Too bad, contractors: UK government reverses decision to axe IR35 tax reform The UK government has reversed its decision to axe IR35 tax reforms — announced little more than three weeks ago — following a volatile market reaction to its planned tax cuts. Among a package of tax cuts, the move to cancel IR35 tax reforms — controversial measures which mean fewer contractors can claim work outside employee …
You'll note that the removal of the bankers' pay cap is going ahead, whilst the tax complications against technology workers are brought back.
If ever there was an indication who is running the country, it's that.
It's not as if this is a left vs right thing - no-one in parliament at present is offering a genuine economic plan of their own.
"You'll note that the removal of the bankers' pay cap is going ahead"
There was never a pay cap, there was a cap on bonuses, and all that caused was for their base pay to be increased. The cap actually increased how much bankers earn as it meant they were still being highly paid even when they underperformed.
A 15% rise on a flat fee of £90 for attending and defending somebody at court (which has to cover pre-trial expenses of preparing for court which is unpaid, and has to include your travel expenses and hasn't gone up since ~2006) was the minimum recommendation by the independent body that looked into it.
It's hardly generous. The only reason they got that much is because the older types are retiring, and the younger types literally can't afford to get into that area of work because if you include the required preparation then it pays less than the minimum wage and so the resulting lack of people willing to get into that area of work is causing a crisis with court backlogs.
The Secret Barrister goes into a lot of detail about their pay model in their books, which are a very worthwhile read (N.B. no, I'm not in the legal profession). As I understand it, the criminal justice system is in it's current mess because the pay situation for barristers in criminal law was in a poor state before 2010 and austerity since has pushed it well past breaking point.
The Nursing, Medicine and Teaching professions are on the same path to extinction. That's what happens when we keep voting for Tories.
"That's what happens when we keep voting for Tories."
No, that's what happens when all you have to vote for is idiot career politicians who have no idea how the real world works. Tories might be a tad worse for one fraction of the populace, while Labour is a tad worse for a different bit of the populace but overall the message is always "bend over and take it pleb". No matter the political affiliation.
Yes both 2017 and 2019 offered serious solutions proved right in the following years,
For example free broadband would have cause the educational inequality over covid to have been ameliorated.
Nationalisation would have thus not seen the strikes.
The consequences of the shit show we find ourself in are entirely on the muppets who refused to vote for the best offer a British electorate was ever made.
If you still can't see it, more fool you.
Ah yes, Corbyn. The person who managed to make Boris Johnson such a compelling alternative that they voted for him.
The same Corbyn that is still saying that Russia is just misunderstood and that pouring weapons into Ukraine (at their request) is wrong and the war would end faster if we didn't. Which is true; there would be a Russian victory. Which would then lead to a rather more widespread genocide than the Russians can manage when the locals shoot back.
The man is a dangerously deluded moron. And given what has just happened when the tory party tried to introduce tax cuts I do wonder what'd have happened if he'd have tried to spend hundreds of times more money of changing the ownership of a few companies. (this before even considering improving services)
Be honest; he'd have lasted less time in office than Truss just did.
The barristers got a 15% pay rise ONLY on their public work. Would you like to work for below minimum wage? Because the hours they put in for £250 per case was just that.
It isnt just turning up and looking like the swishy bollocks you see on tv - at all.
But, you make a very good point that "today's Chancellor" (ty Krishnan Guru-Murthy) has fkd the NHS - after he fkd them as Health Secretary.
All public sector workers get shit salaries to start with. (Pension is good, but you have to live that long to get it)
Not just NHS, the police, fire service, and the long forgotten Coast Guard, all get shite salaries. (And the police are not allowed to strike)
So, lets look at the country's supporting people and remember, when you need help, some lowly paid public servant will try to do their best.
But their salary doesnt always engender the most motivation in the world.
Your first two statements, absolutely true.
The third, dissatisfaction with Labour is understandable. But we have FPTP, so your choices are incompetents financed by the interests of big oil; or Labour.
The latter have backed PR at party conference level thus one would expect it to follow in the Manifesto.
Politics is a slow-burn, with PR on the agenda you might (finally) be able to meaningfully vote for a faction you do approve of; rather than your vote being meaningless (because FPTP).
incompetents financed by the interests of big oil; or Labour.
Labour under Starmer are to the right of the Tories on some issues, and indistinguishable from the Tories on every issue of substance and probity,
Starmer has brought Labour into disrepute, and near bankruptcy, is employing a noted war criminal, and providing over an racist sewer which should not be allowed near the seats of power.
I recommend the excellent Peter Oborne reports on the matter, He is a contributor to the programs.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/uk-labour-files-al-jazeera-revelations-blown-hole-media-corbyn-narrative
See for yourself.
https://www.ajiunit.com/investigation/the-labour-files/
"His plans include reversing the repeal of IR35"
They weren't going to repeal IR35, as disguised employment would still have been taxable as direct employment. They were just going to transfer the burden of status determination from the service user to the service provider ( a very sensible move that would have rectified a gross injustice and made contracting economically viable again). So we're back in the position of a stalled contracting market in the name of growth.
Oh brave new world that has such dumbos in it! But I suppose in comparison with wrecking the entire economy in three weeks flat that might seem somewhat trivial.
You are absolutely right and I'd add that if they had moved the status determination back then that effectively kills IR35. How many people had HMRC successfully prosecuted previously (when the determination of the Putin tax was moved onto gutless companies who illegally blanketed all contractors)?
I think it was 7. Out of 20 years with millions of contractors. If fake employment was really an issue HMRC have been at liberty to prosecute at their leisure. They don't. Its an absolute joke.
"if they had moved the status determination back then that effectively kills IR35"
The distinction between independent contracting and disguised employment (actually a perfectly valid one) would still remain, and infractions could be pursued by HMRC as tax evasion. However it appears HMRC can't arsed to do take this course -- they'd much prefer to determine all contracting as employment. Indeed their life would be so much simpler if everyone was an employee, of course ignoring that an independent contractor is either (rarely) self employed or (if a limited company contractor) an employee of their limited company.
The entire unlawful distinction between a limited company in general and a "personal service company" is the fundamental indication of the abuse. There is no such distinction in company law, only in tax regulation, just as under IR35 a contractor is an employee "for tax purposes" but not "for employment purposes" -- i.e. they are taxed on entire revenue but have no employment rights.
… or like everyone else their ability to investigate (and prosecute as required) has been hampered. by Government funding cuts Mia-aligned with perceived problems/policy.
Permanent- non-disguised- employee’s for example will find it hard to push Xmas presents from Costco (like an iPad, MacBook etc) through masquerading as business deductions. You’ve all done it, and exaggerated your travel, bought a new fridge-freezer/microwave/Dyson for home, put your old one in work for ‘staff welfare area’ and claimed for it … and other questionable stuff…..
"or like everyone else their ability to investigate (and prosecute as required) has been hampered. by Government funding cuts Mia-aligned with perceived problems/policy"
So the bullshit response is to assume everyone is guilty? As for the rest of your post and fiddling stuff - you're making the mistake of thinking everyone else thinks like you. They don't.
I don’t think I have ever met anyone ‘self-employed’ whether IT contractor, plumber, business owner, courier etc … that doesn’t game the system with their declared expenses/self-assessment with impunity and an air of being naughty and it’s a jolly hoot.
Like bad driving, there is a near zero chance of being observed, investigated and prosecuted.
Congratulations - and hat doffed - on being without sin on your self-assessment.
Its not "without sin".
My statements are transparent, and a quick glance at the books make it clear which clients contribute to expenditure.
