What happened in the House of Commons tonight?

[Bookridden]

I'm struggling to understand what is going on and would be grateful is someone can explain to me in simple terms.

Why were Labour worried about the safety of MPs?

Why were the SNP unhappy?

Why were the Tories unhappy?

What's likely to happen next?

Are MPs who don't take a Pro-Palestinian stance really putting their lives at risk?

What part of Wales are you living in though? Friends in south Wales are faring better, friends in Cardiff, swansea are faring better

I’m not “throwing shit”. I’m poking fun at the Libs. Grow up.

I’m not “giving up the Tory fiscal responsibility line”. I’m agreeing that Truss got it wrong. But it’s not true that ‘the Tories’ have trashed the economy. I very much doubt that any party could have marshalled the economy any better over a five year term, given what happened in the world.

But let’s suppose (wrongly) that Liz Truss did trash the economy. Is there any other economic mistake by the Tories? (Please don’t say Brexit: that wasn’t a Tory decision.)

But let’s suppose (wrongly) that Liz Truss did trash the economy.

If she didn't trash the economy, why was she forced to resign?

Please don’t say Brexit: that wasn’t a Tory decision

Which party was responsible then? I could have sworn Cameron called the referendum.

Oh @WhatsTheUseOfWorrying , you are making me laugh.

"Prove to me the Tories have damaged the economy – but you aren't allowed to mention two really obvious ways the Tories have damaged the economy."

Because she got it wrong.

You know, like people do when they get it wrong and people lose confidence in them.

You want to say that terrible - or even much - economic damage was caused. It wasn’t.

The markets did what they should have done and headed off unsustainable spending deficit. She was the victim of her own market philosophy.

The lesson we can take from that, in currently foreseeable circumstances, is that there is no room for significantly increased public spending without very big tax increases. Which would hammer the stock market, and in due course government bonds and pension funds.

I’m afraid teachers’ wages and school buildings are going to remain unimproved. Whoever’s in power.

I’ll be very interested to see if or how public sector wage demands change with a Labour government.

She killed wilko. That’s enough for me to believe she’s the devil reincarnated.

We should never have been given a vote on something that was so difficult to unpick and ultimately so catastrophic to the country.

We didn't need the 44 day lesson. Truss ignored every bit of advice brought to her and fired or sidelined anyone who might challenge her thinking.

We do know there is no room for tax cuts without further cuts to already struggling public services.

You like Full Fact, so here's their take:

https://fullfact.org/news/pmqs-snp-uk-economy-truss/

[£30 billion] corresponds with an estimated cost to the public purse of Ms Truss’s premiership, this is not the same thing as the cost to the economy overall which is significantly more difficult to estimate.
[...]
The SNP also cited widely-reported analysis by the Resolution Foundation, an economics think tank, which also stated in November that Ms Truss’s decisions were responsible for about £30 billion of the gap between government spending and revenues.

This comprised approximately £20 billion of reduced government income from tax reductions which survived from the September mini-Budget and an estimated £10 billion for permanent increased borrowing costs.

This figure may no longer be relevant. The Resolution Foundation has since said the “mini-budget premium” on borrowing costs has now “unwound”,
[...]
But it is simply not possible to say with any accuracy what GDP may have been had the mini-Budget not taken place, and therefore what impact Ms Truss may have had on the economy at large..
Jonathan Portes, Professor of Economics and Public Policy at King’s College London told Full Fact: “I don’t think there’s any plausible way you could estimate this at present. You could argue it’s basically zero, on the grounds that markets and policy are basically where they would have been if [Mr] Sunak had been elected in September.
“Or you could argue that it’s very large, on the grounds that [Ms] Truss has done lasting damage to the UK’s international economic credibility, investor confidence, etc. Both are respectable positions, but I see no credible way to quantify the latter (nor to disprove it).”

The Libs were the first to call for a referendum.

Cameron needed to quell his own party. But others wanted to put the question to the country before him.

The best figures available show that 70% of Tory constituencies voted leave and 60% of Labour’s.

That report supports me, if anything.

Cameron was the PM and it was within his gift to reject pressure from the ERG.

Given that a large slice of proponents of Leave claimed the UK would walk away with access to the single market I imagine a lot of Brexit voters feel misled.

Because she got it wrong.

You know, like people do when they get it wrong and people lose confidence in them.

You want to say that terrible - or even much - economic damage was caused. It wasn’t.

What exactly did she get wrong and what were the consequences of her getting it wrong? If it didn’t cause any economic damage, why was she forced to resign?

So no one can give a reliable figure for the current impact of Truss, or for the future impact of her behaviour.

I'm sure the party which elevated her to the Premiership would like us all to forget about it, just a little mistake, other people fixed it.

But she didn't do this alone.

Truss was enacting the dreams of the right-wing think-tanks in Tufton Street. She got stopped. But they haven't gone away.

So for me, any Conservative government has a great deal of work to do to convince me it can competently run a whelk stall. Far from being a brand associated with economic competence, they're now a brand associated with economic disaster.

And Tory promises of yet more tax cuts (from where? the magic money tree?) are doing nothing to reverse this.

What was the Labour party’s part in it?

The talk about levelling up so if you're on a low salary, someone on a high salary will be taxed to support you is a fine dream but I just can't see it working without a huge exodus from the UK to pastures new. You'd have to get worldwide agreement to this. My DS spent six years in a tax free island. An ex prime minister made full use of their tax incentives.

Well we saw Starmer trying to control elements of his party this week

She dashed for tax cuts, brought down a turbulent market response, retreated and was forced out. Because her party realised that she was no longer ‘sellable’. Because the Tories value economic reputation.

That doesn’t equal or even get close to ‘trashing’ the economy.

No, that report says you can argue that markets and policy are where they would have been anyway – as you seem to be doing – but that you might be wrong and that there may be longer term damage.

And also that there's been a loss to the Treasury of approx £20 billion in reduced government income from Truss's tax reductions, in addition to any costs which were incurred by increased borrowing costs for a period.

Basically you're taking the most optimistic view you can of the bits you can, and glossing over the bad bits.

What happened this week is hardly on a par with Brexit! The Speaker is still in post and it looks as though everyone is moving on.

Of course it’s not like Brexit.

The rules on voting in the Brexit referendum weren’t violated by polling officers.

That’s your evidence for the Tories trashing the economy?

That's plenty to do me for now.

Fiscally responsible, they were not.