To think Liz Truss MUST call a general election to make “unpopular” and “difficult” decisions that deviate from the last GE manifesto?

[CurseOfBigness]

I get that Liz Truss is a keen new prime minister full of beans and ideas. I just don’t think she has the mandate to push through decisions that are “unpopular” and “difficult” if it deviates from the last general election’s manifesto.

Liz Truss plans radical shift in economic policy: New UK prime minister readies tax-cutting mini-Budget and says she is prepared to be unpopular.

This new prime minister has not gained her position by winning a general election. If she wants to radically change things and be “unpopular” then she needs to put the vote to the people.

Truss talked the talk about promoting “freedom” and not being dictated by “instructions”. But Freedom is not for free. The rule of law applies as “instructions” to help keep society civilised. Checks and balances.

Removing the cap on bankers’ bonuses is a poor PR move. Trickle down economics is problematic and already being criticised as ineffective.

Truss thinks she can do what she wants because she’s party leader and by default became prime minister. But Truss can’t afford to be “unpopular” because she needs to win a general election in her own right first.

AIBU to think Liz Truss must call a general election to make “unpopular” and “difficult” decisions that deviate from the last GE manifesto? Isn’t that how democracy works?!

Those MPs will also be driven by their constituents.

If Liz Truss upset the red and blue walls then it’s the MPs in those areas who will rebel because they’ll lose their positions at the next generational election if they don’t.

I understand that a PM has to make difficult decisions. But I think removing the cap on bankers’ bonuses was an easy one for Truss because she’s protecting her own class.

A difficult decision is doing what’s morally right, not what’s easy. The difficulty for her is being unpopular doing what’s easy and beneficial to her class if rich friends etc.

Didn't a law get passed a few years back that the Lords can only delay by up to a year not just throw out bills they don't agree with? So not sure that's right anymore.

Don’t know. Need to look this up.

Sounds like they push back for a year and request amendments.

Yes but then it has to be brought back etc etc and they run out of parliamentary time.

How many Lords is Ex PM Johnson planning to make?

Enough I think!

Quoting from Twitter Richard Haviland

”It’s one thing for a party to change leader while in power. It’s quite another for it to completely disregard the manifesto on which it was elected. Insofar as Truss has no mandate for what she is doing, hers is effectively an unelected government. It does not have our consent.”

True.

I stand by my OP.

It’s easy, not difficult, for Truss to make unpopular decisions when she feels safe in a majority that she inherited from Boris, rather than earning in her own right as PM. She’s just doing what she wants without a proper mandate. It is morally wrong of her to drastically deviate from the GE manifesto.

So pleased the US President publicly criticised her trickle down economics.

The current bout of inflation is largely the result of an increase in wholesale gas prices, which France is less exposed to. The UK consumes 38.62ft³/capita each year. France only consumes 20.84ft³/capita.

You don't mention which dates you're comparing inflation for but the latest figures are UK 8.6%, DE 8.8%, FR 6.6%, Nl 13.7%, BE 10.1%, IE 9%, EU27 10.1%.

So the UK isn't really any worse off than the rest of Western Europe.

The French protest at soaring costs and get results - what’s wrong with the UK? Polls show Britons are fed up and willing to challenge the government over the cost of living. We must rediscover our history of rebellion.

Aka the French take no crap from their government.

I can’t see British people doing much if things get bad. But I can see the French standing up for themselves in a way they they get things done.

What Truss is doing is radically changing the direction without a proper mandate to do so in her own right.

Could you please elaborate on this? Which parts of the 2019 manifesto is Truss drastically changing direction on?

This commitment for example is one that Truss appears intent on upholding, unlike Johnson/Sunak:
We will not raise the rate of income tax, VAT or National Insurance.

such as 'getting Brexit done' which he has failed to do.

We've left the EU, haven't we? I'm pretty sure that most people would consider Brexit to be "done" on that basis. There are certainly loose ends to tie up but we're definitely out now.

We're out of the EU alright, but Brexit is nowhere near done. I'm in NI and am well aware of how much more damage Brexit will inflict on the UK before it is done.

Boris couldn’t have won the majority without winning votes from the red wall. Getting Brexit down, sorting out the NHS and levelling up were the 3 key manifesto points that won favour with the red wall.

