Political round up.............

by No name Bertie Wed 3 Aug 2022 - 9:36

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.

by **superflyweight** Wed 28 Sep 2022 - 14:12

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
superflyweight wrote:

Duty's also trotting out the exact same argument as John Redwood who has never knowingly been right about anything.

Aye, although he made a good fist of singing the Welsh national anthem.....

I'm sure Duty could give that a go.

by Duty281 Wed 28 Sep 2022 - 14:17

I know the Cornish anthem (Bro Goth agan Tasow) very well, and it goes to the same tune as the Welsh one, so I'm sure I could pick it up quite easily.

by Duty281 Wed 28 Sep 2022 - 14:20

Soul Requiem wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Soul Requiem wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
GSC wrote:Cutting NI does very little for the poorest tho?

Does little, doesn't make them worse off though.

So doesn't stimulate growth.

What stimulates growth is stopping the rise in corporation tax, ending the cap on bankers' bonuses, cutting the top rate of tax, simplifying planning reform, and increasing investment in the private sector.

That simulates the divide between the poor and mega rich, drives up inflation, obliterates the housing market and is in general a cluster**** of epic proportions.

I disagree that it would drive up inflation. The gap between rich and poor will always be expanding. The housing market is in a mess anyway with not enough available housing to cater for a population that has increased rapidly since WW2.

by Duty281 Wed 28 Sep 2022 - 14:26

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
GSC wrote:The COVID and energy support measures seem more mandatory than top band tax cuts

It is the standard response from people that buy into this horsesh*t. Just throw around a load of other numbers in a poorly considered diversionary tactic. Sure, lets go back to pre Covid and claim all that cash back. Same with HS2. Or forget the energy support bill, just let the fat eat themselves and the poor freeze.

Many he is right. Maybe the plethora of economic commentators, the IMF, banking sector, senior credit rating agencies, hedge fund managers and pension funds are wrong and Duty is right. He will have the last laugh when he is sat there with Kwasimodo and Liz and we are all basking in those sunlit uplands. He can tell us he told us so.

BoE have just had to step in to buy longer dated UK bonds in an effort to prop up the pound. They are clearly concerned.

It's not a diversionary tactic. It's pointing out that hardly anyone cares when the UK borrows £130bn for energy support, or nearly £100bn for vanity projects like HS2, or up to £410bn for Covid measures, or even if we take something in isolation such as track and trace which cost £37 billion, but £45bn in tax cuts over five years and suddenly the sky is falling in. Where's the consistency?

I support the energy support bill, and we can't do anything about HS2 or Covid measures. That money is gone, done. You're making a point to argue something that can't be rectified as it suits the narrative. It is, by your standards, a pretty vacuous argument. Whilst I don't always agree with you, you can normally argue your case a whole let better than that post. You look like someone barking at the moon.

What the majority of people, and I don't necessary just mean on here, I mean the wider fiscal and financial market, have an issue with is reckless gambling on our economic future. In my view (and clearly the BoE, IMF, Moody's share this view) borrowing more is irresponsible in the current climate and failure to prepare the 'market' adequately (see the gilt story playing out now and subsequent BoE bailout - lets call it what it is) for unfunded tax cuts added additional stress on a currency that was on life support already. It is now close to flatlining. This just brings added pressure across the curve for gilts, pension funds, rates, the housing market. Numerous other economic sectors.

I don't know the exact number (used to when I was a trader and will probably be higher now) but pension funds used to have close to £500bn in liability driven investments. Cash calls from fund managers on those now will be running into the billions per day. The hedge against them with investment banks will be calling in those collateral calls as well. Funds will be forced to sell more gilts, forcing the price of them lower and in turn, risking more collateral calls. It is a vicious cycle that if this BoE bond purchase scheme doesn't cool down, could prompt a huge pension fund crisis. Kwarteng and Truss have got this wrong. The two things you don't f*ck with in this country are peoples houses and their pensions. Both of these are on the cusp of a meltdown. Not 100% but teetering.

