Liz Truss Ex-Prime Minister
Discussion
Iamnotkloot said:
Wadeski said:
Iamnotkloot said:
silentbrown....amusing article
Alternate view:
"But whether Trussonomics was sound or not isn’t the interesting point. It’s that she stood no chance of implementing even a relatively mild fiscal reform because of the “sheer power of the administrative state and its influence on the markets and the wider polity”. Truss had certainly “not anticipated how ruthless they would be in pushing back by all means at their disposal.” The men in grey suits who once ensured that socialism was unimaginable in Britain now exist to do the same for conservatism, and Karl Marx will be amused to learn that it was the Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, who ultimately told Truss she had to resign – explaining that “my going was now ‘the price the markets wanted’”.
It was a coup. One of the most pro-capitalist governments in memory was thus ended by a cabal of capitalists, which suggests that capitalism hasn’t got much of a future.
........
Tim Stanley "
Edited for spelling
An alternate view as in, its written from an alternate reality?Alternate view:
"But whether Trussonomics was sound or not isn’t the interesting point. It’s that she stood no chance of implementing even a relatively mild fiscal reform because of the “sheer power of the administrative state and its influence on the markets and the wider polity”. Truss had certainly “not anticipated how ruthless they would be in pushing back by all means at their disposal.” The men in grey suits who once ensured that socialism was unimaginable in Britain now exist to do the same for conservatism, and Karl Marx will be amused to learn that it was the Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, who ultimately told Truss she had to resign – explaining that “my going was now ‘the price the markets wanted’”.
It was a coup. One of the most pro-capitalist governments in memory was thus ended by a cabal of capitalists, which suggests that capitalism hasn’t got much of a future.
........
Tim Stanley "
Edited for spelling
Iamnotkloot said:
No, I actually think the UK public is mostly centre right, hence voting the Tories in time and time again. But they don't get right wing policies as a result. Which is dangerous and leads to the current apathy/hostility people feel towards the political class. I would argue we haven't had a right wing government in place since ol' John Major bit the dust (if you ignore Ms Truss' short reign). Maybe it's the blob, maybe it's the Tory governments chasing centre/centre- left votes but either way the current and previous lot are NOT delivering right wing policies.
I think the reason that the Tories have been getting in during the last 14 years is because they've come closer to the centre rather than being further right-wing and that's also why there haven't been any "True Right Wing Policies". At the last election the alternative was between a fairly Centrist Tory party versus a very left wing Labour party. What Starmer has done is move Labour back to the Centre, to the point where there seems to be little difference between Tory/Labour policies.If people want a genuine "Right wing" govt they could vote Reform.
Carl_VivaEspana said:
Ooh, I know this one - is it the anti-growth coalition, in conjunction with the liberal elite and the space lizards?Fortunately for all of us, it's not her
Iamnotkloot said:
No, I actually think the UK public is mostly centre right, hence voting the Tories in time and time again. But they don't get right wing policies as a result. Which is dangerous and leads to the current apathy/hostility people feel towards the political class. I would argue we haven't had a right wing government in place since ol' John Major bit the dust (if you ignore Ms Truss' short reign). Maybe it's the blob, maybe it's the Tory governments chasing centre/centre- left votes but either way the current and previous lot are NOT delivering right wing policies.
Based on voting, the British public is centre-left. Our broken electoral system means we get a lot of minority centre-right governments.Gecko1978 said:
skwdenyer said:
ATG said:
If you want to have continental European levels of public services then you have to have continental European levels of tax. If you don't mind having US levels of public service (and all that entails in terms of social cohesion, levels of relative poverty, infant mortality, crime) then you can have US levels of tax.
What you cannot do is pay US levels of tax and receive continental European standards of public services. This is the UK illusion that is fueled every time the Conservatives say "the NHS is safe in our hands and we're seeking to reduce the tax burden" or when the Labour Party says "we'll increase pubic spending and we'll stick to the Conservative's fiscal plans".
Both positions are fundamentally dishonest and the idea the UK can pull off some magical fiscal trick because "exceptionalism" is clearly delusional.
The US isn’t low tax. You’re not comparing apples with apples.What you cannot do is pay US levels of tax and receive continental European standards of public services. This is the UK illusion that is fueled every time the Conservatives say "the NHS is safe in our hands and we're seeking to reduce the tax burden" or when the Labour Party says "we'll increase pubic spending and we'll stick to the Conservative's fiscal plans".
