I see Liz Truss is set to relaunch her bid for leadership

As we spend 38% of government income on the NHS how much more we can afford?
By borrowing more from pensioners?

"Premium Bond limit will be upped to £100,000 - you saw it here first" 😀

The article she wrote is an insult to everyone whose mortgage payments have increased because of her ill fated policy.

Callistemon21

^As we spend 38% of government income on the NHS how much more we can afford?^
By borrowing more from pensioners?

"Premium Bond limit will be upped to £100,000 - you saw it here first" 😀

🤣🤣🤣

...where are Volver and her mates on this matter?) and I am not convinced she is no longer interested in this board!

I am in disagreement with volver on this issue. However, she was making a point, a valid point, and because of it, she was accused of siding with rapists. Which was totally uncalled for. I'm sure she's still interested, but after an accusation like that has probably decided to take a break. I know I would. It was nasty.

NannaFirework

No words 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Probably the thought of Truss returning

No chance Katie59 … hell will freeze over first!

It's worth noting that when the Reagan administration implemented 'Reaganomics' - the government also increased public spending - can't remember the % but it was quite 'reasonable'.

Absolutely, Dickens.

I've been doing a bit of digging about 'trickle down economics'

This is from a US article about it:

During the Reagan administration, it seemed like trickle-down economics worked. The administration's policies, known as Reaganomics, helped end the 1980 recession.45

Reagan cut taxes significantly. The top tax rate fell from 70% for those earning $108,000 or more to 28% for anyone with an income of $18,500 or more. Reagan also cut the corporate tax rate from 46% to 40%.6

Trickle-down economics was not the only reason for the recovery, though. Reagan also increased government spending by 2.5% a year. He almost tripled the federal debt from $997 billion in 1981 to $2.85 trillion in 1989.7

Most of the spending went to defense. It supported Reagan's efforts to end the Cold War and bring down the Soviet Union.8

www.thebalancemoney.com/trickle-down-economics-theory-effect-does-it-work-3305572

The IMF doesn't believe in it, either. An IMF discussion paper:

www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf

Interesting that it says what I have mentioned on more than one occasion, that to enable growth money should be given to the poor and the middle classes.

More importantly, we find an inverse relationship between the income share accruing to the rich (top 20 percent) and economic growth. If the income share of the top 20 percent increases by 1 percentage point, GDP growth is actually 0.08 percentage point lower in the following five years, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. Instead, a similar increase in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with 0.38 percentage point higher growth. P7

Thanks Rinib. The figures are interesting!

Ronin, I would have dealt with my misspelling of your name if I knew how, so I am apologising for my stupid mistake!

No worries Anniel.

I am mortified at my spelling errors of your name Ronib! I dont know how to delete a message and my internet keeps crashing! Sorry.

Trickle down might work if anyone had faith in the economy improving significantly, those that have the money would have to be pretty optimistic to invest in UK currently. There are so many negative factors going to affect us in the next few years

Maizie
I agree with you but the fact remains that we are living much longer now and there has been a large increase in population, so we need to know how much all kinds of benefits are costing. I am in favour of looking at other countries and how they run their public finances. The Scandinavian countries have small populations, relatively speaking, but seem happier to pay higher taxes in order to pay the social costs but how about other European countries and Australia, New Zealand (low population) and Canada work it out? The cost of living crisis brought about by COVID and Ukraine’s war with Russia plus having no crystal ball to warn us has badly damaged the economy whoever is in power. So how do we solve our current situation? Obviously, Liz Truss did not have a satisfactory answer!

Taxes don't fund spending, Anniel. The state will always be able to put money into the economy to pay for welfare and public services. Taxes just take back the money it has spent. The more money it puts in the more it will get back in taxation. Look on it as a perpetual overdraft...

Katie59

Trickle down might work if anyone had faith in the economy improving significantly, those that have the money would have to be pretty optimistic to invest in UK currently. There are so many negative factors going to affect us in the next few years

Trickle down just doesn't work, KAtie59. There is absolutely no evidence that it does. You are clutching at a straw.

Have a look at the IMF paper I linked to.

Anniel Mon 06-Feb-23 14:23:35

Well “we all hate the Tories” are out in force here.

There's that word again - hate.

I can see the reason for a lot of criticism - look at the state of the nation under the watch of a Conservative government. We are not obliged to be kind to whichever government is in power, and I would feel safe in placing a bet that if this was a Labour government, the criticism would be equally damning - not only from the Right, but from the same people who might be their supporters.

People are indignant, they are angry - scared even. Millions of homeowners are facing increased repayments that they obviously hadn't budgeted for - some will be huge.

It isn't hate, it's anger, frustration, dismay, and not a small amount of fear for the future. And by calling it hate you minimise the concerns of people by implying that we are simply being nasty just for the hell of it, almost like children.

I have, on here, more than once defended a Tory politician when I believed the media mis-represented them, or cast an unnecessary or personal slur against them - including Rishi Sunak, and even Boris Johnson.

What Labour achieve remains to be seen - if indeed they do win the next election, and that is not a given. I will be equally critical (and I am already) of them.

But that is not hatred.

Thank you Dickens for so clearly explaining how so many of us are appalled by the record of chaos, corruption and incompetence we have been subjected to by the Tory governments elected by a minority of voters, who had the power to do whatever they wanted and have wreaked havok on our country.

We do not hate, we just despair that we do not live in a democracy where this could never happen.

All over the world there are democracies where a government can only be elected by a majority of those who vote.

In the whole of Europe there are only two undemocratic countries which use FPTP for general elections allowing a dictatorship voted in by a minority of voters - the UK and Belarus.

Is that something to be proud oif?

Ms Truss has just been on ITV news, some kind of interview. When asked how she felt about what happened to the economy she firstly rambled on about the Treasury, blaming them, and then said that she regretted the political fallout and impact. Nothing at all about the economic and social impact on those with mortgages or pension funds. Further confirmation that what is motivating this Tory administration is self preservation, the party, and not the economy or the electorate.

Was that part of the interview she did with The Spectator? Maybe Nadine Dorries will be interviewing her next.

👀

Whitewavemark2

👀

LOL!

... currency speculators, bond traders, bankers - that kind of left-wing establishment 😂.

I suppose we can use a very simple formula for all that goes pear-shaped under a Tory government that has been in power for the last 12 or so years:

Whatever the problem / calamity = it is the fault of the Left.

To be fair though - did she actually say that, or was it the Telegraph's own interpretation?

Even though she admitted she was not blameless - she still managed to blame others for the fact that she was not blameless! She was not advised of the "fragility" of the UK economy... but if you are a bit 'picky' about which advice you choose to listen to - you won't get the full picture.

I understood that the reason Truss and Kwarteng didn't run their plans through the OBR before announcing it was that it would not have been recommended or approved or whatever the correct procedure is, so it is a bit rich to claim that nobody warned her. Yet again, I find myself not only angry at what is being said, but by the assumption that the majority of the electorate are stupid/disinterested enough to believe whatever lies they are told.

Apparently they were warned more than once of the severe danger to the economy if they introduced there plans.

Truss ignored it.

She knows best apparently.

Whitewavemark2

Apparently they were warned more than once of the severe danger to the economy if they introduced there plans.

Truss ignored it.

She knows best apparently.

So the 'fragility' of the UK economy is not something she can claim to be unaware of then.

Is it ever going to be possible for a politician to just admit that they got it wrong? Without blaming others.

She made an error of judgement - she got it completely wrong - why can't she just stand up and say mea culpa?

Truly, how did she think the markets would react?

I think she's decided against it now.