As I said, you may be right but lets hope the bloodshed isn't too bad on the journey. Wish I was as confident as you.

My argument isn't that we can get the money back, or whether we oppose or support the measures, it is instead that there was no uproar from the same quarters for the other measures, which makes it seem as though Truss and Kwarteng are being slated for deviating from economic orthodoxy, in much the same way that Thatcher and Howe were. The IMF are, for instance, urging the UK to re-evaluate its tax cuts, but are not asking the same for our energy support measures, which are actually costing more.

It's also worth adding that the cost of literal tax cuts are quite small. About £34bn of this £45bn is actually coming from cancelling planned rises under the last government (the NI rise and Corporation tax rise), and one of those I don't think Labour are going to reverse if they win the next election.

As I've said I believe this is the right policy, but it is still a political risk for Truss as she only has about 18 months to see positive results before the next GE. She doesn't have a full five years. She really needs the Russians to be defeated over the winter.

Yes, I think we understand the point. You're frustrated with the IMF as they are not having a pop over the energy support bill which costs more but will almost certainly save lives. It just seems like the thin end of the wedge to complain about a lack of consistency from the IMF when they, amongst other economic powerhouses lest we forget, are massively concerned about fiscal responsibility in the UK. The IMF are the lender of last resort. They normally only see fit to intervene publicly on government policy when it is an emerging market, not the worlds 5th largest economy. That is concerning in itself. I don't think they are doing it for fun, they clearly have huge concerns (as do the BoE re bond repurchases. A total reversal of their recent policy) over the policy decisions of this mini budget.

It is a bit disingenuous (and I think you probably know this) to talk about 'literal tax cuts'. It is just ignoring context. I've given you context on pension funds, gilt markets, a reinstatement of quantitative easing against BoE policy. Kwarteng's fiscal gamble in lowering income tax in the context of an inflationary and cost of living environment (for the earners best placed to absorb that cost of living crisis at that!) has put monetary policy (BoE) in a terrible position. He has basically front run the BoE (don't believe for one moment he is bright enough to have done it deliberately) by forcing them to use one of the two tools they have (rate hikes or bond repurchase) to prop up the pound. The BoE are in a no win position and forced there by a chancellor. It is incredible really. They are not faultless, they should have been far quicker to raise rates but now they have been bent over by Kwasimodo and forced to take what he has to give.

I'm not ignoring the context and I appreciate the context you have provided.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 28 Sep 2022 - 15:06

Duty281 wrote: The gap between rich and poor will always be expanding.

Not if we took action to prevent it. It's not like it's a natural phenomenon. It's man-made and could be unmade. The fact that some people don't care about it is one of the reasons why I have so little faith in mankind.

by Duty281 Wed 28 Sep 2022 - 15:14

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Duty281 wrote: The gap between rich and poor will always be expanding.

Not if we took action to prevent it. It's not like it's a natural phenomenon. It's man-made and could be unmade. The fact that some people don't care about it is one of the reasons why I have so little faith in mankind.

What action would you like to take to prevent it? Very high taxes, confiscation of wealth above a certain amount, a limit on salaries/bonuses?

And, overall, how would a narrower gap make things better?

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 28 Sep 2022 - 15:33

I think eliminating poverty would make the world a better place. As we've discussed it is not possible for 2 reasons. 1. Moral reason - Not enough rich people are prepared to give up their wealth for that to happen 2. Practical reason - we are not clever enough to work out what action to take (including how to overcome reason 1).

Yes I would like to tax the rich more heavily, but that would only work if the majority of the rich shared my moral values, which most don't, but some do (like the ones on that web-site I linked to).

Maybe if I were rich, I wouldn't want to help poor people either. Maybe money corrupts. Remember - generosity is not measured by how much we give, it's measured by how much we have left after we give. Most of us are guilty of not being as generous as we could be - it's a human failing.

by Samo Wed 28 Sep 2022 - 15:50

Its maybe time to admit leaving the Single Market was a pretty stupid idea.

by Duty281 Wed 28 Sep 2022 - 16:13

JuliusHMarx wrote:I think eliminating poverty would make the world a better place. As we've discussed it is not possible for 2 reasons. 1. Moral reason - Not enough rich people are prepared to give up their wealth for that to happen 2. Practical reason - we are not clever enough to work out what action to take (including how to overcome reason 1).

Yes I would like to tax the rich more heavily, but that would only work if the majority of the rich shared my moral values, which most don't, but some do (like the ones on that web-site I linked to).

Maybe if I were rich, I wouldn't want to help poor people either. Maybe money corrupts. Remember - generosity is not measured by how much we give, it's measured by how much we have left after we give. Most of us are guilty of not being as generous as we could be - it's a human failing.

I'm not disputing that eliminating poverty would make the world a better place, we seemed to have jumped forward a bit. As I also mentioned earlier the world has made tremendous strides forward in eliminating poverty with over 80% in extreme poverty 200 years ago, and now that's down to around 10%. Extreme poverty could be eliminated, or decreased to tiny levels, in the next few decades. I think that's amazing progress which should be applauded, though you seem a little down on it as nothing short of perfection will satisfy you!

I think it's unfair of you to say the majority of the rich don't share your moral values, that seems rather sanctimonious.

I disagree that that is how you measure generosity, also. Some people save money for a rainy day, holidays, stuff for Christmas/birthdays etc. I don't think anyone would satisfy the criteria of being as generous as they could under those terms.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 28 Sep 2022 - 16:37

Duty281 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:I think eliminating poverty would make the world a better place. As we've discussed it is not possible for 2 reasons. 1. Moral reason - Not enough rich people are prepared to give up their wealth for that to happen 2. Practical reason - we are not clever enough to work out what action to take (including how to overcome reason 1).

Yes I would like to tax the rich more heavily, but that would only work if the majority of the rich shared my moral values, which most don't, but some do (like the ones on that web-site I linked to).

Maybe if I were rich, I wouldn't want to help poor people either. Maybe money corrupts. Remember - generosity is not measured by how much we give, it's measured by how much we have left after we give. Most of us are guilty of not being as generous as we could be - it's a human failing.

I'm not disputing that eliminating poverty would make the world a better place, we seemed to have jumped forward a bit. As I also mentioned earlier the world has made tremendous strides forward in eliminating poverty with over 80% in extreme poverty 200 years ago, and now that's down to around 10%. Extreme poverty could be eliminated, or decreased to tiny levels, in the next few decades. I think that's amazing progress which should be applauded, though you seem a little down on it as nothing short of perfection will satisfy you!

I think it's unfair of you to say the majority of the rich don't share your moral values, that seems rather sanctimonious.

I disagree that that is how you measure generosity, also. Some people save money for a rainy day, holidays, stuff for Christmas/birthdays etc. I don't think anyone would satisfy the criteria of being as generous as they could under those terms.

It would seem odd to look at millions in poverty and say "OK, I'm satisfied with that".
I, too, save up for holidays. I could give that money to charity, to help those less well off, but choose not to. That is an act of selfishness.

by Duty281 Wed 28 Sep 2022 - 16:48

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:I think eliminating poverty would make the world a better place. As we've discussed it is not possible for 2 reasons. 1. Moral reason - Not enough rich people are prepared to give up their wealth for that to happen 2. Practical reason - we are not clever enough to work out what action to take (including how to overcome reason 1).

Yes I would like to tax the rich more heavily, but that would only work if the majority of the rich shared my moral values, which most don't, but some do (like the ones on that web-site I linked to).

Maybe if I were rich, I wouldn't want to help poor people either. Maybe money corrupts. Remember - generosity is not measured by how much we give, it's measured by how much we have left after we give. Most of us are guilty of not being as generous as we could be - it's a human failing.

