Scrutable

Turns out Liz Truss's chief of staff can't* travel to the US with her, because he's under FBI investigation for bribery, corruption and subversion of democracy.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-1 ... -bvhsgpjhc

* In the same sense that Assange couldn't leave the Ecuadoran Embassy.

dyqik wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 20, 2022 11:26 am

Turns out Liz Truss's chief of staff can't* travel to the US with her, because he's under FBI investigation for bribery, corruption and subversion of democracy.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-1 ... -bvhsgpjhc

* In the same sense that Assange couldn't leave the Ecuadoran Embassy.

So that was paywalled, so I googled and found the Spectator version, which led to a review of something on nthe telly, which includen the line

...appears to have been constructed with all the charm, flair, character, originality and artistry of an Ikea wardrobe.

which lead me back here. Sums her up just right.
Funny old world.

tenchboy wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 20, 2022 12:01 pm

So that was paywalled, so I googled and found the Spectator version, which led to a review of something on nthe telly, which includen the line

...appears to have been constructed with all the charm, flair, character, originality and artistry of an Ikea wardrobe.

which lead me back here. Sums her up just right.
Funny old world.

This may all be true but IKEA wardrobes do tend to be useful, robust, and generally good value for money none of which could be said of Truss and her policies.

kerrya1 wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 20, 2022 12:14 pm

tenchboy wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 20, 2022 12:01 pm

So that was paywalled, so I googled and found the Spectator version, which led to a review of something on nthe telly, which includen the line

...appears to have been constructed with all the charm, flair, character, originality and artistry of an Ikea wardrobe.

which lead me back here. Sums her up just right.
Funny old world.

This may all be true but IKEA wardrobes do tend to be useful, robust, and generally good value for money none of which could be said of Truss and her policies.

Ha! Yes. You got me there.

tenchboy wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 20, 2022 12:01 pm

dyqik wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 20, 2022 11:26 am

Turns out Liz Truss's chief of staff can't* travel to the US with her, because he's under FBI investigation for bribery, corruption and subversion of democracy.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-1 ... -bvhsgpjhc

* In the same sense that Assange couldn't leave the Ecuadoran Embassy.

So that was paywalled, so I googled and found the Spectator version,

According to Bloomberg, Mark Fullbrook has denied the report in the Times that he is subject to investigation. Rather, he is fully cooperating with the US authorities as a witness in the investigation that has led to the arrest of Puerto Rico's former leader, and another. Fullbrook became involved in Puerto Rico while working as part Lynton Crosby's outfit, which was employed by them.

By Conservative party standards, it's not looking like very much like a tasty scandal yet, I'm disappointed to say.

According to news reports from her chatting on her flights to New York . . .

. . . she's prepared to be unpopular.


Just as well, really !!

Lew Dolby wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 20, 2022 3:43 pm

According to news reports from her chatting on her flights to New York . . .

. . . she's prepared to be unpopular.


Just as well, really !!

IIRC it was from her Sky News interview with Beth Rigby.

Complete word salad

E.g

Q: Giving the cost of living crisis why are you prioritising bankers bonuses?

A: Britain suffers a lack of investment across the regions but has a world class financial centre.

Q: Why is the taxpayer picking up the bill when energy companies are reporting record profits?

A: People like mobile phones.

Q: People worry large tax cuts funded by extra borrowing will increase inflation and interest rates.

A: No, large tax cuts funded by extra borrowing will decrease inflation and decrease interest rates

What the gibbering f.ck?

Can't understand why Trussonomics isn't being condemned on all sides.

She says she's convinced tax cuts grow the economy. She's right. They will grow the economy in nominal terms. However highly dubious they will grow the economy in real terms. Inflation is inevitable.

High interest rates are going to be unpopular. And - worst sin in Toryland - bad for house prices. Cutting stamp duty will bump them back a bit, but nothing like the hit (in real terms) from inflation/high interest rates.

Sticking with the unashamed Marxists at Sky News.

They currently have "Truss Day 16" as a permabox in the top left corner, regardless of content, the sort of way you would enumerate and livestream a world crisis or some other significant but short-lived national event.

I don't recall them doing that for anyone else.

Little waster wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 21, 2022 7:51 am

Sticking with the unashamed Marxists at Sky News.

They currently have "Truss Day 16" as a permabox in the top left corner, regardless of content, the sort of way you would enumerate and livestream a world crisis or some other significant but short-lived national event.

I don't recall them doing that for anyone else.

Does the box have space for three digits?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/li ... itics-live

WTAF !!!

and in further news, black is definitely white !!

Trinucleus wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 21, 2022 2:04 pm

Little waster wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 21, 2022 7:51 am

Sticking with the unashamed Marxists at Sky News.

They currently have "Truss Day 16" as a permabox in the top left corner, regardless of content, the sort of way you would enumerate and livestream a world crisis or some other significant but short-lived national event.

I don't recall them doing that for anyone else.

Does the box have space for three digits?

Not obviously.

