Liz Truss Ex-Prime Minister
Discussion
Castrol for a knave said:
isaldiri said:
Well, clearly some people will believe anything that fits their view of things I guess..... I'm sure to some the UK could have just ignored a huge fall in sterling and gilt prices and just doggedly kept onto the idiotic budgetary plans that Truss and Kwarteng came up with and everything would have been fine......
^^^This. Anyone saying the Truss/ Kwarteng "Fiscal Event" did not inflame and utterly terrify an already twitchy market, is deluded.
isaldiri said:
Well, clearly some people will believe anything that fits their view of things I guess..... I'm sure to some the UK could have just ignored a huge fall in sterling and gilt prices and just doggedly kept onto the idiotic budgetary plans that Truss and Kwarteng came up with and everything would have been fine......
I am not sure you have read the article as it points out the temporary impact, including on bonds. What it does accurately say is that she did not crash the economy as nothing she did had any permanence, aside from policies that had broad support and would have been enacted anyway. Interest rates are in roughly the same place now as they were always going to end up given both rampant inflation and moves elsewhere. Therefore those complaining about Truss as they renew their mortgages are just parading their ignorance.
JagLover said:
isaldiri said:
Well, clearly some people will believe anything that fits their view of things I guess..... I'm sure to some the UK could have just ignored a huge fall in sterling and gilt prices and just doggedly kept onto the idiotic budgetary plans that Truss and Kwarteng came up with and everything would have been fine......
I am not sure you have read the article as it points out the temporary impact, including on bonds. What it does accurately say is that she did not crash the economy as nothing she did had any permanence, aside from policies that had broad support and would have been enacted anyway. Interest rates are in roughly the same place now as they were always going to end up given both rampant inflation and moves elsewhere. Therefore those complaining about Truss as they renew their mortgages are just parading their ignorance.
As for the article, while I agree Truss didn't crash the economy but the main reason why was that she got kicked out soon after with no chance to actually do any more harm. being already in the doldrums, the last thing the UK needed at that point was a collapse of the gbp and gilts. That would have been a proper crash and she very well could have crashed it far beyond where it is now had she not been forced out given Kwarteng and her were promising ever more unfunded idiocy over and beyond the initial market scare with the market perception of an unhinged lunatic in 10 downing street being uncannily accurate.
isaldiri said:
my comment was more addressed at the poster above that said the tories shouldn't have knee-jerked and kept her as PM without changing course.
As for the article, while I agree Truss didn't crash the economy but the main reason why was that she got kicked out soon after with no chance to actually do any more harm. being already in the doldrums, the last thing the UK needed at that point was a collapse of the gbp and gilts. That would have been a proper crash and she very well could have crashed it far beyond where it is now had she not been forced out given Kwarteng and her were promising ever more unfunded idiocy over and beyond the initial market scare with the market perception of an unhinged lunatic in 10 downing street being uncannily accurate.
AgreedAs for the article, while I agree Truss didn't crash the economy but the main reason why was that she got kicked out soon after with no chance to actually do any more harm. being already in the doldrums, the last thing the UK needed at that point was a collapse of the gbp and gilts. That would have been a proper crash and she very well could have crashed it far beyond where it is now had she not been forced out given Kwarteng and her were promising ever more unfunded idiocy over and beyond the initial market scare with the market perception of an unhinged lunatic in 10 downing street being uncannily accurate.
isaldiri said:
JagLover said:
isaldiri said:
Well, clearly some people will believe anything that fits their view of things I guess..... I'm sure to some the UK could have just ignored a huge fall in sterling and gilt prices and just doggedly kept onto the idiotic budgetary plans that Truss and Kwarteng came up with and everything would have been fine......
I am not sure you have read the article as it points out the temporary impact, including on bonds. What it does accurately say is that she did not crash the economy as nothing she did had any permanence, aside from policies that had broad support and would have been enacted anyway. Interest rates are in roughly the same place now as they were always going to end up given both rampant inflation and moves elsewhere. Therefore those complaining about Truss as they renew their mortgages are just parading their ignorance.