Both positions are fundamentally dishonest and the idea the UK can pull off some magical fiscal trick because "exceptionalism" is clearly delusional.
Edited by ATG on Wednesday 17th April 14:57
First, those numbers completely ignore the vast amounts spent by both companies and individuals on healthcare. When you factor those in, the effective tax rates aren’t the same at all.
If we take 2022, US tax was about 28% of GDP vs a 34% OECD average. A further 18% of GDP was spent on healthcare. Of that, 3% was Medicare and 2% was Medicaid (both from taxation). So tax + health was 41% of GDP.
When your employer pays for your healthcare, rather than paying NI, it is is still a de facto tax on employment.
In 2022, UK tax was about 35% of GDP. Private healthcare was a further 0.6% but let’s call it 1%. So tax + health was 36% of GDP.
At a simplistic level, if you rolled healthcare into the tax system in the US, overall tax levels would be at least as high as the UK (even allowing for normalised standards of care and taking out some of the egregious profit-making in the US).
And the US now has better social security benefits than the UK, by and large.
Sorry to say, we’re not high tax, we’re not molly-coddled, and our experiment has simply failed.
Iamnotkloot said:
silentbrown....amusing article
Alternate view:
"But whether Trussonomics was sound or not isn’t the interesting point. It’s that she stood no chance of implementing even a relatively mild fiscal reform because of the “sheer power of the administrative state and its influence on the markets and the wider polity”. Truss had certainly “not anticipated how ruthless they would be in pushing back by all means at their disposal.” The men in grey suits who once ensured that socialism was unimaginable in Britain now exist to do the same for conservatism, and Karl Marx will be amused to learn that it was the Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, who ultimately told Truss she had to resign – explaining that “my going was now ‘the price the markets wanted’”.
It was a coup. One of the most pro-capitalist governments in memory was thus ended by a cabal of capitalists, which suggests that capitalism hasn’t got much of a future.
........
Tim Stanley "
If, as stated, Truss's version of economics was merely beaten by the 'sheer power of the administrative state and its influence on the markets', and her excuse is 'not anticipated how ruthless they would be in pushing back by all means at their disposal', then an analogy would be a general who went into battle doing everything, at least in their opinion, correctly, and victory was assured, complaining that the enemy, whose strength and numbers was known, fought back. Alternate view:
"But whether Trussonomics was sound or not isn’t the interesting point. It’s that she stood no chance of implementing even a relatively mild fiscal reform because of the “sheer power of the administrative state and its influence on the markets and the wider polity”. Truss had certainly “not anticipated how ruthless they would be in pushing back by all means at their disposal.” The men in grey suits who once ensured that socialism was unimaginable in Britain now exist to do the same for conservatism, and Karl Marx will be amused to learn that it was the Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, who ultimately told Truss she had to resign – explaining that “my going was now ‘the price the markets wanted’”.
It was a coup. One of the most pro-capitalist governments in memory was thus ended by a cabal of capitalists, which suggests that capitalism hasn’t got much of a future.
........
Tim Stanley "
Or, to put it another way, everything I did would be spot on had reality been different.
She's weird.
skwdenyer said:
Based on voting, the British public is centre-left. Our broken electoral system means we get a lot of minority centre-right governments.
There is an irony that the Labour govt with a huge majority and influence over the electorate, driven by change didn't take the opportunity to push PR.vaud said:
skwdenyer said:
Based on voting, the British public is centre-left. Our broken electoral system means we get a lot of minority centre-right governments.
There is an irony that the Labour govt with a huge majority and influence over the electorate, driven by change didn't take the opportunity to push PR.Carl_VivaEspana said:
It is a very nice pub. And Oxborough is worth a visit, as is the hall which has a priest hole of note.PR wouldn't pass parliament because no PM with a majority would want to give it up. The safe seat MPs wouldn't give in to party lists. The marginal seat MPs who are in with the party leadership would try to push for party lists. The MPs who like constituency work will be pushing for a version which maintains the link, the MPs who don't care about it will push for something else. Those MPs who don't want it will be causing mischief.