One client - location AMS - expenditure hotel/flight/taxi - Software gig.
Another client, location London - expenditure - reels of cat6, PoE switches, crimps, test equipment, sundry consumables - network install.
Yet another client, location remote - expenditure - professional services (voice and gfx services).
The people who are fiddling the expenses are MPs not contractors with half a brain and books that can be inspected at a moments notice.
… or like everyone else their ability to investigate (and prosecute as required) has been hampered. by Government funding cuts
Not true.
When the original IR35 was introduced in 2000 there was a certain amount of panic among contractors. Then it was pointed out that HMRC (Inland Revenue as it then was) has hardly ever won an employment status case, including the odd one where they tried to prove somebody was not an employee.
I think that a lot of them took cover after the BREXIT vote. They knew that the loonies had taken over the asylum.
Much like real republicans did when Trump was elected.
Biding their time until the loonies get voted out or head off to pastures new.
Bozo and ilk including support truss need to be removed from Parliament. Please Liz, call an early election... don't forget to order the removal van at the same time.
The issue we have here in Blighty is that Labour is about as effective as a bit of wet string is of carrying transatlanticc phone calls. They are riddled with PPE grads who have never done a proper days work in their lives.
We are doomed I tell ye, doomed.
Well if your Tories try to do what our republicans are trying to do, and make it so elections don't matter and they can use baseless and proofless claims of "fraud" to have those responsible for certifying the result of an election instead certify the republican won, then "waiting until the loonies get out" isn't an option.
People who are dyed in the wool Tory or republican might say "hey permanent rule by my party, that's a good thing, why shouldn't I want that?" but that's not what would happen. Once the mechanism is in place to override an election, whoever controls that mechanism can do anything they want! Even if what they want is something no Tory or republican would ever do. Soon it will just be an autocracy, and those who stood by and waited for the loonies to get out will be just as unhappy as those who supported Labor or democrats (or swing voters who could go either way depending on who had the better ideas / better candidate)
I think a scarily large number of people in the US would love an autocracy if it was Trump in charge. They are so far gone they can't helped, hopefully there are enough sane republicans left to stop them before they let Trump turn the US into a joke like Putin's Russia.
This is the 'Grand Plan' for the MAGA crew to take over the US with Donald as the head (replaced by Don Jr in a few years).
They have infiltrated almost every part of the US democratic system. From School boards to election supervisors.... MAGA is very well represented.
Then you have the likes of Kari 'don't I look good in soft focus' Lake aiming to become governor of Arizona. She has stated just like her idol, No 45 that she will not concede if the result shows her losing. She says that she has evidence of cheating in 2020 in AZ. Remember this is the state that had this sham audit that cost millions and proved nothing was wrong.
She will not be alone.
Alongside 'Former guy' is the Evangelicals. They are working towards declaring the USA a Christian Theocracy. If you ain't a card carrying Evangelical then you are not welcome in the US.
The dystopia shown in 'A Handmaids Tale' was supposed to be a warning just like 1984. Instead they are handbooks and are providing clear evidence of the direction that the USA is heading.
Add to that the policies of cutting Social Security and Medicare, the USA experiment is rapidly falling apart.
I'm just so glad that I got out of the Asylum (aka Alabama) in 2003 and cut all my links to Uncle Sam after my mother passed in 2018.
What we are experiencing here in the UK is nothing when compared to what is going to happen in the USA between now and Jan 20th 2025. That's when Donald will be sworn in as president for life. Chilling.
I don't think the situation in the USA is completely without hope. People in the middle and swing states seem to have woken up to at least some of the threat, and MAGA have taken recent losses as a result. The overturning of Roe v.s Wade was a very loud wake up call for many of the sleepers.
The results of the forthcoming midterms will give us a bit more insight on that; the Democrats will have an uphill struggle to retain both houses (especially the representatives). If they do their country may not be a lost cause after all.
There may be sane Republicans, but there are no good Republicans and none of them want to stop this. The so-called "moderates" have been keeping their heads low not because they disagree with what Trump was saying and doing, but because he was so close to achieving permanent Republican hegemony and jeopardising the project by saying the quiet parts out loud.
I don't think they are keeping silent because they are hoping he succeeds, they are keeping silent because they are terrified of his supporters. Not of their votes, but of their violence.
Just look at Lindsey Graham, who made an impassioned speech on the night of Jan. 6, was harassed and threatened by Trump supporters in the airport a few days later, and quickly got back in line as one of Trump's biggest supporters. It isn't because he changed his mind again and decided Trump was great. It was because he feared for his personal safety.
They reserve their worst threats for republicans who don't kiss Trump's butt. Liz Cheney has to have round the clock security, and can't even count the number of death threats she's received. She's in far more danger from the worst of the MAGAts than those on the hard left like AOC.
In PR nobody's vote counts. You can't vote the bastards out and it's the same thing forever.
Great if they make the right decisions. But if they go down the wrong path ( see: Britain post-war, pre-Thatcher when we practiced "consensus politics" - ie: nobody rock the boat ) then it's terminal.
Given that they are politicians, the ability for the public to throw them out is necessary. PR doesn't afford the public that.
Rubbish, once again broadcast by our resident Tory spokesman.
Under PR, if a party acts irresponsibly; their vote share should; all other things be equal (e.g. media) mean that the public are appropriately informed. I'll be generous in assuming the populace are educated; because clearly there are problems among those that still believe in the contents of the Telegraph or Daily Heil.
Under FPTP, if a party acts irresponsibly, gerrymandering and spin of electoral borders provides the incumbents a degree of protection. Worse, under FPTP, voting for the party you want may well be handing power directly to the thing you oppose.
I'll stop there before I say anything rude.
"in PR nobody's vote counts. You can't vote the bastards out and it's the same thing forever."
Er, no. Thats the FPTP system you're thinking of - if you live in a heavily tory/labour area and vote for anything other than the dominant party, your vote is utterly wasted and counts for nothing.
No doubt your next response will be "look at Italy", neatly ignoring the dozens of fully functioning and highly successful PR led countries around the world.
Your getting downvoted because your parroting a variation of "your either with us, or against us" and suggesting because you are "good" that everybody who doesn't agree with you completely and unconditionally is therefore "evil" and therefore wants a autocratic dictatorship, simply because it's the opposite of what you want.
That attitude and holier than thou attitude eradicates the ability to have moderate disagreement. It pushes any decent person out of politics (which is the actual intention of the people who taught you to act this way, as it forces any moderate opposition to either quit, or join an increasingly extreme opposition devoid of any moderate elements) and thereby creates two radicalised extremes and forces the opposition to be led by a extreme radical like Donald Trump because any decent person has long since quit.
I'd just like to note that i'm British and so don't really give a damn about US politics. However...
Sorry, who forced the GOP to choose Trump?
Ms Clinton was the leader there via media manipulation according to the leaked Clinton emails.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-2016-donald-trump-214428/
Which raises serious questions about the impartiality of the US media if politicians can rely on basing their political strategies around the media taking instructions from them, don't you think?
Who is still forcing them to make him their favoured candidate for 2024?
You might find this interesting:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/12/democrats-interfere-republican-primaries/
If far right candidates are a threat to America, then why are the democrats spending money promoting them? Beyond the obvious point that their left wing candidates are so unpalatable to the electorate that they have to spend money on promoting people worse than their candidates on the right wing to stand much of a chance of winning. :/
It says:-
So to take Bush down, Clinton’s team drew up a plan to pump Trump up. Shortly after her kickoff, top aides organized a strategy call, whose agenda included a memo to the Democratic National Committee: “This memo is intended to outline the strategy and goals a potential Hillary Clinton presidential campaign would have regarding the 2016 Republican presidential field,” it read.“The variety of candidates is a positive here, and many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right. In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more ‘Pied Piper’ candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party,” read the memo.
