Tory Scum Rebels

[jamesbrown]

He threw money about where at least 10% became open fraud, he enlisted the banks in the loans but didn't make them responsible for the fraud(kyc). He gave grants to the self employed that basically meant most made more during covid than before.

Not a rocket scientist.

I appreciate that you aren't a rocket scientist, vetran, but this is the downside of legislating quickly under existential circumstances and deprecating waste/fraud in favour of minimising economic damage. Any sane chancellor would've done the same. Indeed, Kwasi agrees.

[jamesbrown]

He may be. His recent taxation policies weren't. I understand why he thought them necessary, but - and it's a big but - he refused to consider any alternatives to his/HMT's process to resolve the issues. In effect he was accumulating money to pay off debts while impoverishing the working population.

Truss's intention is to get the economy moving and growing by putting spending power, macro and micro, back on the agenda. That makes the country richer and brings forward the time to start paying off the debts. It also reduces the interest on government borrowing, saving further expenditure.

Both have a clear end goal, and both are pretty long term aims. Which is the better solution I have no idea, but I know which I prefer.

What we can't do is judge either one on the basis of 14 days, and it's worth remembering that the only major bone of contention causing all the grief is dropping Brown's 45% tax rate. Which was always his plan anyway.

That's all very interesting, but these "growth policies" actually need to have some plausible chance of increasing growth in a meaningful way. I completely agree with the markets that they don't have even the slimmest possibility of doing that. Truss has missed a trick here. She should've played down the significance of what she was doing (act big, speak small) and then actually implemented policies that materially effect those things that hamper growth the most, like planning, half-decent relations with the EU etc. Now, those things are not particularly in my self-interest or, probably, yours, but let's be honest about what is holding growth back. Reversing one small tax cut and not implementing another isn't exactly, er, revolutionary and it will have smaller than feck-all impact on growth.

But now she's a busted flush and won't have the authority to implement any painful supply-side reforms. Had she avoided the 45p rate, downplayed what she was doing, allowed the OBR to report and, generally, just done the politics a bit better, this might have been a different story. I am actually somewhat surprised by this insofar as she has demonstrated some political skill in the past, but totally headbutted the pavement here.

[AtW]

It’s u-turning that’s the problem - should have doubled down on it, now she is a goner

[jamesbrown]

It’s u-turning that’s the problem - should have doubled down on it, now she is a goner

She simply realised a bit too late that it wasn't going to get through Parliament. Doubling down would've meant bigger embarrassment later when a bunch of Tories who said they would vote against it actually did vote against it.

She probably isn't a goner, though. Realistically, she will be in place when the Tories lose the next GE because, if you think it's bad now, it would be even worse under another leadership election/coronation.

[AtW]

“Liz Truss takes on Tory rebels in battle to rein in benefits

New war raging in Conservative Party as PM considers keeping boost to Universal Credit below inflation, just after 45p tax rate backlash

Liz Truss is facing a new battle with Tory MPs over reducing benefits in real terms, after being forced to abandon the abolition of the 45p top rate of tax.

Downing Street is considering not increasing Universal Credit in line with inflation, but instead using a lower metric - such as the increase in average earnings - to encourage those on benefits into work.

Tory rebels who forced the Prime Minister into her top tax rate about-turn, including Michael Gove, were already breaking ranks on Monday and warning against the change.

The Telegraph can reveal there is also unease at the top of Government, with some Cabinet ministers understood to believe that refusing to increase benefits by inflation is a “non-starter”.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...rein-benefits/

Yeah, that’ll work now

Eat tulip now Truss, you no Thatcher and never will be

[SueEllen]

“Liz Truss takes on Tory rebels in battle to rein in benefits

New war raging in Conservative Party as PM considers keeping boost to Universal Credit below inflation, just after 45p tax rate backlash

Liz Truss is facing a new battle with Tory MPs over reducing benefits in real terms, after being forced to abandon the abolition of the 45p top rate of tax.

Downing Street is considering not increasing Universal Credit in line with inflation, but instead using a lower metric - such as the increase in average earnings - to encourage those on benefits into work.

Tory rebels who forced the Prime Minister into her top tax rate about-turn, including Michael Gove, were already breaking ranks on Monday and warning against the change.

The Telegraph can reveal there is also unease at the top of Government, with some Cabinet ministers understood to believe that refusing to increase benefits by inflation is a “non-starter”.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...rein-benefits/

Yeah, that’ll work now

Eat tulip now Truss, you no Thatcher and never will be

She is so rich and in her bubble she doesn't realise her friends' companies and her cabinet ministers' departments employ people that are on universal credit. Guess she doesn't want carers etc.

[SueEllen]

She simply realised a bit too late that it wasn't going to get through Parliament. Doubling down would've meant bigger embarrassment later when a bunch of Tories who said they would vote against it actually did vote against it.

She probably isn't a goner, though. Realistically, she will be in place when the Tories lose the next GE because, if you think it's bad now, it would be even worse under another leadership election/coronation.

It would have to be a coronation. Tory MPs can't risk their members choosing another idiot.

[d000hg]

Given the MPs voted for Rishi maybe they can oust her and just give him the job. Is the party actually bound by any laws or can they do whatever they want? The process to pick this leader was not the same as the last time so presumably they have flexibility.

[SueEllen]

Given the MPs voted for Rishi maybe they can oust her and just give him the job. Is the party actually bound by any laws or can they do whatever they want? The process to pick this leader was not the same as the last time so presumably they have flexibility.

The rules haven't changed.

May got a coronation because she was up against someone who didn't know when to keep her mouth shut. Journalists aren't your friend.

[d000hg]

The rules haven't changed.

They decided on the rules for the leadership contest just before it started. Timelines, etc. This one was deliberately done quite quickly.
And my question was not if the rules changed, but if they can change them ad-hoc and basically do what they want.