Liz Truss Prime Minister

[skwdenyer]

gamefreaks said:

No. Have you? The Conservatives have done fk all for the last 14 years and defaulted to a meddling, nannying and tinkering around the edges.

Labour on the other hand, fked an entire generation.

It was Gordon Brown who signed the Lisbon Treaty sowing the seeds for Brexit.

It was under Labour that house prices doubled in real terms.

It was under Labour that tuition fees were introduced.

It was under Labour we saw a doubling of net migration to the UK.

It was under Labour that pension dividend tax relief was abolished ending defined benefit pensions for most people in the private sector.

Thats just off the top of my head...

House prices doubled in real terms from 1982 to 1989, too. We’re all so much more prosperous when that happens, don’t you know?

I agree with you about pensions.

The Dearing report that proposed tuition fees was a Tory creation. Major massively expanded enrolment. Blair was left to pay for it. Since Labour has been elected on a platform of not increasing taxes, it was inevitable tuition fees would arise. Personally I’d prefer a graduate tax or alternative approach, but it doesn’t seem the worst idea. But it is also easily reversible.

The Lisbon Treaty is a red herring. Nothing the Brexiteers opposed was dependent upon it.

Net migration is an interesting one. It near-tripled under Major. Why not call him out?

[anonymoususer]

Liz Truss is IMO one of the major political talents of recent years
If you think about it then you will realise that it's mainly women who have had the most success in recent years.
I shall list 3

Liz Truss
Nicola Sturgeon
Jo Swinson

They came, they conquered, they will not be forgotten

[Derek Smith]

Rivenink said:

I'll throw Cameron into the ring for this match up.

A reckless gambler who held two referendums without proper planning for what should happen if the vote was not with the status quo.

All of the chaos from 2016 through to 2020 can be laid squarely on shoulders for not doing any kind of planning or preperation.

I dread to think how bitter, acrimonious and disasterous things would have gotten had Scotland chosen to leave the UK and become independent.

Undoubtedly it was part of the campiagn strategy, "project fear" as it were.


For me, Cameron takes the crown for worst PM.

I was having a chat with a left-leaning neighbour on the subject of recent tory PMs. We both agreed that, out of them all, May did the least damage. By no means perfect, by no means adequate, but merely the best of the bunch.

It's a sobering thought.

[Timothy Bucktu]

James6112 said:

Timothy Bucktu said:

tangerine_sedge said:

Timothy Bucktu said:

bhstewie said:

Dear oh dear first Bannon now this.

Jess Phillips calls on Prime Minister to deselect Liz Truss over interview on ‘hateful platform’

Hateful platform? Oh dear...I'd better cancel my monthly subs to The Lotus Eaters then...
5 or 10 years under Labour is going to be...interesting times.

Your posting history starts to make sense now ...

Excellent...I'm glad you took the time to check me out. Thanks.

Doesn’t need checking out.
Just a familiar name from the conspiracy nutter threads that are best avoided (but a laugh to look at!)

I'm flattered

[jdw100]

gamefreaks said:

No. Have you? The Conservatives have done fk all for the last 14 years and defaulted to a meddling, nannying and tinkering around the edges.

Labour on the other hand, fked an entire generation.

It was Gordon Brown who signed the Lisbon Treaty sowing the seeds for Brexit.

It was under Labour that house prices doubled in real terms.

It was under Labour that tuition fees were introduced.

It was under Labour we saw a doubling of net migration to the UK.

It was under Labour that pension dividend tax relief was abolished ending defined benefit pensions for most people in the private sector.

Thats just off the top of my head...

Blair and crew were in power from my mid/late twenties into my mid thirties.

Which generation were fked?

Mine, the younger or older group?

[Byker28i]

Derek Smith said:

Rivenink said:

I'll throw Cameron into the ring for this match up.

A reckless gambler who held two referendums without proper planning for what should happen if the vote was not with the status quo.

All of the chaos from 2016 through to 2020 can be laid squarely on shoulders for not doing any kind of planning or preperation.

I dread to think how bitter, acrimonious and disasterous things would have gotten had Scotland chosen to leave the UK and become independent.