As for the article, while I agree Truss didn't crash the economy but the main reason why was that she got kicked out soon after with no chance to actually do any more harm. being already in the doldrums, the last thing the UK needed at that point was a collapse of the gbp and gilts. That would have been a proper crash and she very well could have crashed it far beyond where it is now had she not been forced out given Kwarteng and her were promising ever more unfunded idiocy over and beyond the initial market scare with the market perception of an unhinged lunatic in 10 downing street being uncannily accurate.
The other things like the 45% were basically just a bit of glitter an would have had little impact.
As the article alludes to people were happy to get free stuff but oddly not so happy to pay it back. As someone impacted by tax rises but who was not eligible for furlough etc I am not sure I have much sympathy
Rufus Stone said:
Gecko1978 said:
yu miss key point in the article the two largest give aways were removing social care levy and the energy price support...those were kept in and supported by all parties.
They didn't remove the increase in the Dividend tax. b
ds.Gecko1978 said:
yu miss key point in the article the two largest give aways were removing social care levy and the energy price support...those were kept in and supported by all parties.
The other things like the 45% were basically just a bit of glitter an would have had little impact.
As the article alludes to people were happy to get free stuff but oddly not so happy to pay it back. As someone impacted by tax rises but who was not eligible for furlough etc I am not sure I have much sympathy
You miss the key point that the fiscally insane were not longer in charge and keen to be racking up even more debt with only the nebulous promise of 'growth' somehow that would pay for it.The other things like the 45% were basically just a bit of glitter an would have had little impact.
As the article alludes to people were happy to get free stuff but oddly not so happy to pay it back. As someone impacted by tax rises but who was not eligible for furlough etc I am not sure I have much sympathy
And the energy price support was cut from 2 years to 6 months which would then be reviewed. that was potentially not an insignificant difference in liability.
isaldiri said:
You miss the key point that the fiscally insane were not longer in charge and keen to be racking up even more debt with only the nebulous promise of 'growth' somehow that would pay for it.
I'm glad things have improved under Sunak/Hunt. Now we have increasing debt, increasing taxation, and no prospect of growth.Edited by Rufus Stone on Thursday 28th March 15:10
isaldiri said:
JagLover said:
isaldiri said:
Well, clearly some people will believe anything that fits their view of things I guess..... I'm sure to some the UK could have just ignored a huge fall in sterling and gilt prices and just doggedly kept onto the idiotic budgetary plans that Truss and Kwarteng came up with and everything would have been fine......
I am not sure you have read the article as it points out the temporary impact, including on bonds. What it does accurately say is that she did not crash the economy as nothing she did had any permanence, aside from policies that had broad support and would have been enacted anyway. Interest rates are in roughly the same place now as they were always going to end up given both rampant inflation and moves elsewhere. Therefore those complaining about Truss as they renew their mortgages are just parading their ignorance.
As for the article, while I agree Truss didn't crash the economy but the main reason why was that she got kicked out soon after with no chance to actually do any more harm. being already in the doldrums, the last thing the UK needed at that point was a collapse of the gbp and gilts. That would have been a proper crash and she very well could have crashed it far beyond where it is now had she not been forced out given Kwarteng and her were promising ever more unfunded idiocy over and beyond the initial market scare with the market perception of an unhinged lunatic in 10 downing street being uncannily accurate.
The issue was it would be far worse under Truss. The rest of the world was trying to kill inflation, which would also wipe out growth. So where Truss thought this growth would come from is beyond me. It wasn’t that her policies were bad in themselves, it was the timing. It’s like a debt junkie already massively in trouble trying to take another massive loan on a random idea to make money. If you did it at the right time and with a good plan it’s fine to borrow money. They just put their own economic dogma into action when it absolutely was not the time to do that, that’s it. It was bad in itself, but the issue was a lot to do with ignoring the advise and showing themselves as morons.
NRS said:
The issue was it would be far worse under Truss. The rest of the world was trying to kill inflation, which would also wipe out growth. So where Truss thought this growth would come from is beyond me. It wasn’t that her policies were bad in themselves, it was the timing. It’s like a debt junkie already massively in trouble trying to take another massive loan on a random idea to make money. If you did it at the right time and with a good plan it’s fine to borrow money. They just put their own economic dogma into action when it absolutely was not the time to do that, that’s it. It was bad in itself, but the issue was a lot to do with ignoring the advise and showing themselves as morons.