I'm not disputing that eliminating poverty would make the world a better place, we seemed to have jumped forward a bit. As I also mentioned earlier the world has made tremendous strides forward in eliminating poverty with over 80% in extreme poverty 200 years ago, and now that's down to around 10%. Extreme poverty could be eliminated, or decreased to tiny levels, in the next few decades. I think that's amazing progress which should be applauded, though you seem a little down on it as nothing short of perfection will satisfy you!

I think it's unfair of you to say the majority of the rich don't share your moral values, that seems rather sanctimonious.

I disagree that that is how you measure generosity, also. Some people save money for a rainy day, holidays, stuff for Christmas/birthdays etc. I don't think anyone would satisfy the criteria of being as generous as they could under those terms.

It would seem odd to look at millions in poverty and say "OK, I'm satisfied with that".
I, too, save up for holidays. I could give that money to charity, to help those less well off, but choose not to. That is an act of selfishness.

We're not looking at the millions in poverty and saying that, we're looking at the hundreds of millions brought out of poverty and saying 'fantastic, let's push on and get more out of poverty'.

I don't regard saving up for holidays as a human failing though. There's not enough happiness in the world to take that argument to a logical conclusion.

by GSC Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 9:32

https://twitter.com/dinosofos/status/1575395660018368514?t=q3hW7ennovZ7G9VJ8dB2iQ&s=19

I didn't realise it was possible to install someone less competent than Boris

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 10:50

GSC wrote:https://twitter.com/dinosofos/status/1575395660018368514?t=q3hW7ennovZ7G9VJ8dB2iQ&s=19

I didn't realise it was possible to install someone less competent than Boris

Never underestimate the ability of politicians to not think through/ignore advice on various issues (or ignore/not give a 4X about them) before doing something stupid. When then asked about something they didn't think about in advance, they show their true vacuous/dogmatic nature(s). She's from the same Government as Boris and supported him slavishly. Surprised she's Dumber to his Dumb? Nope; not really.

by GSC Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 10:57

The only reliable thing about conservative MPs is their self preservation instinct. Attaching themselves to these two is political suicide at this point.

Suspect this either get reversed or she'll be removed shortly

by Samo Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 13:17

Absolutely chronic listening to Truss doing the rounds on local radio this morning. She is so out of her depth she cant handle the simplest of scrutiny.

Johnson might have been a Muppet but he was at least a grade A cowpat artist. Truss couldn't stand up to a 7 year old.

by GSC Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 13:55

It does shine a light on a massive liability in our political system that the chancellor can come up with an uncosted and unreviewed budget and lob it into the public domain. Surely needs some kind of constraints to stop governments making these kind of impactful changes without oversight.

Not really even as if there's any kind of a mandate to do this given this wasn't the position they were elected on.

by No name Bertie Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 14:50

GSC wrote:https://twitter.com/dinosofos/status/1575395660018368514?t=q3hW7ennovZ7G9VJ8dB2iQ&s=19

I didn't realise it was possible to install someone less competent than Boris

Propping up the housing market seems to be key in getting elected nowadays. As for Liz Truss it should have been seen a mile away that she was not up to the job. Boris Johnson had the gift of the gab but he helped lead the country into disaster and is unrepentant about it. It takes more than a glib talker to run the country but nowadays that is all it seems to take to get elected into such a position.

by **Afro** Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 15:00

What gets me is how they get put in cabinet roles they have no qualification or background for.

The Chancellor has an education in History and Classics, whilst we have an Education secretary with an Economics degree. There's at least 3 others with either a finance or economics background that are more qualified to be chancellor.

I wouldn't be surprised if I looked hard enough there would someone with an Education background who would be a better education secretary too

by GSC Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 15:08

At this point we're probably on about the 6th choice cabinet. There isnt any talent left in the conservative party that hasn't already shuffled through cabinet.