Undoubtedly it was part of the campiagn strategy, "project fear" as it were.


For me, Cameron takes the crown for worst PM.

I was having a chat with a left-leaning neighbour on the subject of recent tory PMs. We both agreed that, out of them all, May did the least damage. By no means perfect, by no means adequate, but merely the best of the bunch.

It's a sobering thought.

Cameron seemed a voice of reason and doing OK until he fked up over Brexit

[Electro1980]

skwdenyer said:

gamefreaks said:

No. Have you? The Conservatives have done fk all for the last 14 years and defaulted to a meddling, nannying and tinkering around the edges.

Labour on the other hand, fked an entire generation.

It was Gordon Brown who signed the Lisbon Treaty sowing the seeds for Brexit.

It was under Labour that house prices doubled in real terms.

It was under Labour that tuition fees were introduced.

It was under Labour we saw a doubling of net migration to the UK.

It was under Labour that pension dividend tax relief was abolished ending defined benefit pensions for most people in the private sector.

Thats just off the top of my head...

House prices doubled in real terms from 1982 to 1989, too. We’re all so much more prosperous when that happens, don’t you know?

I agree with you about pensions.

The Dearing report that proposed tuition fees was a Tory creation. Major massively expanded enrolment. Blair was left to pay for it. Since Labour has been elected on a platform of not increasing taxes, it was inevitable tuition fees would arise. Personally I’d prefer a graduate tax or alternative approach, but it doesn’t seem the worst idea. But it is also easily reversible.

The Lisbon Treaty is a red herring. Nothing the Brexiteers opposed was dependent upon it.

Net migration is an interesting one. It near-tripled under Major. Why not call him out?

Plus Tories increased tuition fees from “that’s irritating” to “HOW MUCH???”.

[Riff Raff]

skwdenyer said:

gamefreaks said:

No. Have you? The Conservatives have done fk all for the last 14 years and defaulted to a meddling, nannying and tinkering around the edges.

Labour on the other hand, fked an entire generation.

It was Gordon Brown who signed the Lisbon Treaty sowing the seeds for Brexit.

It was under Labour that house prices doubled in real terms.

It was under Labour that tuition fees were introduced.

It was under Labour we saw a doubling of net migration to the UK.

It was under Labour that pension dividend tax relief was abolished ending defined benefit pensions for most people in the private sector.

Thats just off the top of my head...

House prices doubled in real terms from 1982 to 1989, too. We’re all so much more prosperous when that happens, don’t you know?

I agree with you about pensions.

The Dearing report that proposed tuition fees was a Tory creation. Major massively expanded enrolment. Blair was left to pay for it. Since Labour has been elected on a platform of not increasing taxes, it was inevitable tuition fees would arise. Personally I’d prefer a graduate tax or alternative approach, but it doesn’t seem the worst idea. But it is also easily reversible.

The Lisbon Treaty is a red herring. Nothing the Brexiteers opposed was dependent upon it.

Net migration is an interesting one. It near-tripled under Major. Why not call him out?

I'm not sure that the demise of private sector defined benefit schemes can be laid solely at the feet of Gordon Brown. Before Brown did his thing, Nigel Lawson had a bit of a raid on pension scheme surpluses. Changes in accounting standards meant that fund deficits had to be accounted for in company accounts. Actuarial valuations of fund future liabilities were often a bit more pessimistic than they might have been. The long term low interest rate environment didn't help.

Personally, I think that the changes in accounting standards would eventually have done for private sector defined benefit schemes without any help from GB. By moving to defined contribution instead of defined benefit schemes, companies are effectively de-risking their balance sheets from events in their pension funds over which they have little actual control.

It's really quite complicated. But it is quite easy to point the finger at Gordon Brown.

[skwdenyer]

Riff Raff said:

skwdenyer said:

gamefreaks said:

No. Have you? The Conservatives have done fk all for the last 14 years and defaulted to a meddling, nannying and tinkering around the edges.

Labour on the other hand, fked an entire generation.

It was Gordon Brown who signed the Lisbon Treaty sowing the seeds for Brexit.

It was under Labour that house prices doubled in real terms.