“Pied Piper candidates include, but aren’t limited to:
• Ted Cruz
• Donald Trump
• Ben Carson
We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to [take] them seriously."
That still doesn't say Clinton led due to media manipulation. She tried to choose her opponent, which is a time honored strategy in US politics but it will backfire if the candidate is so terrible you can obviously beat them ends up beating you. Then everybody loses.
Whether her campaign had much at all to do with Trump's rise and Bush's fall is another matter.
Unless you think it is "media manipulation" to say bad things about the person you don't want to run against, and less bad things (or nothing) about the candidate you do want to run against. Trump was doing the same thing, he wanted to run against Bernie not Hillary in 2016, and against Bernie not Biden in 2020, because it is a lot easier to paint someone as a "socialist" when they proudly use that word to describe themselves (he calls himself a "democratic socialist" but that's the same thing in the minds of Trump voters)
Trump is an average US President - he's just as racist and ignorant as Biden.
He's uncouth and too much of a putz to hide his naked grifting, but the idea that he was uniquely bad as a President is a joke.
Biden is just better at the tradecraft, and the Dalai 'Bama might have been smooth and have a nice family, and fit the image Americans have of themselves better.
Trump is no worse than the average US President, they are just usually better at hiding the grift.
That's not to say that he's not an odious individual, and but Biden is a apartheid apologist, with a long history of racist behaviour, racist legislation and accusations of sexual misconduct. Just like Trump, only Trumps racist legislation was struck down as he was too thick to phrase it sufficient disingenuously.
This post has been deleted by its author
The various US Presidents are complicit in crimes against humanity. That you see the Mango Moron as being uniquely bad says more about you than about him.
The murder of millions of people in illegal wars of aggression, the support of apartheid regimes, the state sponsoring of terrorists.
Frankly these are of greater criminal significance than inciting a mob of people to invade a building in one of the most heavily policied cities in the world.
Incitement to riot and murder is serious crime, but that make him the worst ever, just shows that the people destroyed and forced to live under dictatorial regimes imposed by the US are lesser people in your eyes.
I reject that attitude, Trump was a racist moron, as far as the globe is concerned, Biden, Obamba, Cliton, Bush, are equally loathsome human people who should have stood trail for their crimes against humanity.
As for all the other who keep voting for arming a terrorist group to oppress the defenceless, It's a crime in their own country, and internationally.
So spare me the outrage about Trump, he was no worse than Biden. He's just not bright enough to hide the grift.
Trump is just the actual face of America, rather than the disguise that America's apologists and fans are gulled into recognising.
I'm fed up of this "both sides" bollocks. It was used to compare:
-Starmer being pictured with a beer bottle through the window of a Labour party office in some random constituency just before a by-election in said constituency, during a time when work gatherings were allowed (yes, including a curry if working through the evening). He obviously wasn't there to just party.
-Johnson and cohort having multiple wild parties in number 10, including at times when even work gatherings weren't allowed. The amount of vomit, spillage, fist fights etc. involved in said events suggests that there wasn't a great deal of work being done at these events - my bullshit detector says there was none at all.
And even then, it was the first story that was on the front pages of the right wing rags for months, and the second that was kept quiet for as long as possible. According to the outcomes after police investigation it was only the latter where any wrongdoing occurred. But yes, please keep telling us that "both sides" are at it.
Next try telling me that both sides indulge in the same level of corruption. It hath got bells on it.
For fuck's sake, get your facts right and stop distorting the truth.
People in Downing St got fined for the wild party/work event that involved a cake.The police decided they'd broken the rules. As did Sue Gray's report. Another of those wild parties/work events involved a suitcase of booze on the night before Prince Philp's funeral when the nation was in lockdown. At another, there was much puking and vandalism inside Downing St. That didn't involve a cake ISTR.
Tosser Starmer was seen with a beer at a wild party/work event. Which was investigated by the cops. But he didn't break the rules and wasn't fined. Unlike Sunak and Johnson.
It doesn't matter what labels are attached to those incidents. Apply personal prejudices and wilful blindness to taste. What's important are the consequences of those incidents. Downing St was found guilty and the then Prime Minister became the first to get a criminal record while in office. Starmer wasn't.
The Metropolitan Police elected not to fine the PM because he hadn't broken the law when some people who work together had a couple of drinks and ate some cake after-hours.
The Labour Mayor for London didn't like this so he forced out the head of the Met.
After this, the police reconsidered and decided that actually they should fine the PM. They also fined Rishi Sunak for merely turning up to a meeting a few minutes early while cake was being consumed. ( Sunak is tee-total before you start ).
And Durham Police's head of police was at the illegal party...
Please stop lying.
Don't care they had a piss up. Care about the laws they passed which gave them the right to murder, torture and rape us, without it being a crime.
Which "human rights lawyer" Keith whipped to support. https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/uk-dangerous-bill-could-allow-mi5-and-police-authorise-torture-and-murder
Peers vote to ban spies from committing murder, rape and torture under new lawhttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/chis-bill-spies-murder-lords-amendments-b1786920.html
Government reverses attempt to explicitly ban spies from committing murder, torture or rapehttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/spy-cops-bill-lords-amendments-murder-torture-rape-b1793794.html
Starmer is utterly not your friend.
So what. I don't care about the petty sleaze. They passed laws about being able to kill us with impunity and you are concerned that some septic squeezed a few quid of petty cash from a politician.
I don't need them to personally wonderful, but I need the affairs administered with a degree of integrity in the wider public interest, by someone who's not a complete idiot, nor a bigot.
Some people are okay with the person being a bigot, I'm not, I'm bigoted against bigots, I think it disqualifies a person more thoroughly than simple idiocy.
The basics of the contempt for international and domestic law shown by "Lawyer" and Apartheid Apologist Keith, disqualify him from public office.
Johnson was ultimately removed because he tried to cover up for an allegation of sexual assault, by someone he had promoted to a safeguarding position despite knowing of previous incidents, then tried to get his colleagues to lie about it. Until evidence appeared that contradicted what Johnson was saying and nobody was willing to continue the charade so they all quit.
All true. According to the tories all the covid misbehaviour was just jolly japes and nothing to be concerned about. I was just using it as a helpful illustration of what bollocks the old "both sides" argument is regarding the current crop of tories and their opposition.
The accusation is that they are funded by the same people - which is evidenced and clearly implies they are beholden to the same interests.
The People don't matter - the policies do.
The policy platform espoused by Starmer and his gang of apartheid apologist ghouls mirror those espoused by the Tories.
Starmer supported every attack on our civil liberties brought forward by the Tories.
Starmer lied about his entire leadership campaign, he's as honest as Bozo.
It's quite funny, you keep saying well he's not Bozo - so that makes him not an utter dishonest apartheid apologist who reneged on his campaign pledges, has bankrupted the party, been condemned in two major non-partisan reports as presiding over a racist party.
The Donors are the same, the policies are the same, even some of the MP's are the same. But Keith has a comb.
He's a danger to us all, bought and paid for by Arms, Private Health, and Zionist State Terrorist lobby groups.