Be one thing if they waited out their term but they seem convinced to gamble all futures on dogma

by No name Bertie Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 15:27

Afro wrote:The Chancellor has an education in History and Classics....

Maybe he has been tasked in creating history along the lines of a Greek Tragedy?

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 15:34

Afro wrote:What gets me is how they get put in cabinet roles they have no qualification or background for.

The Chancellor has an education in History and Classics, whilst we have an Education secretary with an Economics degree. There's at least 3 others with either a finance or economics background that are more qualified to be chancellor.

I wouldn't be surprised if I looked hard enough there would someone with an Education background who would be a better education secretary too

Weird that, isn't it? I can't think of another 'job' where you'd get the position on a background more or less unrelated to the job applied for. Almost as if politics is just about random dogmatic thoughts pulled out of the heads of those with a drum to bang. Doesn't help when these same idiots sack the senior Whitehall mandarins who actually know what's going on in their department/what they're doing.

Interesting, also, that Starmer polls badly because he isn't glib and 'funny' like Johnson. Personally, I'd rather a dull as dishwater politician who wasn't a complete arse. The fact that so many think being an obvious liar/tw@t is an essential requirement for such an important role is astonishing. Being witty is an extra that would be nice to have, not a core requirement for the job.

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 15:38

GSC wrote:At this point we're probably on about the 6th choice cabinet. There isnt any talent left in the conservative party ~~that hasn't already shuffled through cabinet.~~

Be one thing if they waited out their term but they seem convinced to gamble all futures on dogma

Fixed that for you

.

by Mind the windows Tino. Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 16:28

Touched on it yesterday but the biggest issue this sh*tshow of a party has is fiscal policy driving monetary policy. The tail can never be allowed to wag the dog to that extent.

Poorly considered fiscal policy creating a situation where monetary policy has to intervene, especially when monetary policy clearly isn't aligned to that fiscal stance, is FUBAR. The 'market' in general cares more about fiscal policy and when investors, both here and abroad, see the BoE having to move against their own strategy to support a fiscal move, they are not going to react with any confidence. The optics are appalling and we saw the result in sterling and the gilt market getting trashed. To their credit, the BoE have taken the sting out of it for the moment and averted a potential pension disaster but fiscal and monetary policy has to start pulling in the same direction, almost immediately or we'll never get rid of the malaise.

If Kwarteng and team of morons can't/won't see that, then we are facing an indefinite period of uncertainty. That is not what we need right now.

by Lowlandbrit Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 16:45

navyblueshorts wrote:Weird that, isn't it? I can't think of another 'job' where you'd get the position on a background more or less unrelated to the job applied for.

The management consultancy stuff that most of them would/will be doing otherwise comes to mind.

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 18:16

Yougov poll for The Times gives Labour a 33 point lead. It's like one of those football scores where they put the word in brackets. 33 (thirty-three).

by GSC Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 18:34

I can't believe ramping up everyone's bills so the richest get a substantial tax cut and bankers bonuses arent capped isn't a crowd pleaser

by Duty281 Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 19:03

33?! No bother. Even the great handbag was 27 down at one point.

In that YouGov poll Labour's lead is 21% of those who would vote tomorrow, with 19% don't knows. Those don't knows are presently reluctant Tories.

Meanwhile, the Germans are borrowing £200bn for energy support, in a similar manner to our own nation, as their inflation hits a 70-year high. I await the IMF.

by **Pr4wn** Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 19:04

Are the Germans also giving the richest in their society a substantial tax cut?

by GSC Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 19:07

I wonder if they bothered to show how the sums would add up

by Duty281 Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 19:09

Pr4wn wrote:Are the Germans also giving the richest in their society a substantial tax cut?

Don't know. Don't also know what it's got to do with their £200bn borrowed for energy support.

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 19:10

Duty281 wrote:33?! No bother. Even the great handbag was 27 down at one point.

In that YouGov poll Labour's lead is 21% of those who would vote tomorrow, with 19% don't knows. Those don't knows are presently reluctant Tories.

