Who is influencing this government? -and who is funding that influence?

Urmstongran

I care about society.
I care very much about my family.
I want my country to do well.
However I’ve not got tears streaming down my face nor do I feel Armageddon is just around the corner!

Oh the irony! Oh the hyperbole!

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11257865/More-TWO-MILLION-households-face-sharp-rise-mortgage-repayments-two-years.html#comments

Here's some hyperbole from an unusual suspect.

From Jason Hunter- hyperbole?

*The Brexiteers used to say we have to leave the EU because look at the economy and currency in Greece and Italy....
Post-Brexit Broken Britain is now in a worse place than ever.
Cost of Government borrowing in the UK is now higher and more risky than Greece OR Italy!*

It is not hyperbole to express deep concern about the mindset and policies of this government. About the sheer incompetence that is coupled with policies that are setting us on a divisive downward trajectory. Of course I am concerned and so are many others. And we are right to be.

"The markets will react as they will".

That was the Chancellor's reaction to the drop in the pound. He thinks that calling attention to the fact - mentioning it - is an effort to "talk down Britain".

Later in the day he reassured investors, telling them that he doesn't comment on 'market movements'.

... and he thinks "it's a very good day for the UK".

The Laffer Curve really is 'avin' a laff.

I'm not sure where exactly the influence is coming from. I feel - and it's nothing more than that - that Truss is a believer.

She now has a week to prove herself. I don't know how many "letters of no-confidence" have gone in, but she risks losing the Conference next week as they will all be thinking about their seats and, one hopes, their constituents.

They won't have the figures until November, they say. All Truss and Kwarteng can do is a Billy Graham-type show and encourage the MPs at the Conference to "believe". If the Treasury is busy producing a document that makes it all seem possible, ready for November, they will have nothing new to say to their Conference.

I feel she is a believer and will not change. They cannot vote for another leader, surely? She may decide she should sack Kwarteng, blaming him. But then what? Other than the odd ERG Tory backing her, I have watched those we might trust, those far more knowledgeable than any MP, appearing on TV looking like they have been hit by the wrecking ball they believe this to be.

I think Fabricant ought to step in???

DaisyAnne

I'm not sure where exactly the influence is coming from. I feel - and it's nothing more than that - that Truss is a believer.

You could be right.

She was of course, in her youth, an anti-monarchist and, later, a staunch Remainer, but is now a dedicated Brexiter.

As she said recently,

"I think it's fair to say that when I was in my youth I was a professional controversialist and I liked exploring ideas and stirring things up.

Well she's certainly stirred things up again. In a controversial way. So there's consistency.

I genuinely hope her gamble pays off - literally - for the sake of the millions in the country who are, in the meantime, going to be wrung and hung out to dry.

Will enriching further the already rich really lead to growth - will it stimulate the economy? Do the rich put their windfalls back into that economy, or do they put it into their bank accounts or property portfolios?

So we wait for trickle down and meanwhile cope with the hundreds of £s added to existing mortgage repayments, the increased hike in energy prices and the soaring cost of living. We will deal with the NHS that is floundering because it's on its knees, the cost of social care (and the lack of it), the long, long waits for ambulances which have resulted in a few people dying because the wait was too long.

Or not? The mood in the UK is changing. Our tolerance is wearing thin. Some - how many? - are saying, "enough is enough". When you've already cut to the bone and the bone is exposed, what do you do then? If you keep running faster and faster and still end up in the same place as you started, how long before patience is exhausted?

Maybe we should all become 'believers' in Britannia Unchained, the holy bible of the libertarian free-marketeers - even if those same free-market disciples themselves ignore what the markets are saying?

I've never heard of Tufton Street but it's been clear to me that unelected individuals are directing off stage for their own personal motive and gain. There's really no other explanation for this lemming like behaviour. They have no mandate from the public, or the majority of their own MPs come to think of it. We deserve a General election so that their policies can be put before the electorate. I think that what is going on is criminally negligent.

I genuinely hope her gamble pays off - literally - for the sake of the millions in the country who are, in the meantime, going to be wrung and hung out to dry.

There is no way on God's earth it's going to pay off, Dickens. It's based on fantasy and disproven economic theories. Not to mention past experience.

Goodness, people scoff at my adherence to MMT, but at least it's based on evidence and research.