He's doesn't care about you, he's worse than the tories, because even the really thick ones are starting to notice that the right wing nonsense of being beholden to funny money markets is not sustainable.
https://www.ajiunit.com/investigation/the-labour-files/
"They put the onus on determining tax status on employers"
That statement begs the question and is therefore utterly invalid (even if it's what HMRC have been trying to foist on us). "Employer" presupposes an employment relationship, which is not the case for anyone operating as a contractor outside IR35. In that case the contractor is a service provider not an employee. Until almost everyone stops repeating this fundamental error we'll never get any sense talked about IR35.
That's the crux of IR35 though. If you contract a worker then by definition that is covered and the employee is subject to PAYE. If you contract a company it isn't and that company pays its own corporation tax. Unraveling the practical difference between the two and ignoring the legal construction is where the problem lies. Confusing the two indicates ignorance at a fundamental level.
Unfortunately I had the bad feeling Truss would back down and of course with U-turns and now pretty much a 'back to normal' we are looking at more of the same from those who brought us such a wonderful situation that we are in.
Agree with her approach or not at lease Truss originally was willing to try but for whatever reason she backed down at all has trashed all hope and now we just wait to see what next useless sockpuppet might take over. A general election cant solve this either, just another useless sockpuppet in the various parties available.
"she backed down"
Because the real policy makers are the "markets". Because the "markets" disagreed with her unconventional choices, government bonds and the £ devalued. This morning, even before Hunt made his announcements, both had recovered because the "market" expected more conventional policies to be applied. Note. Expected. The markets demonstrated that if thew government follows the market approved policies, then the £ and bond values will be safer.
Nice economy you got there mate. Be a shame if something happened to it.
"The markets" in this case largely being pension funds and other large institutions that are absolutely not concerned with a healthy British economy so much as their own profits. After Bankers became the enemy in 2008, it seems we're now allowing them to run our country.
I note that there have been a bunch of analysis in the wake of this U-Turn that suggest (as per Goldman Sachs) that the abandonment of tax reform will significantly worsen our economy next year. Great.
Meanwhile, Labour policies are actually lower tax than Conservative at current count - make of that what you will.
@Andy 73
"I note that there have been a bunch of analysis in the wake of this U-Turn that suggest (as per Goldman Sachs) that the abandonment of tax reform will significantly worsen our economy next year. Great."
It is interesting how bad things have got that policies which are deemed better for the country would be the spark to expose some of the problems that have been created.
Which policies were "deemed better"? The one that caused the exchange rate to collapse? The one that's jacked up interest rates and the price of gilts? The one that pushed pension funds to the brink of insolvency? The one that forced the central bank to buy bonds because nobody else would? The one that's made the country a laughing stock? The one that proved fuckwit Truss and fuckwit Kwarteng had no credibility and couldn't be trusted to look after a goldfish?
@AC
"Which policies were "deemed better"?"
Tax cuts which were expected to put the economy in a much better position. The problem they had was presentation. Unfunded tax cuts (even if less destructive than what we have been doing), the BoE not raising interest rates as much as expected and the policies of the last 2 decades that got us here doesnt look good.
I expect it was the straw that broke the camels back.
I'll agree that it was the presentation... there's a budget cycle. Sometimes shit happens and you need to tweak the knobs mid-cycle.
This is what should have happened - a tweak. Not junking a previously analysed and published fiscal plan with bells and whistles added, labelled as Kwazi's Magic Growth Medicine and sending it into the bear pit wearing a propeller hat and a luncheon meat overcoat!
The nation had a number of problems, the cause seems to be very high inflation caused primarily by fuel prices resulting from the Ukraine situation. This inflation led to strikes, increasing poverty levels, decreasing health levels etc. They had the opportunity to address some of that, but they did crazy things - leaving personal allowances alone for one. The 20% to 19% change put £2 a month in the pay packet of someone age 23 working full time on minimum wage. That's way less than a monthly bus ticket has gone up. I catch a bus fairly often; it goes past a hospital - I see half a dozen nurses or care/health assistants on every trip. Someone up at the TOP of that 20% band, around £50kpa, gets around £30 a month from that percentage change. Raising the personal allowance up by £150 costs the treasury exactly the same but puts £12 a month into the pocket of everyone earning under £100k. Sounds like pants when you're on £4k a month, but that £12 means choice like do you get a cheaper bottle of wine to go with Sunday dinner, not "Well, looks like it's a choice of a bus ticket or taking lunch to work".
But of course % basic rates look sexier in the headlines than personal allowance figure which are just a blah blah string of numbers.
And don't even get me started on the pain of mortgage interest rates now... they've screwed the pooch and that doesn't get unscrewed. The damage is done.
Oh yes, and the bit about strikes is that they hid, and according to Liz's interview last night are still pursuing, legislation to yet again restrict civil liberties instead of addressing the issue. Stick for the strikers, carrots for the bankers. People won't go on strike (tend less to want to go on strike) if they feel they are being treated fairly, and when given the opportunity to demonstrate evenhandedness they instead go full on Prince John instead of a bit more Robin Hood. Absolutely Kwaaaaayzi man, kwayzi.
> I note that there have been a bunch of analysis in the wake of this U-Turn that suggest (as per Goldman Sachs) that the abandonment of tax reform will significantly worsen our economy next year. Great.
That analysis wasn't reported in the news. It certainly wasn't heavily pushed in the news. I wonder why.
"That analysis wasn't reported in the news. It certainly wasn't heavily pushed in the news. I wonder why."
Hmm yes, it must be a conspiracy in all the left wing media like the Telegraph, Times, Mail....
I'd be interested to see any single "analysis" that actually says that the Truss/Kwartang policies were actually going to be good for the economy. You don't actually still believe in the fairy story of trickle down do you?
Nobody believes in trickle down. That is a name invented by the left as a slur against right wing economics.
It was actually invented in the 1930's by a Democrat voting comedian to trick people into believing that the Republican party's policies were different to what they actually are.
If you can't defeat the argument honestly, perhaps you need to consider whether you actually disagree with it.
"At lease Truss originally was willing to try ".
I see. Despite having no clue or competence at macroeconomics or running a country least Dizzy Lizzy was willing to give it a try. What next? Would you use that bollocks as an excuse if our cheesmonger in chief was designing a nuclear reactor or doing a bit of brain surgery?
@R Soul
"I see. Despite having no clue or competence at macroeconomics or running a country least Dizzy Lizzy was willing to give it a try"
You say that yet we are now expected to have a deeper recession after the U-turns. A pro growth policy is not a bad thing and is needed to work off the debt. Not presenting how the tax cuts would be funded and the U-turns were the problem.
"Would you use that bollocks as an excuse if our cheesmonger in chief was designing a nuclear reactor or doing a bit of brain surgery?"
I give credit where it is due and healthy scepticism over their ability to deliver. Especially if the party contains pro labour/lib dem members,
You say that yet we are now expected to have a deeper recession after the U-turns. A pro growth policy is not a bad thing and is needed to work off the debt. Not presenting how the tax cuts would be funded and the U-turns were the problem.
The world is having a deeper recession. I don't blame Truss for that (Putin's behaviour driving massive energy price increases is the largest factor, but there are many other global causes as well). But I do blame her for not recognising it, not dealing with it, and going ahead with the most obviously stupid, inappropriate and ill-timed policies.
Unfunded tax cuts? Rejecting energy company windfall taxes? Government borrowing money to give to rich people? Trickle-down economics at a time of global economic crisis? The sooner the election comes the better - even Labour won't be quite this stupid.