Meanwhile, the Germans are borrowing £200bn for energy support, in a similar manner to our own nation, as their inflation hits a 70-year high. I await the IMF.

Just how sour are those grapes you're eating?

by Duty281 Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 19:15

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Duty281 wrote:33?! No bother. Even the great handbag was 27 down at one point.

In that YouGov poll Labour's lead is 21% of those who would vote tomorrow, with 19% don't knows. Those don't knows are presently reluctant Tories.

Meanwhile, the Germans are borrowing £200bn for energy support, in a similar manner to our own nation, as their inflation hits a 70-year high. I await the IMF.

Just how sour are those grapes you're eating?

Not particularly sour. We're many months away from a GE. Remain was supposedly 66-22 ahead at one point, and we all know how that turned out.

Biggest concern is Truss and Kwarteng bottle it, bottling it being the common action of Tories over the last thirty years, and change course.

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 19:19

So why are you so bothered what the IMF think of Germany?

by **Pr4wn** Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 19:22

Duty281 wrote:
Pr4wn wrote:Are the Germans also giving the richest in their society a substantial tax cut?

Don't know. Don't also know what it's got to do with their £200bn borrowed for energy support.

About as much as the Germans' borrowing has to do with the Tories' humiliating polling numbers.

by Duty281 Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 19:24

Pr4wn wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Pr4wn wrote:Are the Germans also giving the richest in their society a substantial tax cut?

Don't know. Don't also know what it's got to do with their £200bn borrowed for energy support.

About as much as the Germans' borrowing has to do with the Tories' humiliating polling numbers.

Yes, they are unrelated events, hence why I separated them with a 'meanwhile'.

Your question seemed to have nothing to do with either of the things brought up.

by Duty281 Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 19:28

JuliusHMarx wrote:So why are you so bothered what the IMF think of Germany?

The IMF are welcome to think what they like.

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 19:29

Duty281 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:So why are you so bothered what the IMF think of Germany?

The IMF are welcome to think what they like.

OK, so why did you even bring them up at all with regard to Germany?

by **Pr4wn** Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 19:34

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:So why are you so bothered what the IMF think of Germany?

The IMF are welcome to think what they like.

OK, so why did you even bring them up at all with regard to Germany?

Because he's trying to deflect attention from the car crash that he's still so stubbornly supporting.

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 19:37

He seems upset that the IMF have only criticised the UK.

by Duty281 Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 19:43

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:So why are you so bothered what the IMF think of Germany?

The IMF are welcome to think what they like.

OK, so why did you even bring them up at all with regard to Germany?

Because I'm waiting to see if the IMF will pass comment on Germany's policy of borrowing £200bn during a time of rapid inflation, when they criticised the UK for about £10bn worth in tax cuts. I'm interested in seeing the consistency of the IMF.

by **Pr4wn** Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 19:45

Duty281 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:So why are you so bothered what the IMF think of Germany?

The IMF are welcome to think what they like.

OK, so why did you even bring them up at all with regard to Germany?

Because I'm waiting to see if the IMF will pass comment on Germany's policy of borrowing £200bn during a time of rapid inflation, when they criticised the UK for about £10bn worth in tax cuts. I'm interested in seeing the consistency of the IMF.

This shows an absolutely staggering lack of understanding of the IMF's statement.

by Duty281 Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 19:49

Pr4wn wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:So why are you so bothered what the IMF think of Germany?

The IMF are welcome to think what they like.

OK, so why did you even bring them up at all with regard to Germany?

Because I'm waiting to see if the IMF will pass comment on Germany's policy of borrowing £200bn during a time of rapid inflation, when they criticised the UK for about £10bn worth in tax cuts. I'm interested in seeing the consistency of the IMF.

This shows an absolutely staggering lack of understanding of the IMF's statement.

