Trump wanting us to ditch Europe.

Why support Australia over the US?

Well to answer the question in the title, stuff Trump, he has responsibility for the USA not the UK or the EU. Not sure there's any day to day American stuff I need, certainly not food for sure. I get we import a lot of American wine, but I'd we don't want western European wine, Eastern European is good as is South African, and Australian. I'd much rather support the Australian economy than the US economy if we do have to import.from far away

If the pound gets any shorter - watch prices rocket again!

ronib

Dickens there’s an opinion that HM Treasury pulled the plug on Truss. Whether for sound economic reasons, who knows?

What did for Truss was the financial markets and the Bank of England.

All that 'the Treasury' can do is advise the chancellor. It can't actually interfere with a budget.

'The financial markets' are very easily spooked. At the slightest hint of a problem they'll start panic selling. or shorting the pound...

Dickens there’s an opinion that HM Treasury pulled the plug on Truss. Whether for sound economic reasons, who knows?

pascal30

Dickens

Sarnia

Democratic vote by the British people to leave the EU. Nothing to discuss.

There is always something to discuss, if a decision taken has a negative effect on our economy later down the line. Doesn't matter what the issue is, no government is bound by the decisions taken by the previous one.

If the political and global landscape changes, we have every right to discuss our relationship with Europe, and the EU.

Brexit is not set in stone for all time. Democracy doesn't work like that, so if we want to discuss it, we will.

well said Dickens

The big problem is that if Labour had not lied about everything they were not going to do, no tax hikes, no this, no that, we would not be in this mess because many people would never have voted for them.

If they had been honest and said they would increase everything and be stopping the winter fuel allowance as well do you honestly think they would have been voted in. They won the election by lying and in my book that is wrong.

I would not have minded if they had had the guts to say, 'until we take office we have no idea what we will be doing' then that is down to the country to choose who they want as Prime Minister, but they didn't, they stood up and said they would not be increasing taxes etc. etc.

I voted Reform and in 4/1.2 years time when Labour are no more, Starmer, Reeves and their cronies will fade into the ether never to be seen or heard from again.

David49

“Say a party promises to increase NHS nursing staff by xx number - but they can't reach that target because there aren't enough suitable applicants.”

If pay was decent, working hours sociable and funded properly there would be plenty of nurses.

If pay was decent, working hours sociable and funded properly there would be plenty of nurses.

Well quite.

But that wasn't my point.

ronib

Dickens do you have an opinion on the role of HM Treasury over the Truss budget?

In what way?

Do you mean because she accused it of being philosophically "anti-growth" and "anti-democratic"?

I suppose she didn't like its hold on tax policy?

Not sure really what you mean...

“Say a party promises to increase NHS nursing staff by xx number - but they can't reach that target because there aren't enough suitable applicants.”

If pay was decent, working hours sociable and funded properly there would be plenty of nurses.

Dickens do you have an opinion on the role of HM Treasury over the Truss budget?

👏

Well it's completely unrealistic. We might agree or disagree if a government cannot meet a certain target, but there will always be unpredictable events.

Looking at the line up of Trump appointments (although some, will never get through the Senate) is a troubling and long term a very worrying prospect for the future of democracy itself as parts of Project 25 loom..

TopGunner

I wish Trump was our prime minister. Starmer and his cronies are jokes and if he can bring down the UK in a few months, what will he do in the next 4.1/2 years.

Make it law for every person who campaigns to be the future prime minister that their promised manifesto has to be adhered to and if they change it once in power, like Starmer and his cronies have done, then they have broken the law so we can then have another election immediately.

Starmer would never have got elected if he and his cronies had not lied on his manifesto and I cannot understand how he has been able to get away with it.

Make it law for every person who campaigns to be the future prime minister that their promised manifesto has to be adhered to and if they change it once in power...

That would never float.

Manifestos are a commitment, not legal documents, and there is no legal requirement to implement them. And they are party-wide, not the sole preserve of the incumbent PM.

Say a party promises to increase NHS nursing staff by xx number - but they can't reach that target because there aren't enough suitable applicants.