@Graham Cobb
"The world is having a deeper recession"
Yet with the pro-growth policies we were expected to have less of a recession. Her pro growth plans wernt necessarily bad, they were to a point better than what we have been doing. Windfall tax isnt a great idea, the policies up to now have brought us this situation and she now proposes to build more windfarms! Madness! The tax cut for the rich seemed mostly self funding with possibly a short fall of £2bn, yet keeps the rich here to spend. Trickle down was the insult used for economics which has been shown to have worked and outside the straw man version actually works.
"at a time of global economic crisis"
And the reason for such economic crisis is a severe failure of the obvious for a couple of decades at least. The BoE and treasury (and the equivalents elsewhere in the world) have been spending like drunken sailors and reducing interest rates desperately to push up inflation. Now we have it coinciding with expected self inflicted recession. Breaking away from that and actually trying to resolve the issues is the only way out of it. Instead we will go back to what we have been doing and making things worse.
@graeme leggett
"Number of economists who thought the mini-budget was "pro-growth""
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/goldman-sachs-sees-deeper-uk-recession-after-tax-u-turn-bloomberg-news-2022-10-16/
"1 ie Minford"
Plus-
https://cebr.com/reports/the-telegraph-liz-trusss-tax-plans-backed-by-leading-economists-as-needed-and-not-inflationary/
" A pro growth policy is not a bad thing"
Pro growth? growth for whom? I know you blindly believe any old cobblers the tories put out, but seriously? Yes we are facing a deeper recession because the economically illiterate policies have caused a huge dip in the value of the pound, increased debt (something the tories always go on about yet seem to be completely incapable of dealing with, even before covid) and more importantly have pushed interest rates up significantly so that people cannot afford mortgages. This isnt coming back down any time soon.
@Mooseman
"Pro growth? growth for whom?"
Go look up economic growth.
"I know you blindly believe any old cobblers the tories put out, but seriously?"
Eh what garbage?
"Yes we are facing a deeper recession because the economically illiterate policies have caused a huge dip in the value of the pound"
A deeper recession if we dont follow the pro-growth policies. By U-turning to business as usual we are expected a deeper recession.
"This isnt coming back down any time soon."
Not with business as usual it wont. And I didnt like how she promoted the tax cuts but without saying where the money was coming from for it. And yes I agree the tories made a hash of it, I have been saying this for a while, just as its continuing the problems since labour I also complained about. So your stupid statement that I just believe tories is plain stupid.
If I broadcast to the public that I'll do something stupid, and then back down on that stupid thing, does that put everything back to normal? No, because everyone now thinks I'm a fucking idiot for even suggesting something so stupid.
This is the situation we're in - the markets have realised that the tory leadership (especially Truss, but not exclusively) are a bunch of fuckwits, and have adjusted their outlook for UK-backed bonds etc. downward as a result. As a result we're going to be paying a higher rate of interest on the debts our government already has. Boom, that's it - we're instantly poorer as a nation because we're being lead by a dickhead. That's your longer recession right there.
The current government couldn't deliver a bloody pizza - and we're all being judged for it.
we are looking at more of the same
Indeed. Truss was never going to be the right person for PM, the backbenchers who conspired with Labour to oust Boris were warned about the dangers, but wouldn't listen. Turkeys voting for an early Christmas.
A pity, because the basic aims were reasonable. We've had steadily, and stealthily, increasing taxes since Tony Blair was elected. That's left us with permanent austerity, low growth, and stagnation. Cutting taxes and encouraging business to grow is the right solution, it's just a shame it was done in such a totally inept way. Not providing detailed costs and sidelining the OBR just increased the markets' suspicions, no wonder they spooked.
Dropping the top rate of tax may well be a good idea in the long term, it's a crazy level to be at, but announcing it when people are having trouble paying energy bills was a classic shoot-yourself-in-the-foot idea. It should have been left as the cherry, once the economy was growing & healthy.
Likewise a penny off basic rate tax is pointless, it has no impact on the lowest paid, and even those who pay it won't see any significant difference. It would have been far better to drop the VAT rate. Backtracking on IR35 at this point doens't seem useful, at least the original statement accepted that its implementation was problematic, and that was welcomed.
Now we're stuck in a situation where the only thing worse than Truss as PM would be the upheaval of kicking her out.
Even decades of Tory backbiting is, "Labour's fault".
Curious, where did I say that? Did you even read the rest of my post? The tory backbenchers who played into Labour hands to oust Boris must take a major share of the blame.
The drift toward high tax started with Blair, but was continued through the past years of the Tory governments, something I criticized them for. They share the blame for the current economic stagnation, and I had some hope that a new PM might turn that around. Unfortunately, as I noted, Truss did so in such a cack-handed way that she made things worse, no surprise there at all.
As for immigration, please enlighten us as to how that matters in a discussion about failed economic policies?
>Curious, where did I say that? Did you even read the rest of my post? The tory backbenchers who played into Labour hands to oust Boris must take a major share of the blame.
>Indeed. Truss was never going to be the right person for PM, the backbenchers who conspired with Labour to oust Boris were warned about the dangers, but wouldn't listen. Turkeys voting for an early Christmas.
If you are going to change what you originally typed, one would suggest to delete the original post first to hide the evidence?
One thing removed poor Boris from No10: The Conservative and Unionist Party's MPs.
>One thing removed poor Boris from No10: The Conservative and Unionist Party's MPs.
One thing removed poor Boris from No 10: Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson
He was removed ultimately because rather than discipline a senior colleague that was accused of sexual assault his first instinct was to cover it up and lie about it. After all those years of his own sex scandals, it is the ultimate irony that he was taken down by someone else behaving inappropriately.
If he'd suspended the MP in question immediately, ordered a full investigation and been upfront about what he knew in advance, he'd still be in No 10 now. But he had to go down the Owen Paterson route - and made everything *worse*.
"Curious, where did I say that? Did you even read the rest of my post? The tory backbenchers who played into Labour hands to oust Boris must take a major share of the blame."
Right there. In black and white. It's funny how tory fanbois are unable to even think about the fact that they are effectively supporting a disgraced ex PM who not only liked to the country, parliament and the monarch, but broke the law repeatedly. Nobody "conspired" to oust Johnson, he was a liability to the tory party and the country. Unfortunately the tories then chose someone even more inept.
Boris was utter crap. Fortunately, he was such utter crap that he seemed unwilling or unable to actually do much of anything, other than party when he shouldn't have done and quietly(ish) siphon off public funds to Conservative party donors. Nothing that would be serious enough to truly spook the money men. Ultimately, he was happy to just be in power, he didn't much care about what he would actually do with it.
Unfortunately, Truss seems to want to change the world. And she has, just not to most people's benefit.
In my view, the actual fundamental economic problem is that the cost of living (house prices are way too high, and Russia's economic weaponisation of natural gas and resultant price spike) is eating away so much of peoples pay packet that their disposable income (which is what drives the economy) is tiny.
The only way to improve the economy is to increase the amount of disposable income to the largest possible number of people by the largest possible amount.
Tax cuts are a quick and simple way of doing that which would have worked; since we can't do anything about energy prices and if you tried to tackle the root cause of there being wayyyyy to few houses by a post WW2 scale prefab building spree to bring down the cost of housing it'd take years and risk crashing the housing market and causing an economic crisis. (which in the long term would be beneficial, especially to the younger generation but no politician is going to be willing to take the bullet)
The only other obvious avenue left to take is tackling the amount of technically just about legal (if you squint) tax evasion and using the additional income to find tax cuts for workers by (for instance) lowering the amount that gets raided from your pay packet by the tax man.
