And the next prime Minister will be………

Those wanting a general election at this time are mad. Everyone has other things to worry about with the run up to Christmas and all the other problems they have at this time. Oh and by the way....many Joe and Jane Bloggs are actually saying 'bring back Boris'. I actually like Penny Mordaunt....she has a way about her...strength of character. She has great leadership qualities.

What I don’t understand are the people that regard Johnson as their cuddly pal; one of them. Love him for his faults ( of which there are many). Rory Stewart ( yes I know I bang on about him but he talks such sense) says he went to one Bullington Club meeting and never went again because it was so vile. And yet working people are idolising a man who belonged to a group that used to burn banknotes in front of the poor.

Of course we do not specifically elect a PM, but s/he is part of the package the electorate choose. We have certainly not chosen this package of garbage and a GE is the only honourable way forward. But the Tories of course have no honour and merely want to stay in power. They are supported by big business and most of the press, so the belief that they are the 'proper' party of government runs deep. I just hope the electorate wake up and that we all have long enough memories to vote Labour at the next election. Not that they are perfect, but our NHS, pensions and benefits are at least higher on their list of priorities - and I don't think they tell as many lies, for telling lies has become a habit with the Tories and nothing they say can be trusted. As for Braverman - oh dear. It's alarming that a fascist like that ever got elected to parliament in the first place and I'm tempted to conclude that if she were white she wouldn't want to support those cruel, right-wing policies for fear of being called racist!

Rishi might be the best of a bad (tory)bunch.at least he seems to like dishing out money.

A GE is needed now,we are sick of crazy tory looney party.

I think it will be Rishi , but I'm not entirely happy about that. I think he will be very competent , but I'm not a Tory supporter , and feel that the longer the party is in power, the worse things will get for the more vulnerable in society , and our NHS will be destroyed . We in the North willbnever see levelling up .Rishi will be popular at the next election .

Whitewavemark2

If it goes to the members - Mordaunt.

If it is just MPs - Sunak.

However, I do think that Mordaunt will be the leader that most MPs can unite around.

She seems capable of taking advice and considering others' views when in power which would be a pleasant change. At least we wouldn't have two amateurs setting a mini-budget without any professional advice or assessment.

I just cannot believe that the same MPs who ousted Boris are now suggesting that he comes back.

Excellent post, @Dickens , thank you. But yes, depressing! The more so as I get older…..

... a disaster, whoever they are!

DaisyAnne

I am with those who cannot believe that others think the trickle-down theory will work. In fact, I don't think they do. What I think they believe in is masters and slaves. They think the slaves will be grateful for what they are "given" if the masters are allowed the riches of the world. And, of course, they think they are part of the "master" group.

I'm pre-occupied with the mind-set of the electorate, particularly that section of it that is impoverished yet consistently votes for a party that increases such impoverishment. There appear to be, in the main, two divergent groups.

One group appears to believe that the 'rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate' is the natural order of things, and that any attempt to interfere with the 'rich' man is asking for trouble because he will up sticks and take his wealth - the trickle-down from which the poor man relies - and find another castle in a more lucrative location.

Then there are John Steinbeck's 'temporarily-embarrassed-millionaires', who think the wealth is there for the taking but the only reason they can't get at it is because of those blasted individuals who insist on a more equitable society for everyone.

There's quite a lot of references to "magic money trees" from both groups, but neither appear to understand how an economy functions, or why it functions the way it does.

It's all a bit depressing.

Keynes isn’t and has never been defunct, theories are developed and changed with time. Much of what is considered “new” and relevant in economic theory can trace its roots back to the founding fathers.

I doubt that any effective economist's theory ever becomes completely defunct. Some will go into the next theory or, if that is a swing to an opposite, the one after that. Keynes made many good points, but no theorist is God, after all.

I am with those who cannot believe that others think the trickle-down theory will work. In fact, I don't think they do. What I think they believe in is masters and slaves. They think the slaves will be grateful for what they are "given" if the masters are allowed the riches of the world. And, of course, they think they are part of the "master" group.

It's quite horrifying.

M0nica

*MaizieD' I go for John Maynard Keynes explanation:
Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back

Of curse, Keynes, himself, is now a defunct economist, but in this case I think his comments have stood the test of time.

He did rather make himself a hostage to fortune by writing that, though, didn't he?

Keynes has been 'defunct' since the 1970s. Only now is he getting a bit of a revival...

*MaizieD' I go for John Maynard Keynes explanation:
Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back

Of curse, Keynes, himself, is now a defunct economist, but in this case I think his comments have stood the test of time.

GrannyRose I wonder if the poor are less poor because of trades unions? Checkout the Tolpuddle Martyrs.

it amazes me that any government could think it would. let alone any private citizens, who are generally better informed than government

It amazes me, MOnica, that there is a whole swathe of grown up people, notably think tanks such as the IEA and the Adam Smith Institute, and many tory MPs and their acolytes, who seem utterly convinced that trickle down works and who sell it like fury to the general public.

Either they really do believe it on an intellectual level, or they are deliberately using the concept to blind the public to the fact that the wealthy are getting ever wealthier at the expense of the poor.

Trickle down is not how people became less poor.

www.economicsonline.co.uk/definitions/trickle-down-economics-why-it-only-works-in-theory.html/

www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trickledowntheory.asp

www.liverpool.ac.uk/heseltine-institute/blog/trickle-down-economics-doesnt-work/

So many pages of articles from accredited sources on Google to explain why trickle down doesn't work, that it amazes me that any government could think it would. let alone any private citizens, who are generally better informed than government ministers.

MaizieD

I can actually 'see' the reasoning behind your statement about our Victorian ancestors, but if you think that the fact that there is more money for everyone 100+ years later has anything to do with trickle down I have a bridge you might be interested in buying.... grin

... neither does it take account of the gradual organisation of the working class (including children) into a force that your Josiah Bounderbys up at t'mill in yon Coketown were ultimately forced to acknowledge Not so much the largesse of 'trickle-down, more like the power of our unified ancestors who'd had enough of starvation and poverty!

GrannyRose15

So, you don't think trickle down works? Presumably you think the poor now are as poor as our Victorian ancestors were.

It's not 'us', who thinks it, GR15. It's those academics who have closely examined the data and have come to the conclusion that 'trickle down' has little or no effect on poverty.

I can actually 'see' the reasoning behind your statement about our Victorian ancestors, but if you think that the fact that there is more money for everyone 100+ years later has anything to do with trickle down I have a bridge you might be interested in buying....

blog.hubspot.com/marketing/common-logical-fallacies#:~:text=Logical%20fallacies%20are%20deceptive%20or%20false%20arguments%20that

I read this online today. I thought we could all have fun spotting when each one pops up on Gransnet.

Number 7, I think.

So, you don't think trickle down works? Presumably you think the poor now are as poor as our Victorian ancestors were.

MaizieD

MaizieD

I know it was by Dr Limberg, Lecturer in Public Policy at King’s College.

Thanks. I'll look him up, Dickens, there's sure to be a list of his publications somewhere.

Found it.

Here's the Abstract (which Dickens reported accurately). I'll post the link in case anyone would like to read the full, peer reviewed, paper

Abstract
The last 50 years has seen a dramatic decline in taxes on the rich across the advanced democracies. There is still fervent debate in both political and academic circles, however, about the economic consequences of this sweeping change in tax policy. This article contributes to this debate by utilizing a newly constructed indicator of taxes on the rich to identify all instances of major tax reductions on the rich in 18 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries between 1965 and 2015. We then estimate the average effects of these major tax reforms on key macroeconomic aggregates. We find tax cuts for the rich lead to higher income inequality in both the short- and medium term. In contrast, such reforms do not have any significant effect on economic growth or unemployment.

Our results therefore provide strong evidence against the influential political–economic idea that tax cuts for the rich ‘trickle down’ to boost the wider economy.

kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files/166207939/Hope_Limberg_SER_2022.pdf

... great! Thanks MaizieD. I have so many reports, papers, etc bookmarked, stuck in 'favourites' etc - in complete disarray.

It stuck in my mind because of the length of the study.

Will read it anew. Trickle-down my foot... pah!

M0nica

Johnson thinks that he can win the next election for the Conservatives, I think he is more likely to lose it for them.

He is now a busted flush. The electorate have seen what a duplicitous nincompoop he is and after the way he ignored COVID rules, that he approved, I am sorry, his capacity to win elections has gone.

In some ways it would be easier for Labour if they don't have a GE now. They could only make things better after yet another two years of the Tories. However, I have just been reading an article in this week's Economist on where cuts will be made and, although it is a tough position to put them in, I do want people who care about everyone to be making these cuts.

As always, they are long articles, but one sentence stands out. "But after a decade of squeezes and pandemic related backlogs there is little fat to trim." It then talks about the welfare bill looking vulnerable. With a party that seems to think the poorest can live on fresh air I am very worried.

Farzanah

Whitewavemark2

I heard this morning, that Johnson will not put his hat into the ring unless he is pretty sure he can win??

My god this country is insane.

He won’t want to be seen as a loser twice. His ego is too big.

What do you mean twice? Boris won a members' vote, a general election and then a confidence vote. When put to a vote, Boris wins. That's why they had to get rid of him without a vote. They couldn't risk doing anything democratically.