shit to shovel.

 

[story]

No of course it's not. I don't know why everyone seems to be pretending there is no answer.

The broad answer to "how is it supposed to work" is hardly hard to find.

Reaganomics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Supply-side economics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Trickle-down economics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Free market - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's a political / economic ideology just like communism or anarchism.

Of course, because a bunch of people believe something works, doesn't mean that it works.

I get that they were trying to do this. That was pretty clear on the hustings.

But this thing of being in power for two weeks, doing this financial intervention with no breakdown, refusing to take advise, all while apparently paying absolutly no attention to the real world factual events going on in real time.


Is it really that she and everyone around her is David Brent stupid?

Or does she and the other Trussers have some path mapped out. Surely they had some notion of some kind of pathway planned out? So what was that plan.

Not the ideology. The actual plan for how to apply the ideology.

 

[story]

I don't think they had a clue that what is happening would happen.

I suspect they thought the opposite - that the markets would soar. It might seem unlikely, because we are used to government's having mountains of data and advice. But they deliberately cut themselves off from anyone with the slightest clue about anything complicated. They wanted to liberate themselves from "the orthodoxy". So, I reckon their thinking didn't really go any deeper than "city types are gonna love these tax cuts, aren't they?"

A clue to this is a deleted tweet by a treasury minister (Andrew Griffith's, I think) just after KK's speech on Friday. Just as the pound was starting to tank, he tweeted that it was great to see the pound gaining ground as a result of the announcement. I don't think he was looking at the graph upside down. I think it was a pre-written tweet ill-advisedly released by a comms
person. They thought an instant positive reaction from the markets was a certainty.

This makes sense.

They had a plan, based on ideology, but they were too stupid to understand that it wouldn’t work in the present circumstances.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I get that they were trying to do this. That was pretty clear on the hustings.

But this thing of being in power for two weeks, doing this financial intervention with no breakdown, refusing to take advise, all while apparently paying absolutly no attention to the real world factual events going on in real time.


Is it really that she and everyone around her is David Brent stupid?

Or does she and the other Trussers have some path mapped out. Surely they had some notion of some kind of pathway planned out? So what was that plan.

Not the ideology. The actual plan for how to apply the ideology.

I think Raheem has that bit right. They expected the markets to like their mini-budget.

Now? I'm sure they don't have a scooby what to do next. They have two options: a) they plough ahead with disastrous results for the economy or b) they backtrack with disastrous results for their credibility. Currently they appear to be attempting a). Who knows how long that will last?

 

[story]

A lot of this behaviour makes more sense if Truss and co. are working on the assumption that they can't win an election by using any of the normal logics, so are essentially free to ignore the lot of it and go ham with the hope that their ideology will come up trumps by sparking an economic renaissance. And if it doesn't work who cares? They weren't on course to win anyway and now the opposition are going to have a giant pile of shit to shovel.

Yes. It’s win win. Or a zero sum game.


Either they’ll win the next election, or they’ll lose it. If they lose it, Labour will be the next government. (Libs are out for the foreseeable.) Then Labour will fail, and the tories get back in again, having had a couple of years to regroup.

 

[story]

I think Raheem has that bit right. They expected the markets to like their mini-budget.

Now? I'm sure they don't have a scooby what to do next. They have two options: a) they plough ahead with disastrous results for the economy or b) they backtrack with disastrous results for their credibility. Currently they appear to be attempting a). Who knows how long that will last?

God it’s all so fucking grim and depressing.

 

[Artaxerxes]

She doesn't need to, we have Ukraine already

Crimean War 2; Electric Boogaloo

 

[teuchter]

Not the ideology. The actual plan for how to apply the ideology.

Do tax cuts is a fundamental part of the ideology.

So they did tax cuts.

The bit that hasn't gone to plan, is that the markets (which is just a bunch of people with opinions in the end really) didn't agree that doing this was a good idea.

What's vaguely interesting to me is how much of the discussion about this being reckless uses the market reaction as the evidence that it was reckless - and this from people who wouldn't usually use "stock market response" as their measure of whether something is or isn't a good idea.

If everything settles down again, the pound regains its value or whatever, will that be taken as an indication that it wasn't a stupid idea after all?

 

[redsquirrel]

While its fun to watch and everything, it's worth remembering that most of the institutions which have been kicking up a stink these past few days would be kicking up a similar stink against any transformational programme of government we'd like to happen too.

This a million times.
What has happened with this mini-statement would be nothing compared to the fights any even mildly hard social democratic (let alone socialist) government would have.

 

[prunus]

No of course it's not. I don't know why everyone seems to be pretending there is no answer.

The broad answer to "how is it supposed to work" is hardly hard to find.

Reaganomics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Supply-side economics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Trickle-down economics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Free market - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's a political / economic ideology just like communism or anarchism.

Of course, because a bunch of people believe something works, doesn't mean that it works.

All of those just say it works because it works (well, actually they say it doesn’t work, but some people believe it does). So fine, they believe it does. I want to know why they believe it does.

Ie we do it [cut taxes], and then this happens, then this happens, then this happens and profit!

I want to know what (in their minds) all the ‘this’s’ in the middle are.

Because if they’ve no idea, then it truly is voodoo economics (Krugman).

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Just out of interest, are the people currently causing the devaluation of the pound the same ones who have just had the cap on their bonuses removed? Or is that another bunch of bloodsuckers?

 

[DotCommunist]

I've noticed that the word 'ideology' has become more and more used in the last 5 years, usually as a curse word to describe the unworkability of anything left of thatcher. Thats usual thing of 'ideology is like bad breath, its always something the other fellow has'. But its clear here. Having had the power and social status to shape their own immediate reality for so long they become convinced that the world will play along and when it doesn't, well. Here we are.

 

[teuchter]

All of those just say it works because it works (well, actually they say it doesn’t work, but some people believe it does). So fine, they believe it does. I want to know why they believe it does.

Ie we do it [cut taxes], and then this happens, then this happens, then this happens and profit!

I want to know what (in their minds) all the ‘this’s’ in the middle are.

Because if they’ve no idea, then it truely is voodoo economics (Krugman).

It's fairly basic isn't it - taxing people's earnings reduces the incentive for them to do work. Reduce tax, increase incentive. More work. More stuff for everyone.

The say that the general "more stuff for everyone" outweighs any effect of the stuff being concentrated in the hands of not everyone.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

It's fairly basic isn't it - taxing people's earnings reduces the incentive for them to do work. Reduce tax, increase incentive. More work. More stuff for everyone.

The say that the general "more stuff for everyone" outweighs any effect of the stuff being concentrated in the hands of not everyone.

No, no no. Reduce tax, reduce the need to work so much. Less work. Less stuff for people.

 

[maomao]

I wrote a long answer but binned it. Short answer is they seem to believe in it. That this will produce growth in the economy.

I don't think they do and I think this has been repeatedly mislabeled as trickle down when they've never suggested it will make the poor better off. They've said it's fairer, that it's good for people, even when she says 'there'll be a bigger pie' she doesn't say that the poor will get bigger slices, just that the pie will be bigger. I think the tax cuts are the aim. This is about redistribution and little else.