"Tax cuts are a quick and simple way of doing that which would have worked;"
Not really - cutting a penny in the pound for low paid workers will not recoup the thousands of pounds they are now having to spend on energy bills. For most workers on minimum wage or even national average (someone somewhere is making a ridiculous amount to make the average salary that high) would save a couple of hundred quid over the year, if they were lucky. £2-3000 pounds on heating ?
The cost of gas was already rising rapidly before Putins little expedition, yet other countries seemed capable of limiting the impact on their citizens, unlike the UK.
@Mooseman
"The cost of gas was already rising rapidly before Putins little expedition, yet other countries seemed capable of limiting the impact on their citizens, unlike the UK."
The UK tried but greenies didnt like fracking. Aside from that what do you mean other countries seemed capable of limiting the impact? Countries are now running out of gas but before the war Germany (poster child of green madness) was subsidising fossil fuel and green tech and discussing lights going out in a few years.
@TRT
"Dig it out of the UK, but sell it to the highest bidder. Wherever they are."
True, we could keep it for ourselves but instead sell to the world market. However that means a lot of tax revenue from it with which can support our purchases. Also any surplus we cannot move fast enough remains here (I heard there is a similar issue with piping gas to the continent. Only so much pipe and a lot more gas so it keeps our prices down).
"The UK tried but greenies didnt like fracking"
As usual with your ramblings you are unable to actually form a sentence without trying to be offensive. Fracking, as you know perfectly well, was not and is not a solution to our energy issues. The fact that local groups didnt want polluted water sources and (probably very minor but man made) earthquakes for a very dubious return is not really why freacking never got going.
When gas prices started rocketing (before the Russian invasion of Ukraine) the UK was the one suffering rapidly increasing consumer costs, unlike most other countries. Your obsession with anything "green" being bad is embarrassing, really - yes Germany was subsidising fuel costs, which was rather my point in the first place. More sensible countries like France and Germany didnt see why the costs of a rampaging gas market should be borne by the consumer, unlike the UK.
@Mooseman
"As usual with your ramblings you are unable to actually form a sentence without trying to be offensive"
You consider greenies to be offensive? What new term should we be using to describe people of that ideological bent?
"Fracking, as you know perfectly well, was not and is not a solution to our energy issues."
Why? If we want to be running gas powered generation to back up all that green energy tech that is unreliable then we need gas.
"The fact that local groups didnt want polluted water sources and (probably very minor but man made) earthquakes for a very dubious return is not really why freacking never got going."
Except there seems little risk of polluted water and the earthquake propaganda has nothing to do with the almost non-existent tremors as the limit for fracking is extremely low while other drilling activities it is much higher. Ed Davey (lib dem) was very publicly proud of stopping fracking which was the goal, not about any 'problems'-
https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/wgmny1ph6hvfwmlhn6nfvyo0wf478w
"When gas prices started rocketing (before the Russian invasion of Ukraine) the UK was the one suffering rapidly increasing consumer costs, unlike most other countries. Your obsession with anything "green" being bad is embarrassing, really - yes Germany was subsidising fuel costs, which was rather my point in the first place."
So your point is that gas prices were going up. The UK was increasing consumer costs but others such as Germany was increasing consumer costs on the tax payers. And you can get upset that I point out the unreliable techs failings but we need gas for when the monuments to a sky god dont provide power. Germany had to subsidise fossil fuel to keep the lights on after screwing the market to support 'green tech' that didnt work. You should be embarrassed at still not getting this.
"More sensible countries like France and Germany didnt see why the costs of a rampaging gas market should be borne by the consumer, unlike the UK."
The costs shouldnt fall onto the people using it? Wtf?? And you dont seem to realise that it is on the customer as they are the tax payers. 25% of the UK energy bill was green madness. That is on top of government subsidy and market manipulation to force the use of unreliables and requiring gas as a backup. Your idea of sensible is madness.
For most people the tax cuts proposed would have done little to nothing - they certainly wouldn't have got anywhere near offsetting the damage to their finances caused by the cost of energy crisis. The only people who would have made any significant benefits from the proposed tax cuts would be people at the very top of the earning spectrum i.e. people who already have vast amounts of disposable income. Even a generous amount of extra money isn't going to greatly change the behaviour of people in this bracket.
In case you haven't had the memo, trickle down economics doesn't (never did, and never will) work.
Probably the first time I have substantially agreed with a post from Phil O'.
I don't agree with the underlying strategy but we can at least agree that it really is ridiculous when our Cabinet can't see the obvious! Unfunded tax cuts, just when the world is going to hell in a handbasket and half the country won't be able to pay its energy bills. Increased borrowing, just when global inflation is shooting up.
We may disagree on the right economic strategy but at least the adults in the room could agree that now is not the time for an untested economic experiment.
"Now we're stuck in a situation where the only thing worse than Truss as PM would be the upheaval of kicking her out."
That's only true if you're a Tory. they're truly staring into the abyss right now. The rest of us would be fine with getting rid of yet another imcompetent before they can do further damage. Hell, even having no effective government at all would be better than the current state of affairs.
we are looking at more of the same from those who brought us such a wonderful situation that we are in.
And yet that lamentable state of affairs is somehow a thousand times better than the Minford/Tufton St nonsense that Truss was going to inflict on the nation.
"we are looking at more of the same from those who brought us such a wonderful situation that we are in"
Nope. Trussonomics is dead and so are the careers and reputations of the buffoons responsible for it. Our economy is still up shit creek of course - as it has been for 25-30 years. But at least now we might have access to a paddle. Which we definitely wouldn't have if Dumb and Dumber had been allowed to continue wrecking the economy with extra borrowing to plug the black hole created by their unfunded tax cuts that made no sense. Compared to them, even the epically stupid Diane Abbott would have been a better choice. Let's face it, she could hardly be any worse.
Truss was in thrall to a neo conservative cult that worshipped market forces as the sacred answer to all the worlds problems,
The only problem being the market ( in this case a few thousand amoral traders chasing a bigger bonus) knew the theory to be junk.
If high taxes are so bad why are the Scandinavian countries such nice places to live with successful economies and high standards of living?
Instead we have a political elite that thinks we should emulate low/no tax countries like say Pakistan.
@James Anderson
"If high taxes are so bad why are the Scandinavian countries such nice places to live with successful economies and high standards of living?"
Enjoy- https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Sanandajinima-interactive.pdf
But freer markets, even not having minimum wage, less central body control and homogeneous population makes it somewhat stable while having trade-offs of established 'classes' will low social mobility, less entrepreneurship, etc. Plus they are living off the success they had before they tried socialism and then fell back to democratic socialism. Also for those in NATO it helps that they dont put in their 2% letting the others carry the bill.
"Instead we have a political elite that thinks we should emulate low/no tax countries like say Pakistan."
That comment is so dumb I am sure reading it kills braincells.
Have a look at the stats here:--
https://www.freesat.co.uk/get-freesat/set-top-boxes?gclid=Cj0KCQjwnbmaBhD-ARIsAGTPcfXVWQNM7531xDmSggxt4zHUE10ZJlyF9Pgwp9n-WKOzZH-_v0uU6LQaAkPJEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds
The high tax countries at the top of the list are basically the places you would most like to live and work.
Pakistan at with taxes at 12 % of GDP is a low tax country as well as a borderline failed state.
@James Anderson
"Have a look at the stats here:--"
I am not looking for a freesat box thanks (assume posted wrong link).
"The high tax countries at the top of the list are basically the places you would most like to live and work."