How so? They mention both the tax cuts and the energy intervention:

"We understand that the sizable fiscal package announced aims at helping families and businesses deal with the energy shock and at boosting growth via tax cuts and supply measures. However, given elevated inflation pressures in many countries, including the UK, we do not recommend large and untargeted fiscal packages at this juncture, as it is important that fiscal policy does not work at cross purposes to monetary policy."

by **Pr4wn** Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 19:53

Please have a good read: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/29/germany-vows-not-to-follow-uk-risky-expansionary-fiscal-path

Their policy and that of the UK are completely different.

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 20:08

Duty281 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:So why are you so bothered what the IMF think of Germany?

The IMF are welcome to think what they like.

OK, so why did you even bring them up at all with regard to Germany?

Because I'm waiting to see if the IMF will pass comment on Germany's policy of borrowing £200bn during a time of rapid inflation, when they criticised the UK for about £10bn worth in tax cuts. I'm interested in seeing the consistency of the IMF.

But Germany have said they are "expressly not following Great Britain’s example down the path of an expansionary fiscal policy" - so I really don't see why you are equating the 2 policies and expecting the IMF to react the same way to both.

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 20:11

I notice that Liz Truss, having claimed it is best to ignore "attention seeker" Nicola Sturgeon, is now "keen to work with her".

by Duty281 Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 21:21

Pr4wn wrote:Please have a good read: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/29/germany-vows-not-to-follow-uk-risky-expansionary-fiscal-path

Their policy and that of the UK are completely different.

It's not completely different. They're implementing a cap, just like us. They're taking on new debt to finance the cap, just like us. This could cause inflation, just like us. I believe they've also utilised a windfall tax, just like us, and are making one-off payments to certain groups, also like us.

by Duty281 Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 21:25

Tory MPs are threatening to block the abolition of the 45p tax rate as Liz Truss faces a rebellion over the mini-Budget.

Some Conservative backbenchers are furious about the measure, arguing that it is “toxic” and has come at “a high political cost for very little benefit”.

MPs have told how they are getting “shouted at in the street” about the tax cut for top earners while their inboxes are flooded with correspondence from constituents angry about the move.

Soaking wet on the backbenches.

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 21:52

Duty281 wrote:Tory MPs are threatening to block the abolition of the 45p tax rate as Liz Truss faces a rebellion over the mini-Budget.

Some Conservative backbenchers are furious about the measure, arguing that it is “toxic” and has come at “a high political cost for very little benefit”.

MPs have told how they are getting “shouted at in the street” about the tax cut for top earners while their inboxes are flooded with correspondence from constituents angry about the move.

Soaking wet on the backbenches.

Backbenchers serve their constituents.

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu 29 Sep 2022 - 22:00

Duty281 wrote:
Pr4wn wrote:Please have a good read: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/29/germany-vows-not-to-follow-uk-risky-expansionary-fiscal-path

Their policy and that of the UK are completely different.

It's not completely different. They're implementing a cap, just like us. They're taking on new debt to finance the cap, just like us. This could cause inflation, just like us. I believe they've also utilised a windfall tax, just like us, and are making one-off payments to certain groups, also like us.

Have you considered the possibility that the IMF understands the differences better than you do?

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 30 Sep 2022 - 9:30

Duty281 wrote:
Pr4wn wrote:Are the Germans also giving the richest in their society a substantial tax cut?

Don't know. Don't also know what it's got to do with their £200bn borrowed for energy support.

I suspect you'll find that everyone, everyone, thinks this is sensible from the Germans. a) to make a commitment for a greener energy situation going forward and b) to get off any reliance on Russia, which is bound to be a positive for market sentiment I would imagine.

You're waving the red herring around; same as dumb Truss etc. This isn't about energy support (and, incidentally, where the **** were they in the summer on this when it was obvious??? Staring at their navels, perhaps?), this is about a mind numbingly stupid financial statement, w/o any costings (and by actively avoiding it, making it seem like there's a lot to hide) by Kwarteng.

by Sponsored content