I have just been listening to Paul Johnson he points out:

If Labour wins the next election, they are likely to inherit a lot more economic problems than Blair did in 1997. Committing to big tax cuts when public finances will be in a poor state and they will want to increase public spending is risky for them too.

He also said that logically, this government should freeze all state spending for five years while any upturn (assuming there is one) fed through, unfreezing areas and putting money into them as we became better off. He didn't sound as if he thought this was a good idea, just the other side of hiking up the income of the rich. Sadly, because we are all aware they want to get rid of the NHS, etc., it may have been/be, what they are planning to do.

DaisyAnne

I have just been listening to Paul Johnson he points out:

If Labour wins the next election, they are likely to inherit a lot more economic problems than Blair did in 1997. Committing to big tax cuts when public finances will be in a poor state and they will want to increase public spending is risky for them too.

He also said that logically, this government should freeze all state spending for five years while any upturn (assuming there is one) fed through, unfreezing areas and putting money into them as we became better off. He didn't sound as if he thought this was a good idea, just the other side of hiking up the income of the rich. Sadly, because we are all aware they want to get rid of the NHS, etc., it may have been/be, what they are planning to do.

Cutting or freezing state spending is the very last thing we should be doing. Johnson is still working on the 'household budget' theory of national finances.

Osborne tried it and just created a depression/recession that it took a number of painful years to get out of. And left the country weakened by poverty and deprivation.

The economy needs money putting into it. I can't see businesses or overseas investors doing it (apart from asset stripping disaster capitalists). If no-one else will do it the government needs to do it. It doesn't matter what the source of the money is; only investment will save us. State money is as good as anyone else's and, as all state enterprise is supplied by private business providing goods and services, and we have the resources available to purchase, it cannot do anything but revive the economy.

Think Roosevelt's New Deal, a massive programme of state investment, which rescued the US from the effects of the 1930s Depression.

MaizieD

^I genuinely hope her gamble pays off - literally - for the sake of the millions in the country who are, in the meantime, going to be wrung and hung out to dry.^

There is no way on God's earth it's going to pay off, Dickens. It's based on fantasy and disproven economic theories. Not to mention past experience.

Goodness, people scoff at my adherence to MMT, but at least it's based on evidence and research.

Yer, I know MaizieD

I'm being facetious with a straight face.

Have you seen this on TWITTER?

Kwasi Kwarteng receives the shortest email in recorded history

From: IMF

Subject: WTF

Dickens

MaizieD

I genuinely hope her gamble pays off - literally - for the sake of the millions in the country who are, in the meantime, going to be wrung and hung out to dry.

There is no way on God's earth it's going to pay off, Dickens. It's based on fantasy and disproven economic theories. Not to mention past experience.

Goodness, people scoff at my adherence to MMT, but at least it's based on evidence and research.

Yer, I know MaizieD

I'm being facetious with a straight face.

Have you seen this on TWITTER?

Kwasi Kwarteng receives the shortest email in recorded history

From: IMF

Subject: WTF

???

MaizieD

DaisyAnne

I have just been listening to Paul Johnson he points out:

If Labour wins the next election, they are likely to inherit a lot more economic problems than Blair did in 1997. Committing to big tax cuts when public finances will be in a poor state and they will want to increase public spending is risky for them too.

He also said that logically, this government should freeze all state spending for five years while any upturn (assuming there is one) fed through, unfreezing areas and putting money into them as we became better off. He didn't sound as if he thought this was a good idea, just the other side of hiking up the income of the rich. Sadly, because we are all aware they want to get rid of the NHS, etc., it may have been/be, what they are planning to do.

Cutting or freezing state spending is the very last thing we should be doing. Johnson is still working on the 'household budget' theory of national finances.

Osborne tried it and just created a depression/recession that it took a number of painful years to get out of. And left the country weakened by poverty and deprivation.

The economy needs money putting into it. I can't see businesses or overseas investors doing it (apart from asset stripping disaster capitalists). If no-one else will do it the government needs to do it. It doesn't matter what the source of the money is; only investment will save us. State money is as good as anyone else's and, as all state enterprise is supplied by private business providing goods and services, and we have the resources available to purchase, it cannot do anything but revive the economy.

Think Roosevelt's New Deal, a massive programme of state investment, which rescued the US from the effects of the 1930s Depression.

