Liz Truss Prime Minister
Discussion
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.
Elysium said:
That was the point I made and I think we are in broad agreement. The Labour claim is spurious and you are right that this is very similar to the way the Tories blamed Brown for what happened in 2008.
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.
My own view is that the answer to your question is hubris. Truss was warned by economists sympathetic to her strategy, that her mini budget risked a financial markets meltdown. 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.
Julian Jessop (economist) remarked later that Truss was advised that it was imperative to keep the markets onside and that communications and staging were vital in this respect. He went on to describe the execution of the strategy as ‘terrible’. Truss and Kwarteng ignored advice completely misread the market mood, while overestimating their own ability to deliver a radical plan in a febrile environment.
She should never, ever, be anywhere near the levers of power again, a narcissistic clown who makes Boris Johnson look like Bamber Gascoigne.
Blue62 said:
Elysium said:
That was the point I made and I think we are in broad agreement. The Labour claim is spurious and you are right that this is very similar to the way the Tories blamed Brown for what happened in 2008.
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.
My own view is that the answer to your question is hubris. Truss was warned by economists sympathetic to her strategy, that her mini budget risked a financial markets meltdown. 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.
Julian Jessop (economist) remarked later that Truss was advised that it was imperative to keep the markets onside and that communications and staging were vital in this respect. He went on to describe the execution of the strategy as ‘terrible’. Truss and Kwarteng ignored advice completely misread the market mood, while overestimating their own ability to deliver a radical plan in a febrile environment.
She should never, ever, be anywhere near the levers of power again, a narcissistic clown who makes Boris Johnson look like Bamber Gascoigne.
We were perfectly happy with unfunded borrowing during the pandemic and I am old enough to remember Corbyn wanted to build out of recession as a contrast to Tory austerity. Suddenly, after years of pandemic largesse and ‘money no object’ support for Ukraine, there was an altogether unrealistic expectation that Truss would balance the books.
What is clear is that the media conflated the chaos Truss caused with the rebasing of markets across the globe, for example in this Guardian article where they blame her for increases in mortgage costs:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/oct/20/t...
I know it’s politics, but the media do not have to play along so readily. Snowdens article, which I agree with, is one of the few that provides a little more nuance.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: She was told not to do it.
She didn't want to listen to the people telling her not to do it.
She sacked the person in charge of the people telling her not to do it.
She did it anyway.
Gilt markets utterly puked when she did it.
"did Truss actually do any real damage?"
Remarkable really.
Ironically, this is exactly the sort of overly simplistic posturing that I am complaining about. She didn't want to listen to the people telling her not to do it.
She sacked the person in charge of the people telling her not to do it.
She did it anyway.
Gilt markets utterly puked when she did it.
"did Truss actually do any real damage?"
Remarkable really.
I'm really not bothered.
Smarter people than me listened to her make her case.
She resigned in disgrace and last I saw she was appearing alongside one convicted criminal whilst he praised another convicted criminal and telling anyone who'd listen that she was right and it was all a plot.
Smarter people than me listened to her make her case.
She resigned in disgrace and last I saw she was appearing alongside one convicted criminal whilst he praised another convicted criminal and telling anyone who'd listen that she was right and it was all a plot.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I'm really not bothered.
Smarter people than me listened to her make her case.
She resigned in disgrace and last I saw she was appearing alongside one convicted criminal whilst he praised another convicted criminal and telling anyone who'd listen that she was right and it was all a plot.
You obviously are bothered because you have been spamming this thread with that same statement about convicted criminals for weeks. I must have seen you write it more than a dozen times. Smarter people than me listened to her make her case.
She resigned in disgrace and last I saw she was appearing alongside one convicted criminal whilst he praised another convicted criminal and telling anyone who'd listen that she was right and it was all a plot.
JagLover said:
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.
Elysium said:
You obviously are bothered because you have been spamming this thread with that same statement about convicted criminals for weeks. I must have seen you write it more than a dozen times.
I meant I'm not bothered if you think it's overly simplistic posturing.Sharing a platform with Steve Bannon speaks wonders for her judgement.
How on earth did anyone think she should ever have been anywhere Government let alone Prime Minister.
Elysium said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: She was told not to do it.
She didn't want to listen to the people telling her not to do it.
She sacked the person in charge of the people telling her not to do it.
She did it anyway.
Gilt markets utterly puked when she did it.
"did Truss actually do any real damage?"
Remarkable really.
Ironically, this is exactly the sort of overly simplistic posturing that I am complaining about. She didn't want to listen to the people telling her not to do it.
She sacked the person in charge of the people telling her not to do it.
She did it anyway.
Gilt markets utterly puked when she did it.
"did Truss actually do any real damage?"
Remarkable really.
Elysium said:
Perhaps, but looking back did Truss actually do any real damage? It seems to me that at most she simply accelerated what was happening globally.
Well, truss didn't do ny real damage because she was turfed out not a moment too soon before she might have. As it is, she did cause the UK gilt yields to be priced with an "idiot's premium" for a good while as the spread vs other major economies had grown substantially as no one lending to the UK was quite as sure as previously that another loon might not come to power. Paying more for borrowing isn't generally thought to be a good thing.Rufus Stone said:
What makes you think they are free?
I'd say the emphasis should be on you around what makes you think they aren't?Nobody seems to moan it's a plot when equity markets are up 23% in a year or averaging 9% a year but it's all a plot when a Prime Minister does something and the gilt markets immediately puke.
Pull the other one it's got bells on.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff