Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: BillyStubbsTears on September 11, 2023, 09:05:19 am
-
...this time last year, Liz Truss was PM.
Yeah. I know.
Anyway, she's had a year to think about it, and apparently it was all the fault of left wingers.
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1700705841819611247?s=20
Which is odd, because I thought it was the global financial markets that said her ideas were utter batshit, and her brain that was at fault for not being able to send coherent messages to her mouth when she tried to speak.
-
What a silly Mare, I hope someone gave her both Barrels!
-
Mistakenly stumbled on to this thread, wrongly assuming it was an opportunity to pay tribute to Take That.
-
What a silly Mare, I hope someone gave her both Barrels!
She might well be silly. What does that make the great number of Tory MPs and members that elected her?
-
I agree with that bst.
But I suppose the same could be said about those who put Corbyn in charge of the LP and he brought about the biggest defeat in decades for them.
-
...this time last year, Liz Truss was PM.
Yeah. I know.
Anyway, she's had a year to think about it, and apparently it was all the fault of left wingers.
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1700705841819611247?s=20
Which is odd, because I thought it was the global financial markets that said her ideas were utter batshit, and her brain that was at fault for not being able to send coherent messages to her mouth when she tried to speak.
That's absolutely mental.
Blaming the left for it too.
It's first class trolling though
-
Funny how the financial markets aka bankers are used as some positive barometer in this instance ie the markets went down so it must have been a bad idea, all hail what bankers say. Yet in any other case such as 08 crash, bail outs, rising oil they're the devil who only care about themselves. A narrative fits any agenda when it suits
-
Funny how the financial markets aka bankers are used as some positive barometer in this instance ie the markets went down so it must have been a bad idea, all hail what bankers say. Yet in any other case such as 08 crash, bail outs, rising oil they're the devil who only care about themselves. A narrative fits any agenda when it suits
Do you really think it's funny?
One was a global economy crisis.
The other was some mad tory.
I blame the left.
-
Back to Lost Trust. How bitter is she?
More than Nadine?
More than Boris?
More than the idiots that voted for them?
Scrap Lost Truss from that list?
-
She has a very small point in some of it. Her agenda couldn't happen because there was too much opposition to it from countries that have established order in another way.
I'm more astounded that she neither saw it not was clever enough to figure out the reaction to it.
-
BfYP.
A reasoned response finally. I'd have argue that she didn't have a point at all tho.
Did she really think going against the grain globally was going to help the economy?
The evidence was clear from the global reaction. She was laughed at everywhere
-
Funny how the financial markets aka bankers are used as some positive barometer in this instance ie the markets went down so it must have been a bad idea, all hail what bankers say. Yet in any other case such as 08 crash, bail outs, rising oil they're the devil who only care about themselves. A narrative fits any agenda when it suits
If that made one iota of sense, I'd be happy to reply. But...nope.
-
She has a very small point in some of it. Her agenda couldn't happen because there was too much opposition to it from countries that have established order in another way.
I'm more astounded that she neither saw it not was clever enough to figure out the reaction to it.
BFYP
The agenda couldn't happen because it was in contradiction to established economic facts.
There's a small but very powerful group of fringe far-right economists who argue that if you reduce taxes for the already wealthy, they are so inspired to work harder that they earn more and pay more absolute tax at the lower level.
It's pushed hard by the likes of the IEA in this country. That was the core of Truss and Kamikwaze-nomics.
The problem is that it is utter b*llocks and has never been borne out by the facts.
When Truss and Kamikwaze actually put that in their Budget, the financial markets very correctly saw it as effectively giving up on ever balancing current spending. And the result was textbook economics. The pound collapsed and Govt bond rates had to rocket. To the extent that the pensions system almost collapsed.
For Truss to blame that on a Left-wing establishment is mad as a box of frogs. To blame it on "other countries" is nearly as daft. It is just basic economics.
-
Back on topic again.
Liz Truss.
Proper idiot. How the f**k did she get the top job?
-
She's still in power
Monday: Truss says we should ditch green policies.
Tuesday: Sunak ditches green policies.
Count down the seconds till the useless that's are out.
-
Terrible idea.
-
What a silly Mare, I hope someone gave her both Barrels!
She might well be silly. What does that make the great number of Tory MPs and members that elected her?
Only that they didn't want to elect that sneaky , underhanded, lying weasel , or "Johnson's back stabber" as they openly said at the time at any cost
Wonder how that went ? Oh , he got in anyway eh ? Who'd have thought
Get us PR soon so we avoid extremism please ? From whatever source it comes
-
What a silly Mare, I hope someone gave her both Barrels!
She might well be silly. What does that make the great number of Tory MPs and members that elected her?
Only that they didn't want to elect that sneaky , underhanded, lying weasel , or "Johnson's back stabber" as they openly said at the time at any cost
Wonder how that went ? Oh , he got in anyway eh ? Who'd have thought
Get us PR soon so we avoid extremism please ? From whatever source it comes
Massive challenge for Labour if the manage to become the next government, will they implement changes to enable PR?
Does anyone really need to be told?
Same shite coming from a slightly different direction which will all add up to precisely nothing changing at all.
Its just going to be someone else's turn.
Meanwhile the country sinks lower than an adders knacker sack.
-
My hunch is that Labour too will ignore the screams for PR.
Unless they run the Country with a huge majority for 1 maybe the heady heights of 2 terms and then as they are running out of steam introduce PR as an "up yours" move
Who knows ? I care , but of course I have no idea.
-
My hunch is that Labour too will ignore the screams for PR.
Unless they run the Country with a huge majority for 1 maybe the heady heights of 2 terms and then as they are running out of steam introduce PR as an "up yours" move
Who knows ? I care , but of course I have no idea.
Wolfie, there's no way that Labour will endorse PR, or will be given a second term.
-
Wolfie, there's no way that Labour will endorse PR, or will be given a second term.
The chances are high of Labour losing all their Scottish feed in coming years. Install PR before then or the wilderness will call for a very long time.
If they are minus their Scots, Labour would need to be appealing to the floating middle ground more, This would mean their personel and policies will become more right wing than they currently are. We'd then be in a worse pseudo democracy than we currently have, heading towards what the USA has.
-
Starmer is against PR, and has already ruled it out for an incoming Labour government.
https://bylinetimes.com/2023/04/27/keir-starmer-now-opposes-scrapping-westminsters-voting-system-for-pr-in-blow-for-reformers/
Determined to copy the mistake made by Gordon Brown, whose failure to bring electoral reform perpetuated the dysfunctional system.
-
Fascinating how the usual suspects roll yet another thread into their "Starmer's a Kitson" black hole.
Anyway. This Tory has got Sunak's motives fingered.
https://x.com/ZacGoldsmith/status/1704617772158767465?s=20
-
This is the sort of bullshit Culture War b*llocks that Goldsmith is talking about.
https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1704522548648509467
Sunak wants the nation's pensioners to read The Mail with shaking hands and say, "Eeh, them woke are going to tax me if I don't put meat in 7 different bins."
-
Starmer is against PR, and has already ruled it out for an incoming Labour government.
https://bylinetimes.com/2023/04/27/keir-starmer-now-opposes-scrapping-westminsters-voting-system-for-pr-in-blow-for-reformers/
Determined to copy the mistake made by Gordon Brown, whose failure to bring electoral reform perpetuated the dysfunctional system.
Ah, Starmer will probably change his mind on this.
-
Never forget what Labour did to the working mans pension pot the last time they were allowed to squander hard working peoples future.
-
Why do people seem to get bigoted and bitter as they get older?
Next thing we know they will be blaming the opposition for f#£K&ng the country up the bum hole.
-
Probably when you have been robbed you don't want to fall for the crap again.
-
A pint of mild and bitter thanks
-
Still there ranting away.
https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1705659707728212444
For clarity, this is the OBR that said Truss's economic plans would be a f**king car crash.
Who do you trust? Them or her?
-
The OBR was created by George Osbourne to lock in bias towards neo liberal economics, precisely to limit political opponents moving on from the privatisation fetish.
It is no more "independent" than the Bank of England in its application of key assumptions to manage inflation, for example.
Brown created that independence, Osbourne ran with it, and now Reeves is promising austerity with her ludicrous "fiscal rules" scam.
No wonder George Osbourne is thrilled to big up Team Keith for blowing his horn;
https://nitter.net/pic/media%2FF6paedcXQAA5wBd.png%3Fname%3Dsmall%26format%3Dwebp
There you have the neo liberal consensus in a nutshell!
-
Albie
I'm sorry but that is utter nonsense.
The OBR exists to consider the effect of Govt policy on the fiscal position of the country. There's nothing "neo-liberal" about having to balance the books over the long term. It's got sweet FActo do with privatisation.