It was under Labour that tuition fees were introduced.

It was under Labour we saw a doubling of net migration to the UK.

It was under Labour that pension dividend tax relief was abolished ending defined benefit pensions for most people in the private sector.

Thats just off the top of my head...

House prices doubled in real terms from 1982 to 1989, too. We’re all so much more prosperous when that happens, don’t you know?

I agree with you about pensions.

The Dearing report that proposed tuition fees was a Tory creation. Major massively expanded enrolment. Blair was left to pay for it. Since Labour has been elected on a platform of not increasing taxes, it was inevitable tuition fees would arise. Personally I’d prefer a graduate tax or alternative approach, but it doesn’t seem the worst idea. But it is also easily reversible.

The Lisbon Treaty is a red herring. Nothing the Brexiteers opposed was dependent upon it.

Net migration is an interesting one. It near-tripled under Major. Why not call him out?

I'm not sure that the demise of private sector defined benefit schemes can be laid solely at the feet of Gordon Brown. Before Brown did his thing, Nigel Lawson had a bit of a raid on pension scheme surpluses. Changes in accounting standards meant that fund deficits had to be accounted for in company accounts. Actuarial valuations of fund future liabilities were often a bit more pessimistic than they might have been. The long term low interest rate environment didn't help.

Personally, I think that the changes in accounting standards would eventually have done for private sector defined benefit schemes without any help from GB. By moving to defined contribution instead of defined benefit schemes, companies are effectively de-risking their balance sheets from events in their pension funds over which they have little actual control.

It's really quite complicated. But it is quite easy to point the finger at Gordon Brown.

Well put. Nonetheless the principle of taxing pension interest was hard to justify IMHO.

[Wombat3]

skwdenyer said:

Riff Raff said:

skwdenyer said:

gamefreaks said:

No. Have you? The Conservatives have done fk all for the last 14 years and defaulted to a meddling, nannying and tinkering around the edges.

Labour on the other hand, fked an entire generation.

It was Gordon Brown who signed the Lisbon Treaty sowing the seeds for Brexit.

It was under Labour that house prices doubled in real terms.

It was under Labour that tuition fees were introduced.

It was under Labour we saw a doubling of net migration to the UK.

It was under Labour that pension dividend tax relief was abolished ending defined benefit pensions for most people in the private sector.

Thats just off the top of my head...

House prices doubled in real terms from 1982 to 1989, too. We’re all so much more prosperous when that happens, don’t you know?

I agree with you about pensions.

The Dearing report that proposed tuition fees was a Tory creation. Major massively expanded enrolment. Blair was left to pay for it. Since Labour has been elected on a platform of not increasing taxes, it was inevitable tuition fees would arise. Personally I’d prefer a graduate tax or alternative approach, but it doesn’t seem the worst idea. But it is also easily reversible.

The Lisbon Treaty is a red herring. Nothing the Brexiteers opposed was dependent upon it.

Net migration is an interesting one. It near-tripled under Major. Why not call him out?

I'm not sure that the demise of private sector defined benefit schemes can be laid solely at the feet of Gordon Brown. Before Brown did his thing, Nigel Lawson had a bit of a raid on pension scheme surpluses. Changes in accounting standards meant that fund deficits had to be accounted for in company accounts. Actuarial valuations of fund future liabilities were often a bit more pessimistic than they might have been. The long term low interest rate environment didn't help.

Personally, I think that the changes in accounting standards would eventually have done for private sector defined benefit schemes without any help from GB. By moving to defined contribution instead of defined benefit schemes, companies are effectively de-risking their balance sheets from events in their pension funds over which they have little actual control.

It's really quite complicated. But it is quite easy to point the finger at Gordon Brown.

Well put. Nonetheless the principle of taxing pension interest was hard to justify IMHO.

It was dividends that he removed the tax credit for. It was an easy target. Having been elected on a carefully worded false promise of not raising taxes he just saw an easy £5Bn a year to piss up the wall on his pet projects (and then hiked NI for good measure anyway).

The compounded value of that £5Bn per year over the subsequent 20+ years is a staggering amount of money that could & should have been in the pension funds instead.