I'll check tomorrow if it's counting up ... or counting down

Lew Dolby wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:18 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/li ... itics-live

WTAF !!!

and in further news, black is definitely white !!

TBF the one thing* we know about bankers getting ridiculous bonuses is it always makes them make more cautious and sensible investment decisions and then the minute it lands in their accounts they are out there splashing the cash on improving bus services in rural Northumberland and training former coal miners to become games developers.

I mean, what else are they going to do with huge wads of cash; buy an Italian sports car, piss off to Thailand and die of a heart-attack while snorting lines of coke off the back of an endangered sea-turtle?

It's only fair really, just cast your mind back to the darkest days of the pandemic and recall how the spontaneous, daily Clap-the-bankers brought us all together as a society and gave us rare hope. We promised ourselves then that their brave sacrifices would not go unforgotten*.

I'm welling up here just thinking about it ... Just thank you, thank you, thank you.

Hmm,
Interesting...
Don't usually see this (on political things on the BBC)...

The stamp duty cut is pathetic, in all honesty. If, as economists have been saying, the tax is pants and blocks liquidity of the housing sector, then the cut will make no difference. They've basically said the 2% band (from £125,000 to £250,000) is now 0%. That's it - a saving of £2,500 to people moving house. For those moving into big houses, it will make near enough f.ck all difference (buying a £700k house will incur £22.5k stamp duty rather than £25k), and for those in cheaper houses, it might improve things a little but will it really make the difference in a recession, high-rate environment?

El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 23, 2022 9:16 am

The stamp duty cut is pathetic, in all honesty. If, as economists have been saying, the tax is pants and blocks liquidity of the housing sector, then the cut will make no difference. They've basically said the 2% band (from £125,000 to £250,000) is now 0%. That's it - a saving of £2,500 to people moving house. For those moving into big houses, it will make near enough f.ck all difference (buying a £700k house will incur £22.5k stamp duty rather than £25k), and for those in cheaper houses, it might improve things a little but will it really make the difference in a recession, high-rate environment?

What economists actually say is, it would be better to raise this money by taxing the day-to-day occupation of houses more fairly. People should pay regular tax, reflecting their consumption of property occupation services, not just when they happen to move house. We should take more of our tax from property occupation taxes. That taxes everyone who lives in a valuable property the same over time, not just according to how often they move house. And a tax that continues to increase as your property value increases, rather than being topped off at Band H (worth £320k in 2003 prices - around £700k today). When I bought my house it was a 2-bed bungalow and in Band G. Band H isn't just huge mansions.

The justification against this in the 1990s was that old people with low incomes couldn't possibly sell their valuable houses, downsizing to a property tax they could afford. It was ridiculous then, and even more ridiculous today as the old becomes one of the best-off groups of society. The Tories decided the rates were unacceptable, but the truth it was a better tax than the alternatives. It was blatant redistribution in favour of the well-off. Just as Liz Truss's recent measures amount to, when you add them up.

What is the logic behind the government unleashing fiscal loosening via tax cuts at the same time the Bank of England is employing monetary tightening by increasing interest rates?

It's laughable.

And obscene.

And dangerous.

So all these tax cuts are going to lead to growth??

How? Leaving more money in businesses by not raising corporation tax is going to raise growth by allowing them to hire more people? Last I heard unemployment was at an all time low... and importing staff is now beyond challenging.

Or will it be by paying those people more? I note that the minimum wage isn't increasing and so the decisions around paying staff more or retaining profit for shareholders will be left to boards of directors (I can guess how that goes).

What will happen is the rich will get richer, the poor poorer, and public services will shrink. But then perhaps that's what they're after - not growth.

TopBadger wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 23, 2022 11:28 am

Or will it be by paying those people more? I note that the minimum wage isn't increasing and so the decisions around paying staff more or retaining profit for shareholders will be left to boards of directors (I can guess how that goes).

Hey let's play out the more-optimistic option to see where that takes us.

So there's an across-the-board pay rise so everybody now has more money in their pockets, despite not creating as much as an extra paperclip in additional domestic output. So what are they going to do with this additional cash? Either chase the same amount of domestic goods or import more than before.

I'm not an economist but I assume both those options are made of 100% pure WIN.

It will have such a positive impact on business that the FT index has dropped 2%

Thanks for the effective cut in my state pension Liz. The currency markets aren't impressed with your 'plan'.

This is probably a silly question, but why do we need income thresholds between different levels of income tax? If we want a progressive income tax system, why not just have, say, a linear relationship between taxable income and the rate payable?

wilsontown wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 23, 2022 12:01 pm

This is probably a silly question, but why do we need income thresholds between different levels of income tax? If we want a progressive income tax system, why not just have, say, a linear relationship between taxable income and the rate payable?

My guess is that the maths would break some peoples brians.

wilsontown wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 23, 2022 12:01 pm

This is probably a silly question, but why do we need income thresholds between different levels of income tax? If we want a progressive income tax system, why not just have, say, a linear relationship between taxable income and the rate payable?

Because that would involve integration and I'm not sure the Treasury have a good suite of staff with good further maths A-levels