Mr Penguin said:
PR wouldn't pass parliament because no PM with a majority would want to give it up. The safe seat MPs wouldn't give in to party lists. The marginal seat MPs who are in with the party leadership would try to push for party lists. The MPs who like constituency work will be pushing for a version which maintains the link, the MPs who don't care about it will push for something else. Those MPs who don't want it will be causing mischief.
Parliament essentially voted for PR when allowing the referendum in 2011. Sure, didn’t have a majority, but nervous MPs could have voted against. Mr Penguin said:
PR wouldn't pass parliament because no PM with a majority would want to give it up. The safe seat MPs wouldn't give in to party lists. The marginal seat MPs who are in with the party leadership would try to push for party lists. The MPs who like constituency work will be pushing for a version which maintains the link, the MPs who don't care about it will push for something else. Those MPs who don't want it will be causing mischief.
A royal commission into the whole shooting match, from PR to the Lords, will kick it into the long grass for at least one term but also make it look like they're doing something. Parties should never be allowed to order the lists as it just creates cronyism, Holyrood is filled with 3rd rate duffers there only because they're politically reliable. The australian system of getting the voter to sift the candidates appeals.hidetheelephants said:
Mr Penguin said:
PR wouldn't pass parliament because no PM with a majority would want to give it up. The safe seat MPs wouldn't give in to party lists. The marginal seat MPs who are in with the party leadership would try to push for party lists. The MPs who like constituency work will be pushing for a version which maintains the link, the MPs who don't care about it will push for something else. Those MPs who don't want it will be causing mischief.
A royal commission into the whole shooting match, from PR to the Lords, will kick it into the long grass for at least one term but also make it look like they're doing something. Parties should never be allowed to order the lists as it just creates cronyism, Holyrood is filled with 3rd rate duffers there only because they're politically reliable. The australian system of getting the voter to sift the candidates appeals.Wadeski said:
The Aussies have had their fair share of absolute wazzocks in charge too, to be fair though....
That's what happens when you let people vote; it's preferable to letting the weirdos who populate constituency parties(or the selection committees) do the picking, they really are odd.ATG said:
skwdenyer said:
ATG said:
If you want to have continental European levels of public services then you have to have continental European levels of tax. If you don't mind having US levels of public service (and all that entails in terms of social cohesion, levels of relative poverty, infant mortality, crime) then you can have US levels of tax.
What you cannot do is pay US levels of tax and receive continental European standards of public services. This is the UK illusion that is fueled every time the Conservatives say "the NHS is safe in our hands and we're seeking to reduce the tax burden" or when the Labour Party says "we'll increase pubic spending and we'll stick to the Conservative's fiscal plans".
Both positions are fundamentally dishonest and the idea the UK can pull off some magical fiscal trick because "exceptionalism" is clearly delusional.
The US isn’t low tax. You’re not comparing apples with apples.What you cannot do is pay US levels of tax and receive continental European standards of public services. This is the UK illusion that is fueled every time the Conservatives say "the NHS is safe in our hands and we're seeking to reduce the tax burden" or when the Labour Party says "we'll increase pubic spending and we'll stick to the Conservative's fiscal plans".
Both positions are fundamentally dishonest and the idea the UK can pull off some magical fiscal trick because "exceptionalism" is clearly delusional.
Edited by ATG on Wednesday 17th April 14:57
First, those numbers completely ignore the vast amounts spent by both companies and individuals on healthcare. When you factor those in, the effective tax rates aren’t the same at all.
If we take 2022, US tax was about 28% of GDP vs a 34% OECD average. A further 18% of GDP was spent on healthcare. Of that, 3% was Medicare and 2% was Medicaid (both from taxation). So tax + health was 41% of GDP.
When your employer pays for your healthcare, rather than paying NI, it is is still a de facto tax on employment.
In 2022, UK tax was about 35% of GDP. Private healthcare was a further 0.6% but let’s call it 1%. So tax + health was 36% of GDP.
At a simplistic level, if you rolled healthcare into the tax system in the US, overall tax levels would be at least as high as the UK (even allowing for normalised standards of care and taking out some of the egregious profit-making in the US).
And the US now has better social security benefits than the UK, by and large.
Sorry to say, we’re not high tax, we’re not molly-coddled, and our experiment has simply failed.
The US is not a low-tax country.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff