Tory Leadership contest 2022

[brogdale]

So they're cancelling the debate rather than going on without Sunak and Truss.

Very disappointing...

Really fucking damning that they have to admit that any open debate about their 'policy' is damaging to the party...ho hum, it's only the fecking Prime Minister they're choosing, who needs debate about it?

 

[brogdale]

I couldn't disagree more.

In terms of your first point it's just not a binary choice. There is plenty that a government could do to raise income without borrowing for day to day spending. For example, it could introduce a levy on excessive executive pay, it could extend the current windfall tax on energy companies to most of the FTSE 350 (who have increased profits by 74% since 2019), capital gains/unearned income could be taxed at the same rate as income from work, second/multiple home ownership could be heavily taxed etc etc.

On your second point my issue is that the concept of government's just printing money lacks credibility in the real world (as Mordaunt will discover). It would create a prices/wages inflation spiral and Bonds would collapse. Nobody on here - me included - is comparing it to household budgets. Borrowing to invest in infrastructure (and by that I very much mean public services, housing, the NHS, transport, digital etc) on the other hand makes absolute economic sense and re-frames the debate anbd located it in 2022 and not 1982 which is where the Tory leadership debate is.

Not really dissenting from the generality here, but whilst the inflationary impact of QE etc. is debatable, there's very little evidence that UK gilt prices have changed very much following 2008 and the pandemic. Bond prices are not really a reason why the left should argue against borrowing.

 

[Chilli.s]

So this circus thatll be decided by 200, 000 people, all over the press/media, I suppose the articles write themselves. Every news outlet, wall to wall, whos going to get their snout even deeper in the trough. Why do we all need to know all the ins and outs if so few people decide it? just lazy jerno crap

The sooner all the newspapers go out of business the better

 

[frogwoman]

Tory leadership live updates: Candidates to be whittled down to four in vote today

Politics Hub brings you the latest political news, insight and analysis from the Sky News team in Westminster. Five remaining contenders face a third ballot in the House of Commons at 5pm today - a result is expected at 8pm.

news.sky.com

#cancelled

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Not really dissenting from the generality here, but whilst the inflationary impact of QE etc. is debatable, there's very little evidence that UK gilt prices have changed very much following 2008 and the pandemic. Bond prices are not really a reason why the left should argue against borrowing.

I’m not arguing against borrowing. I’m arguing for borrowing.

But the idea that you need to borrow to cap energy prices or food prices or award decent pay rises is economically illiterate. The idea that the left should launch a fight for money printing rather than one demanding that we tax wealth (particularly unearned) and address the historic levels of the transfer of wealth to the super rich instead isn’t sensible either.

You are right on bond values since 2008, but the idea that borrowing money or printing it to fund corporation tax cuts or to cover the shortfall from dropping the NICS rise is a different matter to bailing banks out or a pandemic

 

[Cat Fan]

I couldn't disagree more.

In terms of your first point it's just not a binary choice. There is plenty that a government could do to raise income without borrowing for day to day spending. For example, it could introduce a levy on excessive executive pay, it could extend the current windfall tax on energy companies to most of the FTSE 350 (who have increased profits by 74% since 2019), capital gains/unearned income could be taxed at the same rate as income from work, second/multiple home ownership could be heavily taxed etc etc.

On your second point my issue is that the concept of government's just printing money lacks credibility in the real world (as Mordaunt will discover). It would create a prices/wages inflation spiral and Bonds would collapse. Nobody on here - me included - is comparing it to household budgets. Borrowing to invest in infrastructure (and by that I very much mean public services, housing, the NHS, transport, digital etc) on the other hand makes absolute economic sense and re-frames the debate anbd located it in 2022 and not 1982 which is where the Tory leadership debate is.

I don't disagree with there being other options than borrowing, and in your case you're advocating raising taxes. Just don't forget that taxation is a zero sum game between public and private sector, so you're proposing shrinking the private sector.

You also seem to think there are separate pots of money for public spending on infrastructure and public spending on running services? There's only one big pot of money that funds everything, and the government can choose to run a budget deficit if it wants to.

My main point isn't that the government can print unlimited money, because obviously that would have consequences for the strength of the currency. It's that the government has more options than Conservative politicians like to make out.

The whole household budget false analogy has been used to justify austerity and is now being used to justify well below inflation pay rises for the public sector.

And there's no evidence of a wage price spiral taking hold to be honest. Energy prices are driving inflation not wages.

 

[A380]

incase anyone wants a new facebook banner

View attachment 332992

"BBC spy drama Spooks really went downhill in series six..."

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't disagree with there being other options than borrowing, and in your case you're advocating raising taxes. Just don't forget that taxation is a zero sum game between public and private sector, so you're proposing shrinking the private sector.

You also seem to think there are separate pots of money for public spending on infrastructure and public spending on running services? There's only one big pot of money that funds everything, and the government can choose to run a budget deficit if it wants to.

My main point isn't that the government can print unlimited money, because obviously that would have consequences for the strength of the currency. It's that the government has more options than Conservative politicians like to make out.

The whole household budget false analogy has been used to justify austerity and is now being used to justify well below inflation pay rises for the public sector.

And there's no evidence of a wage price spiral taking hold to be honest. Energy prices are driving inflation not wages.

You also have to look at what the private sector is doing. When the private sector won't borrow, the public sector has to, otherwise the money supply is destroyed. That's why QE didn't cause inflation. There is a case for public sector borrowing right now because the private sector isn't borrowing. But you'll never hear tories speaking like this, even if they think it, as it shows how the public/private sectors are intimately dependent upon one another.

Some of this stuff is counterintuitive, I think. You might think that household borrowing would increase during bad times, but actually the opposite is true - taken as a whole, people borrow when they are optimistic about the future and save when they're fearful about it.

 

[Cat Fan]

You also have to look at what the private sector is doing. When the private sector won't borrow, the public sector has to, otherwise the money supply is destroyed. That's why QE didn't cause inflation. There is a case for public sector borrowing right now because the private sector isn't borrowing. But you'll never hear tories speaking like this, even if they think it, as it shows how the public/private sectors are intimately dependent upon one another.

Some of this stuff is counterintuitive, I think. You might think that household borrowing would increase during bad times, but actually the opposite is true - taken as a whole, people borrow when they are optimistic about the future and save when they're fearful about it.

Yes, very true.

Although the statistics can be misleading because those lockdown savings were overwhelmingly concentrated in richer households I think.

That's why the Tories have no answer to the current cost of living crisis, because the only obvious fix (redistribute wealth to lower income households on a mass scale) is completely anathema to them.

Inflation will do the same thing in the end by devaluing people's savings. But it will do it in a lot less equal and a lot more painful way. And in a way that screws over those who can't negotiate pay increases or are reliant on state support.

 

[billy_bob]

So they're cancelling the debate rather than going on without Sunak and Truss.

Very disappointing...

'We've realised that it seriously damages our credibility if the public are given too many opportunities to see what we say and what we think and what we're like as people, so we've decided to delay that unpleasant reality until after one of us has been elected by about 0.3% of the electorate'

What's not to like?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes, very true.

Although the statistics can be misleading because those lockdown savings were overwhelmingly concentrated in richer households I think.

That's why the Tories have no answer to the current cost of living crisis, because the only obvious fix (redistribute wealth to lower income households on a mass scale) is completely anathema to them.

Inflation will do the same thing in the end by devaluing people's savings. But it will do it in a lot less equal and a lot more painful way. And in a way that screws over those who can't negotiate pay increases or are reliant on state support.

The tories are never going to advocate wealth redistribution. The sorry thing is that Labour won't advocate it either.

 

[Cat Fan]

True, the Tories are more actively against it though. For example, they hate inheritance tax which is actually one of the few taxes on wealth we have.

 

[Pickman's model]

The tories are never going to advocate wealth redistribution.

they might not advocate it but they certainly practice it: giving money to the already wealthy

 

[teqniq]

Pretty much this really.

 

[redsquirrel]

It comes down to a choice on either being pro tight monetary policy (aka austerity) or pro loose monetary policy (decent public services and well funded NHS)

I don't disagree with there being other options than borrowing, and in your case you're advocating raising taxes. Just don't forget that taxation is a zero sum game between public and private sector, so you're proposing shrinking the private sector.

