Liz Truss and her nonsense

[PermanentTemporary]

I'm almost afraid to start this thread... hearing that Liz Truss has blamed an 'underground transgender mafia' for her downfall made me groan. Her outlandish conspiratorial nonsense and her Trump love is going to be used against people who don't believe that gender identity is universal or should override or replace sex.

Just grumbling. Dim woman, there to get clicks for the Torygraph.

Do you remember the Comic Strip's Strike!?

'Al Pacino IS Arthur Scargill!' [played by Peter Richardson, and Jennifer Saunders plays Meryl Streep ...]

Of course she isn’t thick. You don’t get to be PM if you are thick.

Trump says things that are clearly bananas but dont think anyone has every said its because he is thick.

They definitely have. From he became POTUS in 2017 until he left in 2021 a common insult was "There's wiser in the White House".

His stupidity has receded into the background as people, rightfully, tend to prioritise the fact that he's a corrupt, sex offender with no respect for democracy.

they committed to a dramatic increase in government spending at the same time as a massive reduction in taxation to increase government debt using the justification that economic growth

In other words, an end to austerity….

Are you serious?????

Of course. Just because you dislike someone or their politics doesn’t make them thick. Even making significant misjudgements doesn’t make her thick. Regardless of stereotype, thick people don’t get into Oxford and don’t work their way up to PM. It is a lazy accusation thrown about to avoid engaging with the real reasons for her failures which are not as straightforward as people would like to claim.

There was no end to Austerity in PM Truss's "fiscal event". How did you come to that conclusion?

What do you think austerity is? It is not cutting spending for the sake of it, it is doing so to try to balance the books. The alternative is increasing spending in the hope of stimulating economic growth which is what Truss’s plan was. Other Tory PMs did not think increasing spending like that would work, hence trying (unsuccessfully even outwith Covid) to balance the books. The markets seemed to agree with them, at least with Truss’s version of borrow and spend.

Intelligence is not an indication of ability or common sense.
The cleverest people are often completely unsuited to leadership and power. I've known brilliant Oxbridge graduates who need reminding to brush their teeth and go to the toilet.

Not going to go on asking the same question, but based on the Spectator article what sunk Truss was these LDIs that the experts who didn't get to see her draft proposal also didn't know about.

So still not sure (even though I suspect I would not have liked the impact of her economics) why in theory it might not have worked.

Whereas i can work out why trickle down economics never works is because (as I was cautioned at 16) people dont behave "rationally".

ie creating more very rich people has not helped the general public, because not being rational everyone who gets rich seems to think the only objective is to get richer and richer. There is not trickle down as they are more focused on increasing their wealth.

And even if there is a political attempt to "help" them trickle down by increasing taxes it never works because their wealth is then moved to a tax haven.

Of course if every rich person was like JKR, then we might actually see trickle down in practice - and working!

I magine if every rich person did as many positive things as JKR has. It would be more than a trickle down, it would be a steady stream.

Some of them are also very poor at recognising the limits of their knowledge.

I feel embarrassed for her, I really do.

I don’t disagree. But that doesn’t make them thick.

Looks as though Rachel Reeves is just as keen as Liz Truss was to say the way the Treasury measures debt etc., is out of date.

It will be very funny (not really just a display that a lot of this is a game) if Rachel Reeves is "allowed" to break the rules.

So maybe if you ask nicely and are a good polite girl the powers that manipulate the immaginary money we do or do not have, you can break the rules. But if you are an arrogant rude woman not only do you get punished, but you are made aware of what a bad girl you have been by the rest of us getting punished by the powers that be, making what the say are the consequences of their rules being broken, happen.

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/investing/2024/09/25/labour-debt-move-opens-door-to-revival-of-green-investment-plan/

Here we all are worrying about which political Party can be more trusted to provide us with a better standard of living, when in fact it is the money moguls using their rules to create situations that on one level are only real to them.

The election is over. You can worry all you want about which political Party can be more trusted... to do anything. Fact is, we have a Labour government for the next 5 years.

Moaning about that fact will accomplish nothing.🤷‍♀️

I don't think you need to tell Labour women MPs how female politicians are punished for arrogance, rudeness or just being a voice.

Moaning about that fact will accomplish nothing.

Well done for totally missing the point.

It may be late at night, but even a small effort to read of my post would make it clear that it is about the money markets, Treasury etc..

And if you still find that too difficult to grasp: the fact that some people claim they are in political parties and they are different from each other, is irrelevant, because the money maneuvers are in charge.

With the media joining in by creating pantomime villains.

You are so bogged down in the contrived reality of political parties that you just reacted like one of Pavlov's dog, well trained to not see what if really in front of you.

In true modern fashion, I heard the original 'underground trans mafia' story as it trended on X, but didn't hear the subsequent debunk, so thanks for the update !

There was an interesting radio programme on the theory and history behind Kwarteng and Truss' budget. I'll see if I can find it.

In the meantime this is not a bad summation of the episode:

www.spectator.co.uk/article/was-liz-truss-wrong-or-wronged/

I think this was.it:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001dn6k

Programme.on 'supply side' economics.

What Rachel Reeves is proposing to do is very different to what Liz Truss did. It is probably worth you refreshing your memory about the mini budget - they proposed £45bn of unfunded tax cuts causing a nosedive in value of government bonds.

Liz Truss was incompetent and fucked the economy as a result. Nothing to do with how she asked or being polite. To do with basic competence, such as not getting expert feedback on her plans that could have helped her identify and manage risks.

AutumnCrow · 01/10/2024 22:58

Do you remember the Comic Strip's Strike!?
'Al Pacino IS Arthur Scargill!' [played by Peter Richardson, and Jennifer Saunders plays Meryl Streep ...]

I have a vague recollection, I was 12 when "Five Go Mad In Dorset" was released and we could only watch by means of stealth....

I don't see anything populist in removing the top rate of taxation. Stupid woman. And we are continuing to pay for her stupidity.

Removing the top rate of tax may not be populist but may well increase the tax return.

There might well be some situations, when the top rate of tax is particularly onerous, or when specific circumstances apply, that removing the top rate of tax would do that. I am sure it is possible to find examples, real or theoretical. What doesn't work is a mad person half-remembering this as "removing the top rate of tax increases tax return" AHA and then doing it without any regard for the specific circumstances their economy is in, or for the advice of experts, or for financial markets. And then insisting when it goes horribly wrong its because dark forces were against her because it isn't what she wanted it to happen/how she had imagined it would happen in her mad little book.

Otherwise, we could just keep removing the top rate of tax every budget and each time this would increase the tax return. An infinite money glitch if you will. (Please no-one actually come up with this scheme).

There are plenty of examples where higher tax reduces income.

Well, when there was Supertax, it worked. But not really anywhere else, the exact opposite normally happens. For some reason, cutting tax rates reduces the amount of tax returned, for some reason I cannot quite articulate...