I could not agree more Maizie, but I have a horrible feeling that is or was, exactly what they were intending.

Think Roosevelt's New Deal, a massive programme of state investment, which rescued the US from the effects of the 1930s Depression.

I’m not sure Roosevelts methods would go down too well these days, there was of course another regeneration campaign in the 1930s in Nazi Germany

Dickens

MayBee70

It’s hard to believe it’s happening It crossed my mind tonight that this country is like an abused person who has been so badly treated for so long they don’t expect anything better. I never thought I’d be terrified of growing old in this country and I never thought I’d question whether it was right to bring children into the world.

Neil Kinnock was right...

I warn you not to be ordinary, I warn you not to be young, I warn you not to fall ill, and I warn you not to grow old.

... he knew.

Read Britannia Unchained authored by Kwasi Kwarteng, Pritti Patel, Dominic Raab - it's all there.

In the mad rush to get Brexit done, did any Tory voter who "lent" their vote stop to think about the ideology of the party they were giving it to?

The warning signs were all there - the comments (on record) made by Johnson, Rees-Mogg, etc about the working class, the contempt in which they hold us.

"I couldn't vote for Corbyn" cried the Left. Yes, how evil - he wanted a better society for the many, not the few... the bastard.

"Labour will bankrupt the country" they said. Hollow laugh from me as I watched the £ tumble after Truss' / Kwarteng's bonanza spooked the markets.

God, I'm so angry right now.

Oh exactly, exactly Dickens!

I’m not sure Roosevelts methods would go down too well these days, there was of course another regeneration campaign in the 1930s in Nazi Germany

But in 1930s Germany there was minimal control over the issue of money.

You can't pour it in without taking much of it out again.

Which is why I keep pointing out that most of the 'created' money spent by the state would return to it by way of taxation. Some might be saved for awhile for future use, but as soon as it's used it is subject to taxation.

It's countries which have very poor tax regimes, or a scarcity of resources to purchase, which suffer hyperinflation.

I'm sure Katie59 can respond herself, but I think she was referring to Hjalmar Schacht's initiatives, when he was Finance Minister, not the previous hyper-inflation.

growstuff

I'm sure Katie59 can respond herself, but I think she was referring to Hjalmar Schacht's initiatives, when he was Finance Minister, not the previous hyper-inflation.

Sorry, assumed it was Weimar because it generally is.

Schacht's initiative seems to have been very successful, based on a money substitute which was redeemable for currency, and illustrates the point I was making about state investment rescuing the economy.

So why would neither initiative (Roosevelt's or Schacht's 'not go down well'?

In Schacht's case, initiatives had a definite goal (war). I suspect that's what Katie meant. The measures Schacht took were fine and halted Germany's hyperinflation. He resigned when he opposed expenditure on rearmament. In many ways, he was a man ahead of his time.

In both cases it was a response to mass unemployment and destitution of large numbers of people, money was poured into improving infrastructure, manufacturing and armaments. Conscription was used to mobilize the labour to do the work. Ultimately that led to nationalism and WW2

We don’t have that situation now, we have full employment, although we need some infrastructure improvement, notably energy, otherwise we should be consuming less not more, traveling less too.

Any large scale infrastructure plan is going to mean a lot of migrant labour or redeploying large numbers of the UK workforce. I might even approve of such a plan if I knew what it was.

Full employment is a myth. There are many areas of the country where unemployment is high (14% in Blackpool). Most of these areas are former industrial towns. The problem is that people can't just move for work because accommodation costs in high employment areas are much higher.

I'm not altogether sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with my suggestion, Katie59.

But we surely don't have to wait for mass unemployment and destitution before attempting to rescue the economy?

I think our full employment is spurious. The criteria used for determining 'in employment' is, let me remind everyone, is that someone should be in paid employment for 1 hr per week.

fullfact.org/economy/employment-since-2010-definition/

growstuff

Full employment is a myth. There are many areas of the country where unemployment is high (14% in Blackpool). Most of these areas are former industrial towns. The problem is that people can't just move for work because accommodation costs in high employment areas are much higher.

Without wanting to sound like a PPB (just learnt that acronym and need to show it off) but Labour's plan for investing in green energy and insulation would bring jobs to the regions, as would most public spending. Teachers, nurses, builders etc...