What then? Do they forcibly drag people off the street into the job so that they won't be prosecuted for not adhering to their promise? Or do they get involved in long and complex court cases?

It would never work, and I doubt politicians from either side would agree with you.

Thank you Dickens, that was very helpful indeed.

I wish Trump was our prime minister. Starmer and his cronies are jokes and if he can bring down the UK in a few months, what will he do in the next 4.1/2 years.

Make it law for every person who campaigns to be the future prime minister that their promised manifesto has to be adhered to and if they change it once in power, like Starmer and his cronies have done, then they have broken the law so we can then have another election immediately.

Starmer would never have got elected if he and his cronies had not lied on his manifesto and I cannot understand how he has been able to get away with it.

I made some progress but I won’t be buying the autobiography….. economic theory is complex though Dickens

ronib

I shall concentrate on it all tomorrow as it does look complicated Dickens I should probably take notes or maybe make diagrams….

... or not!

Truss I think sees herself as a right-wing revolutionary - think American-Unbridled-Capitalism - and then some!

... with guns.

I shall concentrate on it all tomorrow as it does look complicated Dickens I should probably take notes or maybe make diagrams….

ronib

Much appreciated Dickens

... the thing is, the OBR does get it wrong, and has. As does the BoE.

But it's important to remember that their forecasts are useful. As pointed out by Sky News' Business and Economics correspondent back in '22.

The OBR has technically been wrong on many occasions, but it plays an important institutional role. It allows the government to map its policy decisions against a framework that broadly makes sense.

Truss saw these institutions as unnecessary orthodoxy, one she regards conspiratorially as the deep state. What she failed to realise is that the OBR helps to create market confidence - because it, basically, checks governments' numbers.

If the OBR had been asked by Kwarteng to produce a forecast alongside that mini-budget, he would he been compelled to show how his £45billion tax cuts would be balanced with spending cuts and increased borrowing, instead of the theoretical growth of the economy.

As Faisal Islam, economics editor, writing for the BBC said - and I've kept this quote handy because it made me chuckle...

It was the equivalent of trying to pay a restaurant bill with an Instagram photo of some gold bars.

The above is a hotchpot cobbling together of various articles I've read. Hope it helps!

petra

ronib what leads you to believe the Bank of England regulates the pension industry. It doesn’t.

I suspect it comes from a 2023 article in The Critic by a tory peer, Jon Moynihan

thecritic.co.uk/issues/december-january-2023/how-the-bank-broke-the-government/

petra I thought Liz Truss had some criticism of the Bank of England and pensions. But am working through the link ….

ronib what leads you to believe the Bank of England regulates the pension industry. It doesn’t.

Much appreciated Dickens

ronib

If we can just put Liz Truss to one side, exactly what is the argument about the Bank of England and not regulating pension funds properly? In what way is it improper? If anyone can explain please.

www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-13435977/Liz-Truss-blames-Bank-England-markets-decided-mini-Budget-disaster.html

... this gives a bit of background - ('This Is Money', an OK link).

It's all to do with an asset called "Liability Driven Investment" which the pension fund industry came up with in order to increase their returns, apparently the pensions funds borrowed on the collateral of their bond portfolios.

Truss complains that nobody had briefed her on this ticking time bomb at the core of the financial system, one that could explode the moment the interest rate on gilts moved out of an anticipated range.

The truth is that no one really knew quite how dangerous LDIs would turn out to be. An early warning of their potential danger, buried deeply in the Bank of England's financial stability report, had gone largely ignored by City watchdogs.

BUT, as La Truss had decided not to consult the OBR with her tax-cutting plans - she was unaware of the possibility of a meltdown in the gilts market. Had she not been so arrogant, she might have been better informed. But as she is rather egotistic and conceited, she would rather blame anyone and everyone than admit that she got it wrong.

She wasn't up to speed.

Elegran I heard Liz Truss give a tv interview recently and as usual with all politicians, very short on actual details and loads on doom and gloom.
Oh for a proper economist to explain ….

ronib

I rather hoped someone - well you - could say what is the point about pension funds and the Bank of England? MaizieD

Ask Liz Truss?