I'd also agree with the above about the Lisbon treaty issue being part of the origins of Brexit. It wasn't the content of the treaty itself but the high-handed way that it was dealt with by Brown & co. Despite a commitment for a referendum on any future treaties he had to argue that we didn't need one / shouldn't have one because the treaty was not really a treaty at all (even though it was and still is called a treaty by everyone across the EU.!)

Then there was the small matter of the Irish being asked to vote again because they gave the wrong answer.

That sort of behaviour by both our own and the EU governments did not sit well with the man on the Clapham Omnibus. They were sIgnificant errors of judgement IMO.

Giving away half the EU rebate, opening the door wide to immigration. selling the gold at silly prices & strapping us up for £350Bn in PFI commitments of very dubious value for money were also not especially clever either.

[Prolex-UK]

Wombat3 said:

skwdenyer said:

Riff Raff said:

skwdenyer said:

gamefreaks said:

No. Have you? The Conservatives have done fk all for the last 14 years and defaulted to a meddling, nannying and tinkering around the edges.

Labour on the other hand, fked an entire generation.

It was Gordon Brown who signed the Lisbon Treaty sowing the seeds for Brexit.

It was under Labour that house prices doubled in real terms.

It was under Labour that tuition fees were introduced.

It was under Labour we saw a doubling of net migration to the UK.

It was under Labour that pension dividend tax relief was abolished ending defined benefit pensions for most people in the private sector.

Thats just off the top of my head...

House prices doubled in real terms from 1982 to 1989, too. We’re all so much more prosperous when that happens, don’t you know?

I agree with you about pensions.

The Dearing report that proposed tuition fees was a Tory creation. Major massively expanded enrolment. Blair was left to pay for it. Since Labour has been elected on a platform of not increasing taxes, it was inevitable tuition fees would arise. Personally I’d prefer a graduate tax or alternative approach, but it doesn’t seem the worst idea. But it is also easily reversible.

The Lisbon Treaty is a red herring. Nothing the Brexiteers opposed was dependent upon it.

Net migration is an interesting one. It near-tripled under Major. Why not call him out?

I'm not sure that the demise of private sector defined benefit schemes can be laid solely at the feet of Gordon Brown. Before Brown did his thing, Nigel Lawson had a bit of a raid on pension scheme surpluses. Changes in accounting standards meant that fund deficits had to be accounted for in company accounts. Actuarial valuations of fund future liabilities were often a bit more pessimistic than they might have been. The long term low interest rate environment didn't help.

Personally, I think that the changes in accounting standards would eventually have done for private sector defined benefit schemes without any help from GB. By moving to defined contribution instead of defined benefit schemes, companies are effectively de-risking their balance sheets from events in their pension funds over which they have little actual control.

It's really quite complicated. But it is quite easy to point the finger at Gordon Brown.

Well put. Nonetheless the principle of taxing pension interest was hard to justify IMHO.

It was dividends that he removed the tax credit for. It was an easy target. Having been elected on a carefully worded false promise of not raising taxes he just saw an easy £5Bn a year to piss up the wall on his pet projects (and then hiked NI for good measure anyway).

The compounded value of that £5Bn per year over the subsequent 20+ years is a staggering amount of money that could & should have been in the pension funds instead.

I'd also agree with the above about the Lisbon treaty issue being part of the origins of Brexit. It wasn't the content of the treaty itself but the high-handed way that it was dealt with by Brown & co. Despite a commitment for a referendum on any future treaties he had to argue that we didn't need one / shouldn't have one because the treaty was not really a treaty at all (even though it was and still is called a treaty by everyone across the EU.!)

Then there was the small matter of the Irish being asked to vote again because they gave the wrong answer.

That sort of behaviour by both our own and the EU governments did not sit well with the man on the Clapham Omnibus. They were sIgnificant errors of judgement IMO.

Giving away half the EU rebate, opening the door wide to immigration. selling the gold at silly prices & strapping us up for £350Bn in PFI commitments of very dubious value for money were also not especially clever either.