And that contradicts what I said? Its a different way but depends on how you consider "nice places to live with successful economies and high standards of living" which I was responding to.
"Pakistan at with taxes at 12 % of GDP is a low tax country as well as a borderline failed state."
And? What has that to do with the price of fish?
"And? What has that to do with the price of fish?"
Just to illustrate the total lack of correlation between low taxes and a successful economy,
If there is any correlation it is that higher tax economies tend to be more successful.
Note to neo-liberal novices. Most government spending is included in GDP calculations, George Osbornes cruel and unnecessary "austerity" automatically reduced growth in the UK economy.
@James Anderson
"Just to illustrate the total lack of correlation between low taxes and a successful economy,"
Ah. Just as there is no correlation between high tax and a successful economy.
"If there is any correlation it is that higher tax economies tend to be more successful."
Except that has yet to be shown. High tax has been shown to be extremely damaging and has to be reversed unless massively transforming the economy to private hands and market forces and trading off growth and prosperity.
"Note to neo-liberal novices. Most government spending is included in GDP calculations, George Osbornes cruel and unnecessary "austerity" automatically reduced growth in the UK economy."
Except there wasnt austerity. Austerity would be a reduction, not less of an expansion. And where was the spending to come from? Labour even left them a note saying good luck there is no money left and thats after selling gold, PFI contracts and drunken sailor spending. Should have done even more borrowing? Look where that gets us, we are here.
!"where was the spending to come from? Labour even left them a note saying good luck there is no money left and thats after selling gold, PFI contracts and drunken sailor spending."
Oh please. That old chestnut again? I know you think you're terribly clever and no doubt you will have a smug and self-congratulatory response to this, but really? The "theres no money left" note nonsense again? If you were half as clever as you imagine yourself to be you would know that the famous note is a standard joke when leaving government.
Austerity didnt happen, eh? Maybe not where you live, but certainly did in the rest of the country. You seem to be blissfully unaware of the hopeless record of the conservatives when it comes to debt, relying instead on the tired old tropes of "ooh but labour....note...selling gold..." while conveniently ignoring the fact that pre-covid your mob had more debt than every labour government ever, combined.
@Mooseman
"Oh please. That old chestnut again?"
Yeah because the oldies are goodies especially when they are right.
"Austerity didnt happen, eh? Maybe not where you live, but certainly did in the rest of the country"
In the UK so no. You are wrong that that was easy. The coalition planned to spend less than the planned spending of labour, but was still an increase in spending.
"You seem to be blissfully unaware of the hopeless record of the conservatives when it comes to debt"
You seem to be assuming something wrong again. Neither political party has done well.
"tired old tropes of "ooh but labour....note...selling gold...""
A serious blunder of serious stupidity at cost to the UK, and you dont think its worth noting?
"while conveniently ignoring the fact that pre-covid your mob had more debt than every labour government ever, combined."
My mob? This isnt the playground, this isnt school. No mob, I have no loyalty to any party. At no point to I excuse the debt, instead insisting spending should actually be cut. Get out of the childish mentality of mobs and maybe our conversations will progress more.
@Hawkeye Pierce
"Factually incorrect. Spending by the UK Government fell every year from 2010/11 until 2013/14 even before adjusting for inflation."
Actually I might have been wrong. For the years 2012-2013 (set the chart to per yr)-
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/timeseries/ebft/pusf
@James Anderson
"Opps -- cut and paste error"
I guessed so, unless you were getting commission :)
So as per your 2020 list it is good to see that while there is a need for some tax that high tax does not correlate with success. Noting the Africas and such taking a higher percentage than the US and the US being a desirable destination. And the UK attracting so many yet having lower taxation than some others (even with our increasing tax rates).
You cite the opaquely-funded Tufton St-based IEA whose policies are literally so dumb when they meet the real world that the rest of us live in that there are people who are now paying £500 a month more on their mortgages when the then chancellor merely threatened to implement them.
Does it explain why the UK pissed its North Sea oil and gas away and why Norway didn't and is now enjoying much higher standard of living as a result? Also does it explain how the UK is dependent on Norwegian gas to keep the lights on but out of the European Internal Energy Market?
Interested to see how the IEA could have the front to tell that as a good thing. Although if anyone could, it'd be them, as they're all about baffling politicians and businesses with bullshit to get them to implement policies which transfers wealth to their unknown clients.
@Dan 55
"Does it explain why the UK pissed its North Sea oil and gas away and why Norway didn't and is now enjoying much higher standard of living as a result?"
I dont think it mentioned the disaster politicians made sucking up to the unions and the need to generate revenue to dig the UK out of such debts.
"Also does it explain how the UK is dependent on Norwegian gas to keep the lights on but out of the European Internal Energy Market?"
Why would it? That would be a green madness issue for our reliance on gas. Although continental Europe also needs Norwegian gas which we pipe over as we have the infrastructure Germany is now franticly trying to build.
The book mostly looks at the changes the nordics went through, the necessary economic liberalisations required to sustain it and a comparison to nordic people who emigrated to the US. If you want to know whats in it why not read the book? Then you dont need to guess topics that it may nor not contain?
I'd like you to cite exactly what part of that pamphlet you found so fascinating and why. So far it seems you posted a link to... something. Nobody's got time for IEA nonsense, it just doesn't stand up in the real world. It's already costed the British economy far too much.
@Dan 55
"I'd like you to cite exactly what part of that pamphlet you found so fascinating and why."
So you call it a pamphlet but yet its too long for you to read. I found the entire thing fascinating as it contained quite a lot of information.
"So far it seems you posted a link to... something"
I didnt realise you couldnt read. Get someone to read it to you. I cant really condense something fairly well condensed.
"Nobody's got time for IEA nonsense, it just doesn't stand up in the real world"
Because it has words and you dont have time to figure them out? You inserted yourself into the conversation, I posted it to James Anderson who seemed interested in how the nordic model works. If your just gonna moan about a conversation with someone else you might fins something better to do with your time.
@Dan 55
"Doing anything except talk about the real-world effects in the Uk from Truss' and Kwartang's announcement that they were going to implement IEA policies, which is what my post was about."
So you decided to slip into someone elses conversation so you can cry and moan because I provided a link for someone else. Then you ask questions that have nothing to do with the link. Then you cry and moan because my response has nothing to do with the conversation you are having in your own head?
Your post has nothing to do with what we were talking about. Not even close. If you want to talk about something completely different go start off that thread but thats not a reply to a different conversation.
@Dan 55
"Video is an excellent summary of recent events, codejunky will be unable to answer any of the questions raised."
What questions? Watch the video, what questions? Its a crying waa that the lobbying groups the gov are listening to are no longer the green madness, economically illiterate groups that have brought us to this situation. Its to say other lobby groups with their 'evil' agendas took over and idiots have their knickers in a twist.
I dont care about lobby groups, I am interested in the policies.
" they are living off the success they had before they tried socialism"
Sorry, you think countries like Sweden were socialist? Ah yes I remember it well, the days of scandinavian socialism on a par with East Germany....
You have a weird obsession with socialism, yet enjoy a lot of socialist benefits. And no, I'm not a labour supporter.
@Mooseman
"Sorry, you think countries like Sweden were socialist?"
No. They tried heading that way but luckily pulled back when they realised socialism destroys the economy and freed up their markets to afford the redistributive state. Hell its in my comment you fool- "before they tried socialism and then fell back to democratic socialism"
"You have a weird obsession with socialism, yet enjoy a lot of socialist benefits. And no, I'm not a labour supporter."
Worthless blather of usual froth.
"Hell its in my comment you fool"
No, it isnt. You quite plainly said that they tried socialism. Thery didn't. As usual your only source of reference is your own ridiculous commentary.
You are completely unable to form an argument without being insulting, petulant and childish. I'm beyond bored of your whining. Go and masturbate over imaginary left wing oppression in your own time. Idiot.
@Mooseman
"No, it isnt."
Again in bold before they tried socialism and then fell back to democratic socialism. They didnt go full on socialism because as they moved towards that direction they pulled back as they saw the damage it was causing.
"You quite plainly said that they tried socialism"
They were trying socialist policies and pulled back due to the harm. I am not sure how you are confused?
As for the rest of your comment, didnt you complain earlier about something to do with insults. Although amusingly you were arguing against the word greenie for those who deem themselves green.
correction you were complaining about 'offensive' not 'insults'.
Not a great way to start, with a lie, Mr Hunt. Claiming these changes will bring in extra money when the truth is you're just getting back the money you gave away a few weeks ago.
If I lose a tenner and then find it again I'm not any richer than I was to begin with.
So are you a liar or unable to count Mr Hunt?
the truth is you're just getting back the money you gave away a few weeks ago.
Not so. It was the money Cheesy Liz and Kharzi Kwarteng hoped to borrow and then give away which has gone. These two imbeciles thankfully didn't get as far as borrowing that dosh or handing it out. Or to put it in a way that might make more sense to you, nobody's taken away the tenner someone promised to stuff down the back of the sofa for you because they hadn't got around to doing that.
BTW being a liar and unable to count have been mandatory prerequisites for any Cabinet post. It's been like that since the Suez crisis ~70 years ago.
The basketcase of idiocy that (further) trashed Sterling (it was $1.65 before the referendum) involved major, unnecessary tax cuts that would do nothing for those suffering and just make the wealthier, even wealthier. We all know trickledown is a con, and in the current circumstances, a dumber, more 'tone deaf', voter/market-antagonistic policy could hardly have been produced.
But IR35 was not a headline issue. The general public haven't heard of it and the markets don't care. Most MPs won't know what it means either. They could have reverted it, reformed it or abolished it, and it wouldn't have made any difference at all. I think they just panicked and unticked all the boxes without bothering what they were.
They really don't know what they are doing. We appear to have some of the least competent people in Britain running the country. Truss now has zero credibility, down from 'very little' a few weeks back.
I disagree. Truss started from zero, and has tanked as much as the economy but overe a slightly longer time. The decline merely dramatically accelerated when she was handed the top job.
That said, I do see people buy Sterling right now. I'm jiust not sure it'll make as quick a recovery after Truss as they think because, let's face it, the box of tricks they have to get the economy stabilised is pretty much empty. Brexit pretty much stripped all reserves, and now London cannot milk all the oligarchs I am noy quite sure where the moeny can come from.
The problem is that both main parties seek to win election votes by giveaways, just the audience differes. Neither seem to have the balls and/or strategy to address the problems first.
I'm curious. If Truss has tanked the economy, just how much worse off are you now than when she was appointed Prime Minister?
I see a lot of media, a lot of opposition politicians, a lot of people ostensibly in her own party, all screeching. Not a single one could do any better, and the last 25 years proves that.
"I'm curious. If Truss has tanked the economy, just how much worse off are you now than when she was appointed Prime Minister?"
Well from December I'm facing an extra £750/month on my mortgage as a direct result of that fuckwit. I don't yet know how much more Trussonomics is going to cost me for energy, food, rates, VAT, NI, etc. These are certainly not going to make me better off. Or leave me with spare money to spend and grow the economy.
"I see a lot of media, a lot of opposition politicians, a lot of people ostensibly in her own party, all screeching. Not a single one could do any better, and the last 25 years proves that."
That's a remarkably stupid statement. None of the people you're blaming have been in power for the last 25 years. In fact some have never been in power. So it can't be proved either way if they could or couldn't do better. I'd take a punt on the former though.
The last government to royally fuck the economy and ruin any fiscal credibility or stability was the Major/Lamont regime that crashed out of the ERM in the 1990s. None of the governments since then managed to crash the pound, jack up interest rates, force an emergency £65B buy-back of gilts nobody else would touch, push pension funds to insolvency, sack the Chancellor and do several policy U-turns. Or achieve all of that within days of taking office. Not even Diane Abbott at her very worst could manage to do that.
Interest rates are rising because of inflation, which is rising because of all the money printed for COVID, and because global energy prices are rising.
It's also rather curious that you have a mortgage of over £650k (the minimum you'd need to see a monthly rise of £750/month) and didn't negotiate a longer fixed rate that would protect you from the very clearly telegraphed and predictable rate rises.
But I would point out that the pound dipped then recovered, so not a crash, the buy-back of gilts was to protect pension funds that had been badly managed and left themselves exposed to market volatility, something that Truss could hardly control, that the Bank of England should have raised rates much higher much sooner because of the inflation, that there never was £65bn of buy-back of gilts (last I heard it was under £20bn, and they were in profit due to price rises) and pension funds weren't pushed to insolvency precisely because of that Bank of England intervention.
Then you wonder why I think the mass media aren't covering this fairly. They should have been helping you understand all of this.
Somehow you failed to join the dots and realise the market volatility came about precisely because of the sheer batshittery of what was being announced for the upcoming budget. Still, at least it helped hedge fund managers betting on everyone else's panic if nobody else.
Absolutely. The pension funds had modelled for market volatiliy over and above the previous record level. However, their models hadn't accounted for a level of volatility 3x higher than had ever been seen before as a result of the Kami-kwasi budget.
> The basketcase of idiocy that (further) trashed Sterling (it was $1.65 before the referendum)
Errm, so everyone keeps saying this, but it's probably more the case that the US dollar has been strong vs every other currency. Sure in the last few days there's been some volatility which is hardly surprising but, on the whole, GBP doesn't to my untrained eye seem to have faired significantly better or worse than any of GBP/Euro/Swiss Franc/Korean Won/Dirham vs USD.
Now, perhaps we'd have been better off without Brexit, but it doesn't seem to be that which is the problem vs. the USD.
Is it an omni-shambles in general? Yeah I'd agree with you there.
To be honest, I find it fascinating that the US dollar is so strong. There are a couple of fundamentals underneath the dollar that are about to get a serious knock so I'm guessing it's only strong now because everyone's using it to shop before all hell breaks loose.
FFS, it's jake not Jake and his posts are nearly all limited to explaining how he created the internet. I've not heard him chime in on IR35 before, but then you whiny contractors don't half make a fucking racket, I doubt he'd cut through the wails about how unfair everything is.
TBH I'm a tiny bit more concerned about Nurses and Teachers than I am about you rich twats.
The sudden rise in interest rates, and hence mortgages, can be blamed on the government and their rush to announce major changes before parliament adjourned for the party conference season.
The pension fund crisis is the fault of the City wizards trying to recreate their triumphs of 2007/8 and of the regulators who are meant to monitor them. In this case the affected pension funds had been sold LDIs (think over-leveraged derivatives) as a 'safe' income during a period of low interest rates - which worked until the sharp rise in rates triggered automated margin calls that forced the funds to start a fire sale of their most cashable assets.
"It had NOTHING to do with the number of contractors or how many roles they could take"
Literally true, but it did restrict the effective market. it made contracting a hazardous option because instead of being an equal party to the contract, it made contractors subject to the whims of parties they can't choose or negotiate with (e.g. the agency-appointed "umbrella company").
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