“"Levelling up" is a political policy first articulated in the 2019 Conservative Party manifesto that aims to reduce the imbalances, primarily economic, between areas and social groups across the United Kingdom.”

Removing the cap on banker’s bonuses is not levelling up. It’s “topping up”. This is a really poor PR move on Liz Truss’ part that shows she doesn’t understand how fragile the majority (that Boris won) is.

Tax cuts do not help with levelling up. Tax cuts also imply less resources for the NHS and other public services.

Simply put. Liz Truss does not have a proper mandate from the people to scrap plans for levelling up. Her plans for “trickle down economics” have already been criticised; it works in theory but not in practice (it has been done before and created rich/poor divisions that ultimately leads to wider issues).

I hate to break it to you (though I'm sure that you're already aware) that there aren't many voters in GB who are really aware of what's going on, let alone care. Then consider that as NI elects a completely different set of parties to the rest of the UK (one of whom doesn't even take their seats) and you'll see how this won't make the blindest bit of difference in the next election.

Fortunately for NI it seems they have support from Biden. He’s keen on the Good Friday Agreement.

Liz Truss has ruled out trade deals with the US in the “short and medium term” because she’s aware that the GFA matters to the Biden administration.

So, the UK has no trade deals with either the US or the EU, two of the largest trading blocs.

Voters in GB need to start caring.

Scrapping the cap on bankers bonuses appears bad in public perception, and the opposition will make the most of the bad optics, but it was a load of crap anyway. It was introduced in 2014 by the EU and was created mainly so they could be seen to be doing something about the 2008 crisis. It had less effect in continental Europe where high salaries/low bonuses were common, but the EU knew it would have a massive impact on the UK where low salary/high bonus was more prevalent. The UK was against the rule, but was forced to implement it. It could well have been one of the factors that led the Cameron regime to allow a Brexit referendum.

The bonus cap was set at 100% of salary (or 200% with shareholder approval), and what happened was that someone on £100k salary who received £300k-£400k typical bonus was suddenly paid £250k with £150k-£250k bonus (I'm sure you don't believe bankers suddenly took a massive pay cut).

Only one poster higher up the thread has pointed out the problem with the new system. Previously, in a "bad" year the banker was paid just £100k with little or no bonus, but he now was paid £250k. If half the bonus was deferred subject to clawback or malus, then the banker used to receive £100k + £175k bonus with £175k deferred. Now the banker gets £250k + £100k bonus with £100k deferred.

Scrapping the bonus cap is scrapping a useless EU imposed rule that will allow UK financial services companies to pay employees in a way that suits the company's needs.

Don't like truss, not Conservative, but on back of 2.5 hard years, 4 if you include the worst parts of brexit, I think we don't need more destabilising factors going on right now.

The cap was also about encouraging accountability.

Part of the problem that led to the 2008 crisis was that irresponsible decisions were being made by bankers thinking far too short term (‘this person can’t repay this debt but I don’t care as long as I sell it and get my bonus. I’ll move on by next year so it won’t be my problem then.’)

PR was part of it, but that PR was ineffective if it didn’t show what the cap would mean longer term. People wanted more accountability from the bankers and the cap seemed to have satisfied that PR issue.

OP
Various posters have pointed out that NEITHER Labour nor Tory party has ever called GE when changing leadership midterm. And get you insist on implying that it is somehow a corrupt / Tory failing.

Baffling that Labour voters having previously claimed that Boris wax the devil incarnate now want to void the last election as it was a vote for Boris not conservative policy / values.

Its astounding to me that you still all don’t get what is blatantly obvious to the rest of us ….. the majority of the English public generally hold conservative (small c) values. So they will vote for these values. They like some leaders more than others for a variety of reasons so sometimes the Tories scrape through and other times they win a thump ring majority but ultimately they win because the general public ultimately believe in conservative value la more than socialist ones.
So no…. No GE needed if the Tories change leadership and go a little bit more centre or s little bit more right because the English public have, in the last 100 years , voted for conservative values and thus the almost all of the time.

Yikes - glitchy phone! Excuse typos

I feel like this is all leading up to a vote of no confidence by Christmas and Boris back by Valentines...

I’m not a labour voter btw. I tend to sway and swing depending on the policy put forwards and who looks like a good leader at the time.

Isn’t it a fallacy that the country is mostly conservative?

I saw somewhere (trying to look for the source) that it’s a bit more complicated. We don’t have a straightforward Democrats vs Republicans politics as in the US.

Add up all the votes from various parties. Lib Dems and Labour combined out score the conservatives. If all the opposition parties (SNP, Plaid, Lib Dems and Labour) joined forces then they would out perform the conservatives (especially big C conservatives). Something like that.

This isn’t the link I was looking for. But it’s interesting anyway.

Why does England vote Tory? Progressives will never dominate English politics without confronting Churchillism.

If the country is voting conservative out of Churchill nostalgia then that’s not living in the present. The Queen’s death marked the end of an era that included Churchill as her first prime minister.

Also, the “levelling up” policy was a new one in the conservative manifesto to win over the red wall (who were key to the Brexit vote).

Why is “levelling up” considered bad in anyway by far right conservatives?

Sounds good to level up. Means people generally become richer. Happier population. Spend more money. Better for economic growth.

Brexit has been divisive because conservatives (small c) didn’t necessarily want it because of an impact on lifestyle (holidays to Europe) and the clear economic impact (leaving a large trading bloc and being part of club). Being in the EU was like being part of a corporation like Starbucks, whilst Brexit was like going independent; independent stores might do ok but they don’t have the fall back of a larger corporation like Starbucks if things go wrong. Conservatives recognised that Brexit was likely to make the country poorer.

Poorer people were already poor and seemed to have less to lose in voting Brexit and making themselves heard.

There are wider reaching implications to neglecting the most vulnerable in society. Swings and roundabouts.

Getting Brexit down, sorting out the NHS and levelling up were the 3 key manifesto points that won favour with the red wall.

The first one many will consider to be achieved. Do you think that a major change in policy is coming here?

The second - the NHS has certainly had a huge increase in funding, above the level of inflation so far. In order to U-turn on that, Truss would have to freeze budgets. Are you suggesting that's her plan?

The third - what does "levelling up" even mean? Infrastructure investment? Some of that did suffer under the latter days of Johnson's premiership, Eastern leg of HS2 and NPR have been subject to cuts. I'm not sure that this is going to create an electoral earthquake on its own though. How about creating jobs in the regions? The government has noticed that moving HMRC to Bristol saved a fortune, both in the London Allowance and in cheaper building costs. I expect more functions of government to move out of Whitehall.

Removing the cap on banker’s bonuses is not levelling up. It’s “topping up”. This is a really poor PR move on Liz Truss’ part

Bad PR perhaps. I don't see how it's a drastic departure from the 2019 manifesto though, which was full of "unleashing Britain's potential". What was the purpose of the cap? Did it have an economic benefit or was it just a populist move to capitalise on public resentment? www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/15/what-is-the-banker-bonus-cap-and-could-scrapping-it-boost-growth

Her plans for “trickle down economics” have already been criticised

What plans for "trickle-down economics" exactly? The term was invented by a comedian in the 1930s. Here's what a former Labour minister has to say on the subject:
"This is where we are at the start of the third decade of the 21st century: conducting politics based on invented words to describe the non-existent policies of political leaders"
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/09/21/trickle-down-neoliberal-merely-islington-dinner-party-tropes/

Let's talk about taxation. Raising NI thresholds will benefit lower earners proportionately more than higher earners. Scrapping the levies on energy benefits us all. Some stuff is clearly designed to benefit middle earners, but then fiscal drag has brought many people into the higher rate so a small amount of pushback is only fair (no, I'm not a higher rate taxpayer). Cutting the top rate of stamp duty is a good idea - it is acting as a drag on the housing market, discouraging people from downsizing, cutting it would probably increase income to the Exchequer too.

The top 1% of earners pay a greater proportion of the nation's taxes than they did a decade ago, so "tax cuts for the rich" hasn't really rung true.

The irony of people who were wailing about how a US trade deal would lead to us being force-fed chlorine-washed chicken now complaining that said deal hasn't happened yet. Not that the EU has a deal with them either. Whatever happened to TTIP?

We have got a trade deal with the EU, so I don't know why you're claiming that we haven't: ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/relations-non-eu-countries/relations-united-kingdom/eu-uk-trade-and-cooperation-agreement_en

I notice that Tony Blair is currently assisting the government with reforming the protocol, explaining both to the Americans and the EU why the EU's proposals won't work.