PFI was/is a disaster

[NerveAgent]

Electro1980 said:

Plus Tories increased tuition fees from “that’s irritating” to “HOW MUCH???”.

I’m 38, my wife 32. So I’m under the “Labour generation” her later. No surprises as to which one of us could easily pay off our student loan, save for a house etc.

[768]

Once the tuition fee door was open, it was only ever going to open wider. The rates Labour put it at weren't realistically ever where they were intended to stay and everyone knew it at the time. It was the whole point of introducing them.

[2xChevrons]

Wombat3 said:

I'd also agree with the above about the Lisbon treaty issue being part of the origins of Brexit. It wasn't the content of the treaty itself but the high-handed way that it was dealt with by Brown & co. Despite a commitment for a referendum on any future treaties he had to argue that we didn't need one / shouldn't have one because the treaty was not really a treaty at all (even though it was and still is called a treaty by everyone across the EU.!)

Then there was the small matter of the Irish being asked to vote again because they gave the wrong answer.

The commitment made by Blair/Brown was that there would be a referendum on any future EU constitution. The EU constitution was dropped as a proposal after French and Dutch referenda rejected it, and before the UK made moves to either ratify it or hold a referendum.

The Treaty of Lisbon updated existing treaties (rather than replacing them as the Constitution would have done) and brought into effect some - but by no means all - of the institutional reforms that the Constitution would have implemented.

The Brown government's stance was that the commitment to a referendum only applied to a constitution, not an amending treaty and Lisbon was not, in character or effect, the same as the proposed constitution. So no referendum was required.

The Irish were not 'asked to vote again because they gave the wrong answer.' They voted No out of concerns for matters such as Ireland's neutrality laws, the legal status of abortion and the continuation of Ireland's corporate tax laws. After the initial rejection, the Treaty was altered to grant certain concessions and reassurances to Ireland. When the electorate were asked whether they wanted to accept the revised terms, they agreed to do so.

If only the UK had adopted some of the same maturity and buy-in during its time in the EU, eh?

This is basic stuff.

[the-photographer]

Thanks for your continued fact checking

[Carl_VivaEspana]

The Goldman Sacks via the Telegraph

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/06/10/ta...

"With both major parties committed to getting debt falling as a share of output five years ahead, the next government will need to pencil in a sizeable consolidation to meet its fiscal target.

“The historical evidence suggests that the next government may well change the current plan for how to implement the consolidation, with both taxes and spending likely to be higher. In the past three decades, new governments of all stripes have tended to raise taxes after elections.”

[JagLover]

Carl_VivaEspana said:

The Goldman Sacks via the Telegraph

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/06/10/ta...

"With both major parties committed to getting debt falling as a share of output five years ahead, the next government will need to pencil in a sizeable consolidation to meet its fiscal target.

“The historical evidence suggests that the next government may well change the current plan for how to implement the consolidation, with both taxes and spending likely to be higher. In the past three decades, new governments of all stripes have tended to raise taxes after elections.”

Perhaps another reason for the early election.

[Carl_VivaEspana]

Yes it is possible that the treasury know there is a fiscal event going to happen in the autumn and therefore any government trying to campaign much beyond the 2nd week in September was pointless.

[isaldiri]

Carl_VivaEspana said:

Yes it is possible that the treasury know there is a fiscal event going to happen in the autumn and therefore any government trying to campaign much beyond the 2nd week in September was pointless.

The losses that the BoE are racking up from selling down their massive gilt inventory is a 'known' thing. the fact that the government had long ago agreed to cover said losses is also known. the DMO has already been budgeting for how much is going to be required to cover that plus the additional redemptions which the BoE is no longer re-investing.

Just what kind of autumn fiscal event do you imagine is suddenly going to be happening again?

[glazbagun]

NerveAgent said:

Electro1980 said:

Plus Tories increased tuition fees from “that’s irritating” to “HOW MUCH???”.

I’m 38, my wife 32. So I’m under the “Labour generation” her later. No surprises as to which one of us could easily pay off our student loan, save for a house etc.

My Labour-era student loans will all be paid next year. Post- May government I'd not have even afforded university. £50K+ debt so you can be a nurse at the end of it? What were they thinking?