Christ knows I've enough criticisms of Osborne's policies to fill a filing cabinet, but in creating the OBR, he was broadly right. It's absolute ignorance of basic economics to think you can ignore fiscal balance and have a long term healthy economy.
That was precisely the almighty f**k up that Truss and Kwarteng visited on the country. Your rant against the OBR puts you in their team.
-
What a silly Mare, I hope someone gave her both Barrels!
She might well be silly. What does that make the great number of Tory MPs and members that elected her?
Racists?
-
BST,
You are confusing the issue of "balancing the books" with the demands of the political cycle.
If you believe that governments have to "balance the books over the long term", I'm afraid you do not understand modern economics, or the banking industry.
There is no valid economic reason that the fiscal position needs to cycle in parallel with the electoral timetable.
It is perfectly possible to take the view that a budget deficit beyond a parliament is desirable to encourage major infrastructural updates, to give one example.
To make an artificial timescale the determinant of an investment strategy is to miss the opportunity to speed structural reform.
I have no issue with the OBR giving a view, but it should not be a limitation on policy implementation if the need is demonstrated.
The OBR has not accurately predicted the financial implications of massive cost over-runs in relation to Hs2 or the Hinkley nuclear project.
The overall contribution of these projects to the national accounts is large, and spans across different administrations.
I have pointed out before that the requirements of an economy in a climate breakdown scenario means that the conventions of the neo liberal economy should be rejected.
There are a number of assumptions behind the OBR that do not address the fundamental realignment of the economy required.
The idea that business as usual responses will be sufficent is optimistic to the point of myopia.
-
If you believe that governments have to "balance the books over the long term", I'm afraid you do not understand modern economics
This is the precise equivalent of saying "if you believe that you shouldn't jump off a cliff because you'll die, I'm afraid you do not understand the modern theory of gravity".
What on EARTH are you trying to say here? That a Government can run a deficit in perpetuity?
That was precisely Liz Truss's economics.
-
BST,
You have not understood the position Labour are taking, as well as how the economy works.
Reeves is saying that Labour will be bound by the OBR recommendations, having set the fiscal rules which the OBR use as a foundation benchmark.
As the fiscal rules are themselves arbitrary, and in the view of many misplaced, the result is error squared.
All the OBR is enabled to do is advise on the liklihood of achieving financial objectives which may be themselves questionable.
Their work is a probability assessment with uncertainty bounds, rather than policy guidance.
The OBR speaks to the relationship between levels of public debt and GDP, on matters that have a predictable cost profile.
Two points:
1) GDP is not a relevant metric when considering climate impacts on the UK economy.
2) Public debt needs to be framed alongside the issue of private debt.
Yes, a government can run a level of public debt over a longer time frame. if the confidence of the investors is maintained.
This is not to be confused with Truss, who lost that confidence through reckless policy intentions.
Short term demands pop up requiring prompt action, long term interventions extend beyond the set time frame and into unknown borrowing cost territory.
Do you think an investment decision outside the matters considered by the OBR is a reasonable response to a crisis like the RACC problem?
Doing so because the problem is live and needs resolution, rather than because the cost of remediation is supported by the low cost of borrowing.
-
Albie.
You had a rant about the OBR that was shot through with mistakes and misunderstandings. You've now doubled down on that.
The OBR doesn't give any advice. It isn't guided by any Govt policy, or Govt imposed fiscal guidance. IT models what the likely effect will be of Govt policy. In modelling the likely effects, it uses methods which, while not perfect, are among the best we have.
The point is that the Govt then cannot do what you and so many on the Left do, which is to airily ignore the economic consequences of policy decisions. It can be held to task. Not by the OBR, because the OBR has no executive authority. By the country.
Yes, we have a climate crisis. But that doesn't mean the basic rules of economics don't apply. IF we are going to spend the money we need to do to address that, we need to make that decision in the full, clear knowledge of what the consequences will be for our economy. It is the role of the OBR to try to predict that. Nothing more, nothing less.
The markets hammered the UK this time last year precisely because we had a PM and Chancellor who thought they could ram through a massive reduction in Govt tax take, whilst cutting the OBR out and refusing to have their assessment of the effect of this on the fiscal position. Be honest. You would like a left Government to do the same. Fortunately, the sort of Govt you wish to see will never, ever come to pass. Even the Corbyn-led Labour party understood that fiscal books have to be balanced over the cycle.