Nonsense. False binary economic choices.

You talk about Thatcherism but your posts with economics as of fixed science with deterministic choices is deeply influenced by Thatcherism

 

[Pickman's model]

It comes down to a choice on either being pro tight monetary policy (aka austerity) or pro loose monetary policy (decent public services and well funded NHS)

other choices are available

 

[Spandex]

You'd think 9 hours of prime time TV to put their views across, when the opposition parties won't get a look in or any opportunity to reply, would be a dream come true for a political party. But no. They're such a useless bunch of hateable cunts they're now begging not to have this opportunity of free publicity.

Then again, if the others were given the same opportunity, can you imagine what hell 9 hours of LibDem TV or the soul sapping tedium of 9 hours of Sir Keir would be?

 

[bluescreen]

You'd think 9 hours of prime time TV to put their views across, when the opposition parties won't get a look in or any opportunity to reply, would be a dream come true for a political party. But no. They're such a useless bunch of hateable cunts they're now begging not to have this opportunity of free publicity.

Then again, if the others were given the same opportunity, can you imagine what hell 9 hours of LibDem TV or the soul sapping tedium of 9 hours of Sir Keir would be?

I reckon tonight's debate counts as a result without having to go through the agonising tedium of watching it.

 

[Artaxerxes]

You'd think 9 hours of prime time TV to put their views across, when the opposition parties won't get a look in or any opportunity to reply, would be a dream come true for a political party. But no. They're such a useless bunch of hateable cunts they're now begging not to have this opportunity of free publicity.

Then again, if the others were given the same opportunity, can you imagine what hell 9 hours of LibDem TV or the soul sapping tedium of 9 hours of Sir Keir would be?

 

[billy_bob]

can you imagine what hell 9 hours of LibDem TV [...] would be?

Enough to give each of their members their own 15 minutes of fame.

 

[two sheds]

Interesting piece by someone who went to Truss' school and says it was very different from what she's claimed, pushing a dishonest right wing agenda.

I grew up where Liz Truss did, attended the same school. She’s not telling you the truth | Martin Pengelly

What does it say about the foreign secretary that she is so prepared to misrepresent her education and denigrate those who helped her, asks Guardian US news editor Martin Pengelly?

www.theguardian.com

 

[Thesaint]

No worries, one of the UK's greatest political minds says blustercunt is safe..

Clearly they share that same hairstylist

On a more general note why there there all these potential leaders debates? I mean its not like theres a GE coming so there little the electorate can decide on anyway

Given Truss and Richi are now avoiding them suggests they think they are favourites so best not risk them now.

 

[Humberto]

I dont think i've ever seen such a grubby vicious seedy bunch of awful people in one place together. It quite horrifying that thy are all trying to out bastard each other. fuck me

usually you view a politician as a wanker from the off, then look to see if they have any redeeming sparks of humanity about them to see if they can be tolerated - I dont know where to start with this lot.

A kakistocracy, perhaps.

 

[platinumsage]

The worst thing about this contest is that it’s enabled Matt Hancock to return to our airwaves as broadcasters scrabble for talking heads.

 

[Bingoman]

Clearly they share that same hairstylist

On a more general note why there there all these potential leaders debates? I mean its not like theres a GE coming so there little the electorate can decide on anyway

Given Truss and Richi are now avoiding them suggests they think they are favourites so best not risk them now.

You do know that Fabricant wears a wig right

 

[Puddy_Tat]

Interesting piece by someone who went to Truss' school and says it was very different from what she's claimed, pushing a dishonest right wing agenda.

a tory, not being honest and truthful?

i am shocked

A kakistocracy, perhaps.

a cuntocracy?

 

[Puddy_Tat]

is today's thing the ultimate in cancel culture, in that the vermin are now cancelling themselves?

 

[two sheds]

they can't take it, the snowflakes

 

[weltweit]

Someone on the radio said it is now between Sunak and Truss.

 

[Raheem]

Someone on the radio said it is now between Sunak and Truss.

Someone on the radio has a very good track record.