What is the Tories *real* intention?

I have decided that after reading and listening to loads of economists, journalists etc the Tufton Street free marketeers are finally running the show with Truss as a willing puppet with her side kick Kwarteng.

So what we have before us is laissez faire economics and all that entails. It is that simple.

That is kind of my impression WWM, but given my bias, I'm not sure if I'm rational about it!

They know they are going to loose the next election so they are giving the rich (donors, friends etc) as much as possible leaving behind the biggest debt ever! Then when Labour get in, they wont be able to do much in 5 years (too busy sorting out debt) so the Tories can come back and do even more damage!

I do understand (from you and others, WWM) that "Tufton Street" are "running the show". But that doesn't even hint at what that will mean. This might give you some idea: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63039558

My take on this article is that they are people who will want to:
1. Get growth high by getting spending down.
2. Possibly cut spending by £150bn and £200bn.
4. Hold an optimistic view about what the market can achieve.
5. Hold a pessimistic view about state projects.
6. Hold a sceptical view about the EU.
7. Want what is their own definition of Brexit.
8. Take advice from the Tax Payers Alliance, e.g., Jacob Rees-Mogg, met the TPA in March called to discuss paid time off for trade union officials.

I still feel I could do with more insight, but this may tell those of us who know little where the continuation of the Conservative government expects to go.

I would not be surprised to find some agreeing with these intentions.

Interesting to hear how many times "taxpayers" was used in Liz Truss interviews this morning.

Another question that's just occurred to me.

If laissez faire is the objective, how is the handing of contracts which were either not fulfilled or badly fulfilled (as during the covid crisis, at other times also I assume, but less reported upon) seen? Because that isn't anything to do with market forces, it is friends making deals for other friends. Is it acceptable or do moral conservatives see this as wrong?

To sell off the NHS

GagaJo

That is kind of my impression WWM, but given my bias, I'm not sure if I'm rational about it!

Well they (Tufton) have been working behind the scenes for a number of years (about 15) and include a number of groups secretly funded. Some we have heard of like the Tax payers group and others, but some work in the shadows. They got set up as a result of the fall of Thatcher laissez faire economics and the rise of mainstream orthodox economics. They copied a group of like minded groups in USA.
But they all without exception have one aim in focus which is to bring back laissez faire to the U.K.

To do so, first they had to extract the U.K. from Europe, which we know succeeded and then they had to get a Tory leader who was sold on the ideology of small state individualism. Truss seems to be that individual, although I think given her past history, it is more expediency to get the premiership rather than fundamental belief.

That is really informative WWM, thank you.

Yes, I agree about Truss. Same as BJ.

Tax Payers Alliance.

They say their Mission is:

Taxes have been rising but there has been very little improvement in the quality of schools, hospitals and transport provided by government. National debt has now surpassed £1 trillion and unless action is taken to tackle unsustainable public spending future generations will inherit the consequences of today’s extravagance. High taxes damage the British economy and our way of life. Burdensome taxation stunts economic growth and tens of thousands of jobs are being lost as huge tax bills reduce incentives to work, invest and save. In the long-run, higher taxes make us all poorer.

What does laissez faire mean to them WWM, please?

Just heard a bit of a Truss interview. My son was right, she has no EQ. He did also say don't think she is unintelligent. I feel warned.

Someone (male, didn't get his name) on Politics Live (backing Truss et al.) certainly seems to know a lot about "The Market" and is pushing the government to "lower economic distortions".

What Is Market Distortion?
To free-market purists, market distortion is any situation in which prices are determined by anything except the unfettered forces of supply and demand. By that definition, truly free markets are scarce. In a more practical sense, market distortion means any interference that significantly affects prices and, in some cases, risk-taking and asset allocation.

Governments are the source of most market distortions, including regulation, subsidies, taxes, and tariffs. At the same time, central banks have been accused of distorting markets in recent decades with monetary policy and asset purchases. Some of the world's biggest corporations also have enough power to distort their markets. (Source: Investopedia)

It's almost as if they see themselves as enemies of the government and central banks. But then, I suppose that is exactly what they do believe.

DaisyAnne

What does laissez faire mean to them WWM, please?

Well, if you look at what they are saying by implication of their criticism of what they term “high taxation”.

They clearly do not believe that the state should be involved in redistribution, but that the individual should be allowed to keep what he/she earns and spend it as they wish. Their argument would almost certainly be that individuals know better of their needs than governments.

It fits neatly into laissez faire economics.

Yes, the ultimate laissez faire economy leaves everything to the vagaries of the market. No state interference, including no regulation etc.

They have complete faith that the market will provide the ideal economy for the individual to pursue their happiness without interference or hinderance.

So the only thing that the state should do in this economy is to ensure that the market can operate without hinderance. So tax will be needed for defence and law and order etc. and arguably an educated workforce meeting the needs of the market.

So, I had the gut reaction many on here had. Now I want to understand exactly what we are up against. How does a government, that has decided not to govern, work? They will cut everything. Benefits, including pensions, and all the things that actually help our economy grow, e.g., education, healthcare, and the physical infrastructure. We have already been taken a long way down this route in the last 12 years Conservative government. Many of the traditionally accepted, mixed economy areas are now market orientated.

I think this is very Taxpayer Alliance orientated view. Austerity is just another name for what is going to be done.

Hmm. Need to read what others say and think some more.

Well, there you have it and the weakness in the laissez faire argument.

Of course there are degrees of free market economics.But look at the idea of charter cities - free from government interference. Free from regulatory rule like planning, employment protection, animal rights etc. ,

Whitewavemark2

So the only thing that the state should do in this economy is to ensure that the market can operate without hinderance. So tax will be needed for defence and law and order etc. and arguably an educated workforce meeting the needs of the market.

This is the vital bit, isn't it.

Of course there are degrees of free market economics.

It would be really helpful, WWM, if someone in favour of what this group seems to be saying, would come along and explain to what degree they think this group will go. I think we are being told it will go as far as it can. I would like to think I am wrong. No one has voted when this has been out in the open.

The character of this group of lobbyists etc is that they remain more or less in the shadows. There are some who represent their ideology in parliament. People like Redwood, Baker and Mogg, and of course now the PM and Kwarteng.

I think the only restraint on them will be what they think they can get away with politically.

Thatcher understood that and introduced her policies much more gradually, but this lot have gone pell Mell into it.

Their first big mistake.

I've just been catching up with a few other views than GN. Generally, the people seem very cross that Truss has made such a mistake. They really don't understand. Truss and crew will not see this as a mistake.

It is going where they want it to go. All this spending will give them a "reason" to privatise schools with free places for the poorest, to keep putting pensions up by less than people need but asking for brownie points when they put up Pension Credit. Eventually the only state pension will be a means tested one. And heaven knows what they will do with benefits - do away with incapacity ones?

I am very very scared for my GC and as yet unborn GGC.

I wonder if they will do as they threatened and continue to cut yet more tax in November.

If they are still there in November, they will blame others and say it's necessary. That's what they do. However, will they still be here?

The worst thing is their views are ones they could argue. Rational people do hold them. They are doing this under-the-counter because they know they would not win that argument. Reminds me of something in our recent past.