It wasn't an issue of policy timing. Growth vs inflation isn't necessarily a contradiction either (see the US for example that by fluke or otherwise that has got both growth since 2H 2022 and inflation back to semi reasonable levels faster than anyone else). It's more that Truss/Kwarteng were assuming that everyone else that the UK was reliant on to borrow money from would also believe in her magical claims of growth somehow. When you are perceived as vaguely credible that might even have been possible. it's just not going to happen when you are (rightly) seen as unhinged. 
James6112 said:
She should be sectioned.
Even a low level Civil Servant is subject to some screening.
How can a full on Fruitcake become PM!!
The same applies to Johnson & the shared dressing up box.
You haven’t read the article have you. Do that first. That’s step one right there. Do that, then get back to us.Even a low level Civil Servant is subject to some screening.
How can a full on Fruitcake become PM!!
The same applies to Johnson & the shared dressing up box.
julian987R said:
James6112 said:
She should be sectioned.
Even a low level Civil Servant is subject to some screening.
How can a full on Fruitcake become PM!!
The same applies to Johnson & the shared dressing up box.
You haven’t read the article have you. Do that first. That’s step one right there. Do that, then get back to us.Even a low level Civil Servant is subject to some screening.
How can a full on Fruitcake become PM!!
The same applies to Johnson & the shared dressing up box.
They have no-one else to blame, despite her attempts to blame anyone who pops into her head and your attempt to re-write what happened.
Fortunately no-one outside of the right wing blogs gives a toss and her brand of mindless dogma is toxic for the foreseeable future.
Blue62 said:
Elysium said:
Good article. I agree. Somehow Truss was blamed for a global phenomenon which was directly linked to the winding down of inflationary pandemic policies and the war in Ukraine.
Unless she invented the virus and told Putin to invade, she is being unfairly blamed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
There’s rather more to it than just a bit of unfortunate timing, your post reads as though she and her former boyfriend had no hand in the crisis that they precipitated. Unless she invented the virus and told Putin to invade, she is being unfairly blamed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
However, the economic shock was global and clearly not created by Truss.
Elysium said:
I never argued that she did a good job. Spooking the markets was a serious mistake.
However, the economic shock was global and clearly not created by Truss.
Which in turn I didn’t argue either. Truss may have been dealt a poor hand but she played it badly, I’m not entirely sure what point you were trying to make. If it’s the spurious claim by Labour that she crashed the economy then ok, but that’s no different to Conservative calls that Labour caused the GFC, it’s just politics.However, the economic shock was global and clearly not created by Truss.
What unfolded over a two week period with Truss and Kwarteng was remarkable, the level of ineptitude has probably never been witnessed before at the treasury (or at least until Laura Trott turned up), I was simply pointing out that framing her as the victim is absurd.
Blue62 said:
Elysium said:
I never argued that she did a good job. Spooking the markets was a serious mistake.
However, the economic shock was global and clearly not created by Truss.
Which in turn I didn’t argue either. Truss may have been dealt a poor hand but she played it badly, I’m not entirely sure what point you were trying to make. If it’s the spurious claim by Labour that she crashed the economy then ok, but that’s no different to Conservative calls that Labour caused the GFC, it’s just politics.However, the economic shock was global and clearly not created by Truss.
What unfolded over a two week period with Truss and Kwarteng was remarkable, the level of ineptitude has probably never been witnessed before at the treasury (or at least until Laura Trott turned up), I was simply pointing out that framing her as the victim is absurd.
The one thing I do question is how Truss and Kwarteng were able to get themselves into that position, They were new in their roles of course and as Kwasi has said they may have “got carried away”. But surely the civil servants will have seen the dangers and tried to warn them?
I do wonder if they were set up to fail by their own party.
It’s a shame because I did agree with the principle of cutting additional rate tax. The timing was wrong, but it would have been a robust pushback against Labours “tax the rich” approach as championed by Corbyn at the prior election.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff