scbriml wrote:

Two year freeze on raising tax thresholds to match inflation. Effectively a "stealth tax" that will hurt mainly lower income families.

I misrepresented this, it was a two-year extension of the freeze, meaning tax thresholds are frozen until 2028. While the tax rate remains the same, the effect in a period of high inflation is a significant increase in taxation (hence it being categorised as a stealth tax).

A101 wrote:

Hunt the pro remain Chancellor budget spooking the market with its reaction didn't stop the £ from falling either whilst at the same time choking any growth prospects until after the next GE. But sets up labour party to ride to the rescue of reducing tax on personal income. well done that man

Is the £ lower than after the disastrous Truss/Kwarteng “mini budget”?

Nothing the Tories could do will prevent them being slaughtered at the next GE.

scbriml wrote:

A101 wrote:

Hunt the pro remain Chancellor budget spooking the market with its reaction didn't stop the £ from falling either whilst at the same time choking any growth prospects until after the next GE. But sets up labour party to ride to the rescue of reducing tax on personal income. well done that man

Is the £ lower than after the disastrous Truss/Kwarteng “mini budget”?

Nothing the Tories could do will prevent them being slaughtered at the next GE.

well, this is certainly not in the right direction.

certainly, we will not be in any better position under Starmer either

Let’s be honest, we can’t blame today’s financial pain on Liz Truss’s mini budget

https://www.cityam.com/lets-be-honest-w ... an%20Sachs.

The UK’s lacklustre growth cannot be blamed on Truss – whose supply-side reform policies had the explicit goal of reversing the UK’s woeful trajectory. In fact, Hunt’s decision to maintain the corporate tax hike is a key reason for less growth, at least according to analysts at Goldman Sachs.

The OBR is certainly not the shining beacon of light people think it is

The latest estimate is that the government is looking for up to £60bn a year by 2027-28. Last weekend the Observer reported the “cost” of “Liz Truss’s disastrous mini-budget” is responsible for half that amount, at £30bn. This may appeal to their anti-Tory readers but it is a highly disingenuous claim.

To start it is worth noting that the “fiscal hole” does not represent the current budgetary deficit or public debt level. Instead, it is the gap between the projected public finances and the chancellor’s goal – in this case, debt falling as a share of GDP within five years. The figure is dependent on the uncertain, and often inaccurate, growth and revenue model from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).

Truss’ growth diagnosis was the right one

https://www.cityam.com/truss-growth-dia ... right-one/

The argument is worth repeating: Britain has an ageing population, placing greater pressure on the (unreformed, unwieldy and unproductive) health service. In order for the rest of the state to function as well, either the public sector needs widespread reform or the tax take needs to go up. Since putting taxes much further up would be economically self-defeating, that leaves economic growth as the only way to pump up the Treasury’s coffers.

A101 wrote:

Let’s be honest, we can’t blame today’s financial pain on Liz Truss’s mini budget

https://www.cityam.com/lets-be-honest-w ... an%20Sachs.

The UK’s lacklustre growth cannot be blamed on Truss – whose supply-side reform policies had the explicit goal of reversing the UK’s woeful trajectory. In fact, Hunt’s decision to maintain the corporate tax hike is a key reason for less growth, at least according to analysts at Goldman Sachs.

The OBR is certainly not the shining beacon of light people think it is

The latest estimate is that the government is looking for up to £60bn a year by 2027-28. Last weekend the Observer reported the “cost” of “Liz Truss’s disastrous mini-budget” is responsible for half that amount, at £30bn. This may appeal to their anti-Tory readers but it is a highly disingenuous claim.

To start it is worth noting that the “fiscal hole” does not represent the current budgetary deficit or public debt level. Instead, it is the gap between the projected public finances and the chancellor’s goal – in this case, debt falling as a share of GDP within five years. The figure is dependent on the uncertain, and often inaccurate, growth and revenue model from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).

Truss’ growth diagnosis was the right one

https://www.cityam.com/truss-growth-dia ... right-one/

The argument is worth repeating: Britain has an ageing population, placing greater pressure on the (unreformed, unwieldy and unproductive) health service. In order for the rest of the state to function as well, either the public sector needs widespread reform or the tax take needs to go up. Since putting taxes much further up would be economically self-defeating, that leaves economic growth as the only way to pump up the Treasury’s coffers.

The author of that piece is from the IEA, which was lobbying Truss for Trussonomics. They’re hardly going to accept the blame, are they?

The OBR may get it wrong, indeed very wrong, but at least they’re doing some analysis and putting some data (inputs and outputs) out there. That’s more than anyone can say for the “believe in Britain” Kwarteng approach, that came with all of zero data.

That aside, it’s pretty clear that they government’s been forced into austerity by the markets, which aren’t interested in allowing it to borrow more at affordable rates until the UK gets it’s financial house in order. That’s down to the damage Truss wreaked on the UK’s reputation; it’s already been acknowledged by the BoE:

“”We have damaged our reputation internationally... it will take longer to rebuild that reputation than it will do to correct the gilt curve” Andrew Bailey told the Treasury Committee group of MPs.”

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/andrew-b ... t-12748947

Cut it however you want, that’s down to Truss and Kwarteng. The IEA folk can twist and turn and spin all they want, but they’ve got egg on their faces for not seeing this coming when they were celebrating with Kwarteng immediately after that disaster of a mini-budget.

Incidentally, the B-word featured in the hearing too:

“In response to a question about Brexit, Dr Catherine Mann said fewer European firms were providing competition in the UK market which has pushed prices up.

"It's not just small firms in the UK who want to export [impacted by Brexit], it's also small firms in Europe who were suppliers and provided competition in the UK market, so there is an inflationary effect coming through the competition channel."

When asked if a figure could be put on that inflation, another MPC member, Dr Swati Dhingra, answered saying that in relation to food pricing "6% is the number that is higher than the rest of the world as a result of the Brexit impact".“

(Same link)

Blame whoever you want, but the short term and long term causes of this burst of economic turmoil are becoming pretty clear. And Brexit, Kwarteng and Truss feature very prominently.

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

Let’s be honest, we can’t blame today’s financial pain on Liz Truss’s mini budget

https://www.cityam.com/lets-be-honest-w ... an%20Sachs.

The UK’s lacklustre growth cannot be blamed on Truss – whose supply-side reform policies had the explicit goal of reversing the UK’s woeful trajectory. In fact, Hunt’s decision to maintain the corporate tax hike is a key reason for less growth, at least according to analysts at Goldman Sachs.

The OBR is certainly not the shining beacon of light people think it is

The latest estimate is that the government is looking for up to £60bn a year by 2027-28. Last weekend the Observer reported the “cost” of “Liz Truss’s disastrous mini-budget” is responsible for half that amount, at £30bn. This may appeal to their anti-Tory readers but it is a highly disingenuous claim.

To start it is worth noting that the “fiscal hole” does not represent the current budgetary deficit or public debt level. Instead, it is the gap between the projected public finances and the chancellor’s goal – in this case, debt falling as a share of GDP within five years. The figure is dependent on the uncertain, and often inaccurate, growth and revenue model from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).

Truss’ growth diagnosis was the right one

https://www.cityam.com/truss-growth-dia ... right-one/

The argument is worth repeating: Britain has an ageing population, placing greater pressure on the (unreformed, unwieldy and unproductive) health service. In order for the rest of the state to function as well, either the public sector needs widespread reform or the tax take needs to go up. Since putting taxes much further up would be economically self-defeating, that leaves economic growth as the only way to pump up the Treasury’s coffers.

The author of that piece is from the IEA, which was lobbying Truss for Trussonomics. They’re hardly going to accept the blame, are they?

The OBR may get it wrong, indeed very wrong, but at least they’re doing some analysis and putting some data (inputs and outputs) out there. That’s more than anyone can say for the “believe in Britain” Kwarteng approach, that came with all of zero data.

That aside, it’s pretty clear that they government’s been forced into austerity by the markets, which aren’t interested in allowing it to borrow more at affordable rates until the UK gets it’s financial house in order. That’s down to the damage Truss wreaked on the UK’s reputation; it’s already been acknowledged by the BoE:

“”We have damaged our reputation internationally... it will take longer to rebuild that reputation than it will do to correct the gilt curve” Andrew Bailey told the Treasury Committee group of MPs.”

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/andrew-b ... t-12748947

Cut it however you want, that’s down to Truss and Kwarteng. The IEA folk can twist and turn and spin all they want, but they’ve got egg on their faces for not seeing this coming when they were celebrating with Kwarteng immediately after that disaster of a mini-budget.

Incidentally, the B-word featured in the hearing too:

“In response to a question about Brexit, Dr Catherine Mann said fewer European firms were providing competition in the UK market which has pushed prices up.

"It's not just small firms in the UK who want to export [impacted by Brexit], it's also small firms in Europe who were suppliers and provided competition in the UK market, so there is an inflationary effect coming through the competition channel."

When asked if a figure could be put on that inflation, another MPC member, Dr Swati Dhingra, answered saying that in relation to food pricing "6% is the number that is higher than the rest of the world as a result of the Brexit impact".“

(Same link)

Blame whoever you want, but the short term and long term causes of this burst of economic turmoil are becoming pretty clear. And Brexit, Kwarteng and Truss feature very prominently.

And Andrew Bailey isn't biased

lot of stakeholders have skin in the game he is trying to deflect the BOE action with its decisions and impacts that help produce high inflation and their lack of action prior

But once again Brexit has nothing to do with it policy has

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

Let’s be honest, we can’t blame today’s financial pain on Liz Truss’s mini budget

https://www.cityam.com/lets-be-honest-w ... an%20Sachs.







The OBR is certainly not the shining beacon of light people think it is


[/u][/i][/b]

Truss’ growth diagnosis was the right one

https://www.cityam.com/truss-growth-dia ... right-one/

The author of that piece is from the IEA, which was lobbying Truss for Trussonomics. They’re hardly going to accept the blame, are they?

The OBR may get it wrong, indeed very wrong, but at least they’re doing some analysis and putting some data (inputs and outputs) out there. That’s more than anyone can say for the “believe in Britain” Kwarteng approach, that came with all of zero data.

That aside, it’s pretty clear that they government’s been forced into austerity by the markets, which aren’t interested in allowing it to borrow more at affordable rates until the UK gets it’s financial house in order. That’s down to the damage Truss wreaked on the UK’s reputation; it’s already been acknowledged by the BoE:

“”We have damaged our reputation internationally... it will take longer to rebuild that reputation than it will do to correct the gilt curve” Andrew Bailey told the Treasury Committee group of MPs.”

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/andrew-b ... t-12748947

Cut it however you want, that’s down to Truss and Kwarteng. The IEA folk can twist and turn and spin all they want, but they’ve got egg on their faces for not seeing this coming when they were celebrating with Kwarteng immediately after that disaster of a mini-budget.

Incidentally, the B-word featured in the hearing too:

“In response to a question about Brexit, Dr Catherine Mann said fewer European firms were providing competition in the UK market which has pushed prices up.

"It's not just small firms in the UK who want to export [impacted by Brexit], it's also small firms in Europe who were suppliers and provided competition in the UK market, so there is an inflationary effect coming through the competition channel."

When asked if a figure could be put on that inflation, another MPC member, Dr Swati Dhingra, answered saying that in relation to food pricing "6% is the number that is higher than the rest of the world as a result of the Brexit impact".“

(Same link)

Blame whoever you want, but the short term and long term causes of this burst of economic turmoil are becoming pretty clear. And Brexit, Kwarteng and Truss feature very prominently.

And Andrew Bailey isn't biased

lot of stakeholders have skin in the game he is trying to deflect the BOE action with its decisions and impacts that help produce high inflation and their lack of action prior

But once again Brexit has nothing to do with it policy has

Here’s a question for you: is Andrew Bailey acting in the best interests of the country, or not?

Or put another way, let’s get past this Brexiteer trope of painting everyone remotely critical of Brexit as a traitor.

Regardless, he continues to command the trust and respect of the rest of the world, including those pesky “international markets”, no matter how much Brexiteers hate him.

As to Brexit, you have banker (remember the American bankers a few weeks ago) after banker (now the MPC) drawing a clear link between Brexit and the current economic mess.

Which is to say, Brexiteers are, of course, entitled to believe whatever they want, but the “markets” that are keeping UK policy in check (sovereignty!) have made up their minds. They’re the ones with the money; if they choose, they can reduce the UK’s economic pain by allowing it to borrow more cheaply to ward off this austerity posture. So far, they’re not.

Follow the money.

ElPistolero wrote:

Here’s a question for you: is Andrew Bailey acting in the best interests of the country, or not?

I would like to think they are acting in the best interests of the UK, but people have different opinions on what's the best interest.

ElPistolero wrote:

Or put another way, let’s get past this Brexiteer trope of painting everyone remotely critical of Brexit as a traitor.

Only one who keeps mentioning it is you and all the other pro remain who can’t build a bridge and get over it.
Brexit is done everything after is policy and that’s all I keep on saying and will continue to do

ElPistolero wrote:

Regardless, he continues to command the trust and respect of the rest of the world, including those pesky “international markets”, no matter how much Brexiteers hate him.

Those same people have also cast a critical eye on the BOE for not intervening fast enough to help tame inflation

A feature of the UK’s fiscal pivot is the emphasis on reducing the burden of tax on work and business. This is sensible. But the central bank has been behind the curve since inflation started to rise sharply in 2021……

Austerity has not prevented government debt ratios steadily climbing to historic highs. Some may think the UK’s ratio of debt-to-GDP is out of control, but it is still the second-lowest in the G7 at 97 per cent……….

However, the bigger problem for Liz Truss’s government is the Bank of England. It seems that the governor, Andrew Bailey, did not get the memo. Our central bank has been behind the curve since inflation started to rise sharply in 2021. Initially, the BoE was in good company. But now it is starting to lag its counterparts around the developed world…..

The Bank of England effectively lost control of the UK bond market last Thursday when it raised interest rates by a half percentage point, instead of the 0.75 of a percentage point rise implemented by the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank. Its timidity is now having an impact on both the gilt market and sterling. That is the essential context for the market reaction to the mini-budget. Once you lose market confidence, it is doubly hard to win it back.

https://www.afr.com/world/europe/econom ... 927-p5bl9g

ElPistolero wrote:

As to Brexit, you have banker (remember the American bankers a few weeks ago) after banker (now the MPC) drawing a clear link between Brexit and the current economic mess.

Brexit was a binary choice for the UK electorate as I keep explaining events after are policy irrespective if Brexit happened or not

ElPistolero wrote:

Which is to say, Brexiteers are, of course, entitled to believe whatever they want, but the “markets” that are keeping UK policy in check (sovereignty!) have made up their minds

Don’t be so facetious markets are doing no such thing. The market just does not work that way the markets work on buyers and sellers, someone has to sell and someone has to buy its speculative at best and which it always the way it acts

ElPistolero wrote:

They’re the ones with the money; if they choose, they can reduce the UK’s economic pain by allowing it to borrow more cheaply to ward off this austerity posture. So far, they’re not.

Well actually they have, but the markets are not reacting favourable to Hunts budget either. The markets are never pleased

ElPistolero wrote:

Follow the money.

That’s something the markets only care about and not why a majority voted to leave the EU. It was never just an economic argument for a lot of people.
But its only argument from remain/re-join on the subject like it’s going to cure all our ills

A101 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

A101 wrote:

Hunt the pro remain Chancellor budget spooking the market with its reaction didn't stop the £ from falling either whilst at the same time choking any growth prospects until after the next GE. But sets up labour party to ride to the rescue of reducing tax on personal income. well done that man

Is the £ lower than after the disastrous Truss/Kwarteng “mini budget”?

Nothing the Tories could do will prevent them being slaughtered at the next GE.

well, this is certainly not in the right direction.

That's more words than needed to say "No". How much lower is the £ vs $ than a couple of days ago?

A101 wrote:

But once again Brexit has nothing to do with it

Yeah, keep banging that drum.

ElPistolero wrote:

As to Brexit, you have banker (remember the American bankers a few weeks ago) after banker (now the MPC) drawing a clear link between Brexit and the current economic mess.

No, no, no! It's all lies. They're all traitors! It's just policy.

scbriml wrote:

A101 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Is the £ lower than after the disastrous Truss/Kwarteng “mini budget”?

Nothing the Tories could do will prevent them being slaughtered at the next GE.

well, this is certainly not in the right direction.

That's more words than needed to say "No". How much lower is the £ vs $ than a couple of days ago?

Since you are the connoisseur on the matter why don’t you tell me?

scbriml wrote:

A101 wrote:

But once again Brexit has nothing to do with it

Yeah, keep banging that drum.

So if the government changes anything it’s not policy?

scbriml wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

As to Brexit, you have banker (remember the American bankers a few weeks ago) after banker (now the MPC) drawing a clear link between Brexit and the current economic mess.

No, no, no! It's all lies. They're all traitors! It's just policy.

So are you saying it wasn’t Cameron policy to hold a referenda?

A101 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

As to Brexit, you have banker (remember the American bankers a few weeks ago) after banker (now the MPC) drawing a clear link between Brexit and the current economic mess.

No, no, no! It's all lies. They're all traitors! It's just policy.

So are you saying it wasn’t Cameron policy to hold a referenda?

I mean everything that happened in the last 12 years was Tory policy. If you voted conservatives during this time you got what you voted for. The current budget is on every conservative voter.

Every country around the world has to deal with global problems and their effect, but the reaction to these outside events are handled by each country and their government. Everything that happens within the UK is on the conservative government that was voted for by brexiteers and non-brexiteer conservative voters. They are to blame for this mess you are in. No one else.

I hate to say this, but you A101 (if you voted conservative) have a tiny tiny fraction of this budget on your shoulder by the vote you casted a few years ago.

Now every country has their problems but it seems most can at least get some things right:

USA was able to produce growth and wealth since 2008 and even after the pandemic
Germany was able to keep their debt in check (black 0)
France has a very "moderate" inflation compared to others
Greece and Ireland were able to reduce their debt significantly after their defaults

Yes some are off worse: Italy, but if you measure yourself with Italy, that is known to have politics so crazy that it is even hard to make a satire out of it, you really set the bar very very low, and it seems the conservative weren't even able to pass this hurdle.

So the state of the UK is solely to blame on the conservatives and their voters... brexiteers and non-brexiteers alike

FluidFlow wrote:

A101 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

No, no, no! It's all lies. They're all traitors! It's just policy.

So are you saying it wasn’t Cameron policy to hold a referenda?

I mean everything that happened in the last 12 years was Tory policy. If you voted conservatives during this time you got what you voted for. The current budget is on every conservative voter.

Every country around the world has to deal with global problems and their effect, but the reaction to these outside events are handled by each country and their government. Everything that happens within the UK is on the conservative government that was voted for by brexiteers and non-brexiteer conservative voters. They are to blame for this mess you are in. No one else.

I hate to say this, but you A101 (if you voted conservative) have a tiny tiny fraction of this budget on your shoulder by the vote you casted a few years ago.

Now every country has their problems but it seems most can at least get some things right:

USA was able to produce growth and wealth since 2008 and even after the pandemic
Germany was able to keep their debt in check (black 0)
France has a very "moderate" inflation compared to others
Greece and Ireland were able to reduce their debt significantly after their defaults

Yes some are off worse: Italy, but if you measure yourself with Italy, that is known to have politics so crazy that it is even hard to make a satire out of it, you really set the bar very very low, and it seems the conservative weren't even able to pass this hurdle.

So the state of the UK is solely to blame on the conservatives and their voters... brexiteers and non-brexiteers alike

Wow someone finally gets it. It’s policy good or bad

ReferenDUM singular. You're the only person in the world who insists on using it for both one vote and multiple. Yes I've said it before and I'll probably say it again.

Would be lovely to not listen to a word the IEA and other think tanks say considering they refuse to publically share who funds them, those that pretend to do "European Research", "Economic Affairs" or similar, and especially any of those based in Tufton street.

My opinion is that they should all be forceably disbanded or at the very minimum forced to show who funds them. The press (BBC) needs to stop inviting them onto any political shows as a counter. We have no idea who they are, why they hold the opinions they do, what gives them that opinion.

It's incredibly dodgy and damaging.



1/ OECD and others have all come to the same conclusion that Brexit up until 2020% has reduced UK GDP by around 3%, compared to what it would have been if it stayed in the EU. Cost per household is 2200 GBP.
https://www.oecd.org/economy/the-econom ... cision.htm

Longer term they are expecting a reduction of GDP of about 5% (to 2030)

Ignoring Covid and Ukraine you cannot argue that until this point in time Brexit hasn't caused loss of GDP, loss of trade therefore loss of tax take and therefore HAS had a impact on UK Government spending.

2/ Workers. Since Brexit there has been a clear shortage of workers in key industries since hundreds of thousands left, and new persons are disuaded from coming because of the way UK Government treated those wanting to stay, the wording used to describe others, because of the inability of new people to stay if they wish and due to a continual wish of this government to "burn EU red tape". EU red tape is Tory talk for workers rights, workers protections, environment protections, checks and balances against companies.

Farming and Health has been hit particularly hard. Both have also contributed to a hit in the governments abililty to take tax. Farming due to loss in tax (of employees and product sale), Health due to the amount of workforce that are off sick long term.

3/ Covid -
a) I want that investigation into the billions lost in Fraud under this PM's watch when he was Chancellor. Yesterday the shadow Chancellor stated that the Government are cancelling the investigation!! Billions of pounds lost.
b) I want to know the cost to the country of buying all that PPE that was past it's used by date. That was completely unfit for use because it didn't meet UK standards. Why existing suppliers were ignored in favour of friends of MPs - new companies just setup to profit from it. How many billions did they get?
c) Track and trace. Just how much did it cost, and why did it cost so much.

If the excuse is that Covid was also hugely to blame for the need to now tax more then the above needs to be made clear, and the money gotten back.




Brexit-

I and many others are not aurguing that this can realistically be reversed right now. We think it's a huge mistake and we will continue to say so, as is our right as we live in a democracy. If the people change their mind, there is a right to have a future vote.

What I do strongly believe is that this Brexit is hugely damaging to the country and it needs to be changed immediately. There needs to be a new deal that solves NI's issues and allows trade both in and out of the UK to again be seemless. We need to solve the worker shortage. If this means re-joining the single market and freedom of movenment then so be it. This will provide an immediate GDP increase and tax take increase. It will reduce government costs. Lets scrap the UKCE mark, and get rid of all the extra regulations and paperwork companies have to do, which yep costs them money and which yep losses the tresury money.

Ukraine -

Gas cost issue.

a) Why were UK gas storage facilities sold off?
b) Why has the UK been hit harder than any other country when it comes to cost increases for electricity? Govenment needed to do much more and come down much harder on energy companies. France nationalised it's energy sector. UK moans but does so little in such circumstances.


Specifically about the Budget -

1/ The government made no mention of Brexit at all and blamed external / worldwide factors for the issues. This is nonsense as the above shows.
2/ The government (not this but the previous) are responsible for 20 billion additional borrowing costs because of Truss. This party put her there, they clapped and cheered her Budget, the Tory press all called it a "proper conservative budget". They are responsbile for this additional cost and it should not be ordiary folk who have to pay for it.
3/ There was no talk of any cuts needed pre Truss government.
4/ The country had 10 years of austerity pre covid. Yes money was put into the NHS but it was mis-managed by multiple Ministers. Police was gutted and only in the last year have the Tories promised to bring numbers back to something close to where it was before.
5/ Increase in fuel duty - really? Seriously? comeon.



The country SHOULD not accept another 2-5 years of cuts / sacrifice to make up for Tory incompetence.

What they didn't do:

1/ Nothing about non-doms
2/ Nothing about closing tax loop holes (of which there are plenty)
3/ Level of the energy profit level was nowhere near high enough
4/ Nothing said to fix Brexit
5/ Silence about the fact that middle earners are going to be wacked over the next 2-5 years by additional taxes. It was hidden, as per usual. Only the higher rate kick in level down to 125,000 was specifically mentioned.
6/ Green energy - there needed to be a massive push for renewables - solar panels on every new build roof, every car park roof - subsidies. Even more offshore wind, onshore wind. Tidal in Scotland.


Why is the UK the ONLY economy in the G7 still below pre-covid levels?
https://www.ft.com/content/4edae69b-c82 ... d14ca8caa6


Enough is enough.

A101 wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

A101 wrote:

So are you saying it wasn’t Cameron policy to hold a referenda?

I mean everything that happened in the last 12 years was Tory policy. If you voted conservatives during this time you got what you voted for. The current budget is on every conservative voter.

Every country around the world has to deal with global problems and their effect, but the reaction to these outside events are handled by each country and their government. Everything that happens within the UK is on the conservative government that was voted for by brexiteers and non-brexiteer conservative voters. They are to blame for this mess you are in. No one else.

I hate to say this, but you A101 (if you voted conservative) have a tiny tiny fraction of this budget on your shoulder by the vote you casted a few years ago.

Now every country has their problems but it seems most can at least get some things right:

USA was able to produce growth and wealth since 2008 and even after the pandemic
Germany was able to keep their debt in check (black 0)
France has a very "moderate" inflation compared to others
Greece and Ireland were able to reduce their debt significantly after their defaults

Yes some are off worse: Italy, but if you measure yourself with Italy, that is known to have politics so crazy that it is even hard to make a satire out of it, you really set the bar very very low, and it seems the conservative weren't even able to pass this hurdle.

So the state of the UK is solely to blame on the conservatives and their voters... brexiteers and non-brexiteers alike

Wow someone finally gets it. It’s policy good or bad

Of course it is policy that determines the internal reaction of a country to outside effects and also creates internal effects (and outside effects for other countries).

Now policy is made by the party in power and their politicians. Voting for bad politicians very often results in bad policy. So if you vote for a politician solely on the merit of which party he belongs to, no matter what kind of imbecile he is, you might end up with a parliament in power that has absolutely no clue what to do.

IMHO there was a lot of very bad policy in the UK over the last decade. It might be time to think of voting for some other politicians than conservatives, or for conservatives that are not aligned with the current government. The problem seems to be that most of them are not allowed to stand for a vote. So as long as the current conservatives are voted in, we will see a decline in the UK.

But everything can be a chance: It seems some countries implement policies to pick up the remaining valuable things in the UK and transfer it over.

A101 wrote:

build a bridge and get over it.

Absolutely, A bridge to Europe and Harmonise fully on laws and agreements and allow the bridge to be open to all workers, goods, services and capital. If only the people asking to build bridges weren't those with a history of trying blow them up!

Fred

A101 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

A101 wrote:

well, this is certainly not in the right direction.

That's more words than needed to say "No". How much lower is the £ vs $ than a couple of days ago?

Since you are the connoisseur on the matter why don’t you tell me?

You were the one that made the claim about the £ falling as a result of Hunt's budget, so the onus is on you to support that claim, otherwise it's just hot air.

A101 wrote:

So are you saying it wasn’t Cameron policy to hold a referenda?

How does one hold "a referenda"?

A101 wrote:

Hunt the pro remain Chancellor

Why label him that way? Is your line of thinking that Hunt is trying to destroy the country as some sort off sick revenge for Brexit?

It seems the UK government -or at least Hunt- is slowly preparing the British conservative audience to accepting the idea that the UK need the EU more than the other way round after all and that it will be crucial for Britain to have unfettered access to the Single Market to clean up the mess.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/li ... 2c5679ee67

Expect a lot of water under the bridge, a lot of humble pie, and ultimately a Norway/Swiss outcome in a couple of years from now.
The illusion of full British sovereignty has clearly all but died together with Truss shortlived PMship: financial reality quickly took care of that at the first attempt to test this believe, yet the fiscal horrors of that ilusion will be felt for years to come still.

A101 wrote:

Hunt the pro remain Chancellor budget spooking the market with its reaction didn't stop the £ from falling either whilst at the same time choking any growth prospects until after the next GE. But sets up labour party to ride to the rescue of reducing tax on personal income. well done that man

So let me get this straight.

When Truss and Kwarteng crash the economy, it has nothing to do with Brexit, but when Hunt tries to fix it (and I'm not saying he's doing it right) it's "pro-remain" Hunt ?

Aesma wrote:

A101 wrote:

Hunt the pro remain Chancellor budget spooking the market with its reaction didn't stop the £ from falling either whilst at the same time choking any growth prospects until after the next GE. But sets up labour party to ride to the rescue of reducing tax on personal income. well done that man

So let me get this straight.

When Truss and Kwarteng crash the economy, it has nothing to do with Brexit, but when Hunt tries to fix it (and I'm not saying he's doing it right) it's "pro-remain" Hunt ?

Why even bother? I don't.
Not with the political version of Scientology.

We are well beyond the 'blame the foreigners' trope now, reality has hit;
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -statement

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ih06MZz5m0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCVLaIj4SW8

Pay more, get less, (unless you are one of their donors, non doms etc);
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -standards

If you cant stop attacking each other with sneaky comments this thread will be locked, so discuss the topic but keep out emoitions, thanks.

flipdewaf wrote:

A101 wrote:

build a bridge and get over it.

Absolutely, A bridge to Europe and Harmonise fully on laws and agreements and allow the bridge to be open to all workers, goods, services and capital. If only the people asking to build bridges weren't those with a history of trying blow them up!

Fred

Building a bridge into a vassal state........

scbriml wrote:

A101 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

That's more words than needed to say "No". How much lower is the £ vs $ than a couple of days ago?

Since you are the connoisseur on the matter why don’t you tell me?

You were the one that made the claim about the £ falling as a result of Hunt's budget, so the onus is on you to support that claim, otherwise it's just hot air.

You are the one comparing it between Hunt/Truss so the onus is on you,

Are you going somewhere waving goodbye?

scbriml wrote:

A101 wrote:

Hunt the pro remain Chancellor

Why label him that way? Is your line of thinking that Hunt is trying to destroy the country as some sort off sick revenge for Brexit?

No you are attacking the PM past and present relating everything to Brexit as being at fault. Just pointing out that he is part of the supposed blessed group wanting to remain who created the current budget and the markets did not fair to well as it will strangle growth which the analysis from Goldman Sachs and indicated in the earlier link

A101 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

A101 wrote:

build a bridge and get over it.

Absolutely, A bridge to Europe and Harmonise fully on laws and agreements and allow the bridge to be open to all workers, goods, services and capital. If only the people asking to build bridges weren't those with a history of trying blow them up!

Fred

Building a bridge into a vassal state........

No, as was. Collective responsibility for both creation and adherence. I don’t know why you make up this vassal state stuff, is that what you secretly want?

Why don’t you be the big man/woman and start the bridge building process?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Aesma wrote:

A101 wrote:

Hunt the pro remain Chancellor budget spooking the market with its reaction didn't stop the £ from falling either whilst at the same time choking any growth prospects until after the next GE. But sets up labour party to ride to the rescue of reducing tax on personal income. well done that man

So let me get this straight.

When Truss and Kwarteng crash the economy, it has nothing to do with Brexit, but when Hunt tries to fix it (and I'm not saying he's doing it right) it's "pro-remain" Hunt ?

If you look at the previous now closed thread yes that is what I have been saying all along.

governments could do exactly that irrespective if we were in the EU or not.

Truss budget was clearly aimed at stimulating growth Hunts budget is sole looking at financial markets. with keeping the taxes coming in and still borrowing. There are many saying that Truss budget was in the right direction, but the execution was her undoing.


https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/trus ... 017-p5bqav


Even OBR is estimating under Hunts budget that under the weight of never-ending austerity living standards will decline by another 7% over the next two years. that is a direct result of Hunts budget not Brexit

https://obr.uk/docs/dlm_uploads/CCS0822 ... SSIBLE.pdf

flipdewaf wrote:

A101 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Absolutely, A bridge to Europe and Harmonise fully on laws and agreements and allow the bridge to be open to all workers, goods, services and capital. If only the people asking to build bridges weren't those with a history of trying blow them up!

Fred

Building a bridge into a vassal state........

No, as was. Collective responsibility for both creation and adherence. I don’t know why you make up this vassal state stuff, is that what you secretly want?

Why don’t you be the big man/woman and start the bridge building process?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I did help start the process I voted to leave the EU

A101 wrote:

I would like to think they are acting in the best interests of the UK, but people have different opinions on what's the best interest.

It’s interesting, isn’t it, that differences on what’s best for the country are driven almost entirely by one’s position on Brexit.

Perhaps that’s the best way to describe the situation: a country that remains divided by Brexit.

A101 wrote:

Only one who keeps mentioning it is you and all the other pro remain who can’t build a bridge and get over it.
Brexit is done everything after is policy and that’s all I keep on saying and will continue to do

Leavers quite deliberately burned the bridge down by going for the hardest possible Brexit, instead of recognizing that nearly half the country (48%) wasn’t coming with them.

Why, then, is the onus on remainers to build it? Pottery Barn rules etc.

In any event, one can try to disentangle Brexit from this mess, but… it’s just always there. Seems Brexit is increasingly being viewed as a mistake these days, which is odd, given that we’re assured that it has nothing to do with economic situation in the UK right now:

“Almost two years since Britain left the EU on 31 December 2020, YouGov data shows support for Brexit is at a record low, with only 32% of the British public saying it was right to vote to leave and 56% saying it was wrong to leave.
….
Following the 2017 general election the percentage of Brexiteers who believed voting to leave the EU was the right decision fell from 90% to around 80%, briefly rising to the high 80s after the withdrawal agreement was ratified in January 2020. However, since June 2021, that percentage has fallen from 88% down to a record low of 70%, while those who believe it to be the wrong thing to do has risen from 4% to an all-time high of 19%.”

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/ar ... as-wrong-d

One in five leaves think it was a bad idea to vote for Brexit. What gives? Take a lot of intellectual agility to disconnect their changing sentiment from the economic situation that this budget is trying to address.

A101 wrote:

Those same people have also cast a critical eye on the BOE for not intervening fast enough to help tame inflation

A feature of the UK’s fiscal pivot is the emphasis on reducing the burden of tax on work and business. This is sensible. But the central bank has been behind the curve since inflation started to rise sharply in 2021……

Austerity has not prevented government debt ratios steadily climbing to historic highs. Some may think the UK’s ratio of debt-to-GDP is out of control, but it is still the second-lowest in the G7 at 97 per cent……….

However, the bigger problem for Liz Truss’s government is the Bank of England. It seems that the governor, Andrew Bailey, did not get the memo. Our central bank has been behind the curve since inflation started to rise sharply in 2021. Initially, the BoE was in good company. But now it is starting to lag its counterparts around the developed world…..

The Bank of England effectively lost control of the UK bond market last Thursday when it raised interest rates by a half percentage point, instead of the 0.75 of a percentage point rise implemented by the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank. Its timidity is now having an impact on both the gilt market and sterling. That is the essential context for the market reaction to the mini-budget. Once you lose market confidence, it is doubly hard to win it back.

https://www.afr.com/world/europe/econom ... 927-p5bl9g

This critique might have worked if other Central Banks had made the right call. But they didn’t. They all sleepwalked into it, and for that they (and Bailey) deserve criticism.

That said, the UK is somehow faring worse than the rest of the G7. It can’t all be down to the BoE; other Central Banks made the same mistakes and got off relatively lightly. That suggests there’s other, more UK-specific factors at play.

Like Brexit.

A101 wrote:

Brexit was a binary choice for the UK electorate as I keep explaining events after are policy irrespective if Brexit happened or not

Sure, we can blame “policies”, but then we have to accept that they were policies necessitated by Brexit. Brexit dictated those policies, which have dictated everything that’s followed.

I think it says something that even 20% of leavers are willing to admit that it was a bad idea, in retrospect .

A101 wrote:

Don’t be so facetious markets are doing no such thing. The market just does not work that way the markets work on buyers and sellers, someone has to sell and someone has to buy its speculative at best and which it always the way it acts

What? Think it’s pretty clear that the markets don’t have much confidence in the UK (too much risk), and that’s dictating the rate at which they’re willing to lend money to the UK.

What part of that do you disagree with?

A101 wrote:

Well actually they have, but the markets are not reacting favourable to Hunts budget either. The markets are never pleased

Odd one. The GBP is in more demand than it was after the Truss Budget. It’s value has increased from 1.07 to 1.19. As far as I can tell, Hunts budget hasn’t changed much.

Gilt rates are also lower than they were 5 days ago. And a lot lower than after the Truss budget.

Seems like the markets arent as angry as before. What am I missing?

A101 wrote:

That’s something the markets only care about and not why a majority voted to leave the EU. It was never just an economic argument for a lot of people.
But its only argument from remain/re-join on the subject like it’s going to cure all our ills

I agree. A lot of leave voters didn’t factor in the economic consequences. And now they’ll just have to live with them. Austerity in a time of recession. Talk about cruel and unusual punishment.

In that context, any bridges will have to be built by leavers, rather than remainers. The latter are suffering through the consequences of the formers choices.

A101 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

A101 wrote:

Building a bridge into a vassal state........

No, as was. Collective responsibility for both creation and adherence. I don’t know why you make up this vassal state stuff, is that what you secretly want?

Why don’t you be the big man/woman and start the bridge building process?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I did help start the process I voted to leave the EU

Well, now we've taken back control and the country thanks you for paying even more than your "fair share" of tax.

scbriml wrote:

A101 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

No, as was. Collective responsibility for both creation and adherence. I don’t know why you make up this vassal state stuff, is that what you secretly want?

Why don’t you be the big man/woman and start the bridge building process?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I did help start the process I voted to leave the EU

Well, now we've taken back control and the country thanks you for paying even more than your "fair share" of tax.

Remember someone brought up loopholes

Thats less government revenue and less money for the disadvantaged well done

A101 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

A101 wrote:

I did help start the process I voted to leave the EU

Well, now we've taken back control and the country thanks you for paying even more than your "fair share" of tax.

Remember someone brought up loopholes

Thats less government revenue and less money for the disadvantaged well done

Why less government revenue? I wasn’t aware of a tax cut?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A101 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

A101 wrote:

Building a bridge into a vassal state........

No, as was. Collective responsibility for both creation and adherence. I don’t know why you make up this vassal state stuff, is that what you secretly want?

Why don’t you be the big man/woman and start the bridge building process?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I did help start the process I voted to leave the EU

You helped start to build a bridge by destroying a previous bridge? Lol. I’m going to book mark this page as that’s hilarious.

I’ll tell my wife that she should be happy I crashed her car as it’s a push in the direction for her to get a new one.

I think somehow A101 your plan is to talk nonsense in all these threads so they get locked and you can stop being mocked so.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

A101 wrote:

.

flipdewaf wrote:

No, as was. Collective responsibility for both creation and adherence. I don’t know why you make up this vassal state stuff, is that what you secretly want?

Why don’t you be the big man/woman and start the bridge building process?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I did help start the process I voted to leave the EU

You helped start to build a bridge by destroying a previous bridge?

The bridge you are talking about certainly didn’t lead to a Garden of Eden

flipdewaf wrote:

I’ll tell my wife that she should be happy I crashed her car as it’s a push in the direction for her to get a new one.

That’s not actually unheard of if your intent is to commit fraud and you want to get a better car

If that floats your boat. Paying the higher premium might be worth it in the long term

flipdewaf wrote:

I think somehow A101 your plan is to talk nonsense in all these threads so they get locked and you can stop being mocked so.

Fred

No I just respond to the crap that those on here spew out

flipdewaf wrote:

A101 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Well, now we've taken back control and the country thanks you for paying even more than your "fair share" of tax.

Remember someone brought up loopholes

Thats less government revenue and less money for the disadvantaged well done

Why less government revenue? I wasn’t aware of a tax cut?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As pointed out earlier it takes away the incentive to work more which leads to less productivity which reduces both income tax paid and corporation tax stifles growth less revenue for the government

That’s what people on here were happy with now you got it you are still not happy

A101 wrote:

As pointed out earlier it takes away the incentive to work more

Enjoy your extra free time.

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

.
I would like to think they are acting in the best interests of the UK, but people have different opinions on what's the best interest.

It’s interesting, isn’t it, that differences on what’s best for the country are driven almost entirely by one’s position on Brexit.

Yes that has been acknowledged in the other closed thread I said exactly that the nation is still very much divided on the matter and will continue to be so for many years

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

Only one who keeps mentioning it is you and all the other pro remain who can’t build a bridge and get over it.
Brexit is done everything after is policy and that’s all I keep on saying and will continue to do

Leavers quite deliberately burned the bridge down by going for the hardest possible Brexit, instead of recognizing that nearly half the country (48%) wasn’t coming with them.

What’s the point in remaining in vassalage with the EU. Cameron himself told us we will be out of the CU/SM

We are either in or we are out no half arsed measures if you want to take advantage of being able to write your own policy and laws in the UK own interest being in vassalage is not going to be able to do that

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

Those same people have also cast a critical eye on the BOE for not intervening fast enough to help tame inflation

This critique might have worked if other Central Banks had made the right call. But they didn’t. They all sleepwalked into it, and for that they (and Bailey) deserve criticism.

That said, the UK is somehow faring worse than the rest of the G7. It can’t all be down to the BoE; other Central Banks made the same mistakes and got off relatively lightly. That suggests there’s other, more UK-specific factors at play.

We actually pulled out extremely we’ll rebounding out of covid still had the highest growth until Putin invaded the criticism of the BOE is well suited

But who is to say that if we were in the EU we still would not be in the current place we are, after all being in the EU after the financial crisis a decade ago did do us any favours did it?

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

Brexit was a binary choice for the UK electorate as I keep explaining events after are policy irrespective if Brexit happened or not

Sure, we can blame “policies”, but then we have to accept that they were policies necessitated by Brexit. Brexit dictated those policies, which have dictated everything that’s followed.

Yes you can do that. But it wasn’t policy that gave us the Surrender Act it was the pro remain element with parliament that contributed to a bad agreement

Always said no deal is better than a bad deal and the remain elements saw to that bad deal for the UK

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

Don’t be so facetious markets are doing no such thing. The market just does not work that way the markets work on buyers and sellers, someone has to sell and someone has to buy its speculative at best and which it always the way it acts

What? Think it’s pretty clear that the markets don’t have much confidence in the UK (too much risk), and that’s dictating the rate at which they’re willing to lend money to the UK.

So you actually agree markets are not the sovereign entity. Nations credit ratings and bowering power are impacted by a number of things

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

Well actually they have, but the markets are not reacting favourable to Hunts budget either. The markets are never pleased

Odd one. The GBP is in more demand than it was after the Truss Budget. It’s value has increased from 1.07 to 1.19. As far as I can tell, Hunts budget hasn’t changed much.

Gilt rates are also lower than they were 5 days ago. And a lot lower than after the Truss budget.

Seems like the markets arent as angry as before. What am I missing?

The markets did exactly what they always do go up/down speculatively on the conditions at the time

And the market reacted negatively to Hunts budget as well and other outside influences at the time which is the US markets

Appropriate disdain;
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... nd-reality

The reality part;
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -statement

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-63670355

But some of their biggest headbangers, (by their standards), are not happy;
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -statement

A101 wrote:

Yes that has been acknowledged in the other closed thread I said exactly that the nation is still very much divided on the matter and will continue to be so for many years

What’s the point in remaining in vassalage with the EU. Cameron himself told us we will be out of the CU/SM

We are either in or we are out no half arsed measures if you want to take advantage of being able to write your own policy and laws in the UK own interest being in vassalage is not going to be able to do that

Point being: it was too close a vote to go for an extreme measure like a hard Brexit. Having done that, the onus is on leavers, not remainers, to fix the divide. Break it, buy it, as the slogan goes.

Bit too much to expect the remainers to come around in this now that public opinion is moving in their favour. They didn’t vote for Brexit, or support a hard Brexit.

It was a pyrrhic victory to begin with (what with leaving half the country behind), and now it’s moving into losing territory (poll after poll showing that even 20% of those who voted for it think it’s bad idea).

Certainly starting to look like it’s not just not going to plan, but nobody actually knows how to make it work. Truss and Kwarteng tried - to their credit - to do what Brexit pretended to set out to do, but it went up in flames at the behest of the markets. Which begs the question: was it ever possible for it to go to plan in the first place?

A101 wrote:

We actually pulled out extremely we’ll rebounding out of covid still had the highest growth until Putin invaded the criticism of the BOE is well suited

Not really. We can agree that the UK was the fastest to rebound by dint of opening up first, but the scale of the rebound was always going to be limited by the trade shock of Brexit. Let’s not confuse timing with scale.

A101 wrote:

But who is to say that if we were in the EU we still would not be in the current place we are, after all being in the EU after the financial crisis a decade ago did do us any favours did it?

Who? We’ve been over this. Banker after banker (private sector and public sector, British and foreigner) have made it clear that the trade and labour supply disruptions is having a uniquely negative impact.

To the point that the UK is the only G7 country that hasn’t recovered to pre-COVID levels:

“Britain is, however, lagging behind other countries as the only member of the G7 group of wealthy nations whose economy shrank in the three months to September. Britain is also the only G7 economy where quarterly GDP remains below pre-Covid levels.”

https://amp.theguardian.com/business/20 ... my-shrinks

All of the G7 countries are living through the same Ukraine-related shocks. Only one is suffering more than the rest.

The 2008 shock had a relatively more uniform impact, by comparison. The UK wasn’t as much of an outlier as it is now. Probably because the UK was in the EU. Which is to say, if it was still in the EU, it would most definitely have recovered to pre-COvId levels by now, instead of remaining below that.

A101 wrote:

Yes you can do that. But it wasn’t policy that gave us the Surrender Act it was the pro remain element with parliament that contributed to a bad agreement

Always said no deal is better than a bad deal and the remain elements saw to that bad deal for the UK

What other agreement could you possibly have that wouldn’t entail the same level of trade and labour supply disruption?

No SM/CU/Free Movement were the fundamental requirements of the hard Brexit chosen. Nothing the 2017 Parliament (elected by the British people) could influence in any meaningful way. Needless to say, a No Deal would probably have been worse than whatever exists now.

Think it’s time to stop blaming everyone else for the way Brexit is messing up the economy. Like the 56% who’ve already reached that point.

Time to smell the coffee; it’s always futile to try to defend the indefensible.

A101 wrote:

The markets did exactly what they always do go up/down speculatively on the conditions at the time

And the market reacted negatively to Hunts budget as well and other outside influences at the time which is the US markets

[/quote][/quote]

I don’t see any evidence of the market reacting negatively to Hunts budget. Most indicators have held steady or improved slightly, and are miles better than after the Truss budget.

What evidence do you have to support this claim?

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

Yes, that has been acknowledged in the other closed thread I said exactly that the nation is still very much divided on the matter and will continue to be so for many years
What’s the point in remaining in vassalage with the EU. Cameron himself told us we will be out of the CU/SM
We are either in or we are out no half arsed measures if you want to take advantage of being able to write your own policy and laws in the UK own interest being in vassalage is not going to be able to do that

Point being: it was too close a vote to go for an extreme measure like a hard Brexit.

Nope, the referenda were binary decision in that it was in or out and the result carried, It’s no different in a double majority if the result is close or not one side gets the result the other doesn’t even if won by a single vote.
Cameron told us that the result will be acted upon under the terms of A50

ElPistolero wrote:

Having done that, the onus is on leavers, not remainers, to fix the divide. Break it, buy it, as the slogan goes.

No, it’s not up to those who vote to leave to do anything. It’s the job of government to know use those new freedoms in the UK best interests with good policy. As I have said before in the old threads yes, they will make mistakes you learn from them and try something different. There are lots of independent nations doing alright and not part of the EU organisation.

ElPistolero wrote:

Bit too much to expect the remainers to come around in this now that public opinion is moving in their favour. They didn’t vote for Brexit, or support a hard Brexit.
It was a pyrrhic victory to begin with (what with leaving half the country behind), and now it’s moving into losing territory (poll after poll showing that even 20% of those who voted for it think it’s bad idea).
Certainly starting to look like it’s not just not going to plan, but nobody actually knows how to make it work. Truss and Kwarteng tried - to their credit - to do what Brexit pretended to set out to do, but it went up in flames at the behest of the markets. Which begs the question: was it ever possible for it to go to plan in the first place?

Who cares what the polls are saying the only vote that mattered was at the referenda. Both mainstream political parties have said no to re-joining the EU and we have to move forward and do what’s best for the UK. And as I said different people have different ideas on how that happens.

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

We actually pulled out extremely we’ll rebounding out of covid still had the highest growth until Putin invaded the criticism of the BOE is well suited

Not really. We can agree that the UK was the fastest to rebound by dint of opening up first, but the scale of the rebound was always going to be limited by the trade shock of Brexit. Let’s not confuse timing with scale

Trade was always expected to be lower and that was acknowledged in the referenda campaign. Coming out trade returned to pre Brexit levels obviously with the new economic trading conditions that will go up and down
UK exports to EU ‘return to pre-Brexit levels
August 12, 2021

UK exports to the European Union are back at pre-Brexit levels, according to official data.
Data for May and June from the Office for National Statistics shows exports rose 9.1% in May to £14.1 billion and 1.2% in June to £14.3bn.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/uk-t ... ify%20wall

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

But who is to say that if we were in the EU we still would not be in the current place we are, after all being in the EU after the financial crisis a decade ago did do us any favours did it?

Who? We’ve been over this. Banker after banker (private sector and public sector, British and foreigner) have made it clear that the trade and labour supply disruptions is having a uniquely negative impact.
To the point that the UK is the only G7 country that hasn’t recovered to pre-COVID levels:
“Britain is, however, lagging behind other countries as the only member of the G7 group of wealthy nations whose economy shrank in the three months to September. Britain is also the only G7 economy where quarterly GDP remains below pre-Covid levels.”
https://amp.theguardian.com/business/20 ... my-shrinks
All of the G7 countries are living through the same Ukraine-related shocks. Only one is suffering more than the rest.
The 2008 shock had a relatively more uniform impact, by comparison. The UK wasn’t as much of an outlier as it is now. Probably because the UK was in the EU. Which is to say, if it was still in the EU, it would most definitely have recovered to pre-COvId levels by now, instead of remaining below that.

And its all based on assumptions because there is no way to say for fact that we would have been better off. That is the point of context after all Germany recovered in a better position than the UK after 2008 the financial crisis who’s to say it would not happen again hence why they are only assuming that the UK may or may not have fared better

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

Yes you can do that. But it wasn’t policy that gave us the Surrender Act it was the pro remain element with parliament that contributed to a bad agreement
Always said no deal is better than a bad deal and the remain elements saw to that bad deal for the UK

What other agreement could you possibly have that wouldn’t entail the same level of trade and labour supply disruption?

Every other option other than a hard exist would have left us in vassalage that’s the point. The point of leaving is that the UK decides in which direction that it wants to move in without the EU having supreme Parliamentary and Judicial control over the UK.
If the point was to remain in a vassalage situation it was always better to be fully in not a half arsed in/out

ElPistolero wrote:

No SM/CU/Free Movement were the fundamental requirements of the hard Brexit chosen. Nothing the 2017 Parliament (elected by the British people) could influence in any meaningful way. Needless to say, a No Deal would probably have been worse than whatever exists now.

Hence the reason for leaving was not just economic

ElPistolero wrote:

Think it’s time to stop blaming everyone else for the way Brexit is messing up the economy. Like the 56% who’ve already reached that point.
Time to smell the coffee; it’s always futile to try to defend the indefensible

Your continued reference to some imaginary blaming for the economy is just laughable. I have never blamed Brexit for the economy
How is Brexit indefensible?

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

The markets did exactly what they always do go up/down speculatively on the conditions at the time
And the market reacted negatively to Hunts budget as well and other outside influences at the time which is the US markets

I don’t see any evidence of the market reacting negatively to Hunts budget. Most indicators have held steady or improved slightly, and are miles better than after the Truss budget.
What evidence do you have to support this claim?

A Budget that boils the frog’: Reaction to Hunt’s autumn statement
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/polit ... nt-339002/

Reacting to the budget, Genevieve Morris, head of corporate tax at Blick Rothenberg, said: “It’s a Budget that boils the frog. The continued freezing of tax thresholds means most people won’t notice it directly as the temperature increases, and so won’t leap out of the water. They’ll simply discover years down the line that they boiled.

Wall Street lower as FTSE finishes in the red after Jeremy Hunt’s Autumn statement
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/ftse- ... 18368.html

The FTSE 100 and European stocks finished this Thursday in the red, with the UK’s benchmark tumbling in the wake of chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s Autumn statement.
Energy shares were lower after the chancellor announced that the windfall tax on the profits of oil and gas firms will increase from 25% to 35% and extended until March 2028.

https://www.cityam.com/live-updates-aut ... -day-2022/

The National Chair of the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), Martin McTague, criticised measures in the budget as being “high on stealth-creation and low on wealth-creation”.
He said it means “piling more pressure on the UK’s 5.5 million small businesses, their employees and customers.”
On policies to tackle inflation, he called it a “missed opportunity to avoid further economic slowdown” adding that “small businesses, which account for more than 16 million jobs in the UK, were already facing an acute cost of doing business crisis through soaring costs, falling revenues, shrinking availability of affordable finance, and a rise in invoices being paid late.
“On top of all that, they now face even higher taxes, cuts to innovation, and a recipe for a longer and deeper recession.

Pound falls as markets and business respond to autumn statement
https://news.sky.com/story/hunts-autumn ... r-12749526

Jeremy Hunt's autumn statement has failed to offer much cheer to markets, with the pound faltering and stock indexes falling below their opening mark.
But after he finished, it continued to fall, down 1% at $1.178 just before 2pm.
"They will continue to give him the benefit of the doubt and see the impact of this plan, however, there is also a chance that they see this as an overcorrection and that the measures could stifle what economic growth was present."

A101 wrote:

Nope, the referenda were binary decision in that it was in or out and the result carried, It’s no different in a double majority if the result is close or not one side gets the result the other doesn’t even if won by a single vote.
Cameron told us that the result will be acted upon under the terms of A50

No, it’s not up to those who vote to leave to do anything. It’s the job of government to know use those new freedoms in the UK best interests with good policy. As I have said before in the old threads yes, they will make mistakes you learn from them and try something different. There are lots of independent nations doing alright and not part of the EU organisation.

I don’t really understand what you’re trying to sag here, but by your own logic, there is no reason remainers should build any bridges either. Soo… continue with deep divisions? I can’t see how that can be good for any country, but your mileage may vary.

The other countries are doing fine because they didn’t increase and then cut trade with their biggest trading partner on a whim.

A101 wrote:

Who cares what the polls are saying the only vote that mattered was at the referenda. Both mainstream political parties have said no to re-joining the EU and we have to move forward and do what’s best for the UK. And as I said different people have different ideas on how that happens.

One of those political parties also put out a mini budget that it flip-flopped on pretty quickly. Nothing is permanent.

Certainly looks like the tide is turning. Only a matter of time before the UK aligns closer and closer and joins the SM/CU, even if it never fully joins the EU. Think that’s becoming clearer by the day.

A101 wrote:

Trade was always expected to be lower and that was acknowledged in the referenda campaign. Coming out trade returned to pre Brexit levels obviously with the new economic trading conditions that will go up and down
UK exports to EU ‘return to pre-Brexit levels
August 12, 2021

UK exports to the European Union are back at pre-Brexit levels, according to official data.
Data for May and June from the Office for National Statistics shows exports rose 9.1% in May to £14.1 billion and 1.2% in June to £14.3bn.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/uk-t ... ify%20wall

Rebounded to the same level? Sure. Rebounded at the same rate as the rest of the world? No. In fact, the damage to UK exports is becoming more and more apparent.

Source here:
https://www.ft.com/content/a31b4b8e-f9f ... 32f194d05a

A101 wrote:

And it’s all based on assumptions because there is no way to say for fact that we would have been better off. That is the point of context after all Germany recovered in a better position than the UK after 2008 the financial crisis who’s to say it would not happen again hence why they are only assuming that the UK may or may not have fared better

Indeed. Notwithstanding that those same assumptions also informed the markets’
stance on the mini-Budget, and resulted in a PM being ousted.

Very powerful assumptions, those.

A101 wrote:

Hence the reason for leaving was not just economic

Perhaps not, but they’re contributing enough to the economic pain to make people change their mind.

Clocks ticking. SM and CU seem to be getting closer by the day. Worst nightmare territory for Brexiteers, I would imagine.

A101 wrote:

Your continued reference to some imaginary blaming for the economy is just laughable. I have never blamed Brexit for the economy
How is Brexit indefensible?

How is the economic pain Brexit is inflicting defensible?

A101 wrote:

A Budget that boils the frog’: Reaction to Hunt’s autumn statement
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/polit ... nt-339002/

Reacting to the budget, Genevieve Morris, head of corporate tax at Blick Rothenberg, said: “It’s a Budget that boils the frog. The continued freezing of tax thresholds means most people won’t notice it directly as the temperature increases, and so won’t leap out of the water. They’ll simply discover years down the line that they boiled.

Wall Street lower as FTSE finishes in the red after Jeremy Hunt’s Autumn statement
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/ftse- ... 18368.html

The FTSE 100 and European stocks finished this Thursday in the red, with the UK’s benchmark tumbling in the wake of chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s Autumn statement.
Energy shares were lower after the chancellor announced that the windfall tax on the profits of oil and gas firms will increase from 25% to 35% and extended until March 2028.

https://www.cityam.com/live-updates-aut ... -day-2022/

The National Chair of the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), Martin McTague, criticised measures in the budget as being “high on stealth-creation and low on wealth-creation”.
He said it means “piling more pressure on the UK’s 5.5 million small businesses, their employees and customers.”
On policies to tackle inflation, he called it a “missed opportunity to avoid further economic slowdown” adding that “small businesses, which account for more than 16 million jobs in the UK, were already facing an acute cost of doing business crisis through soaring costs, falling revenues, shrinking availability of affordable finance, and a rise in invoices being paid late.
“On top of all that, they now face even higher taxes, cuts to innovation, and a recipe for a longer and deeper recession.

Pound falls as markets and business respond to autumn statement
https://news.sky.com/story/hunts-autumn ... r-12749526

Jeremy Hunt's autumn statement has failed to offer much cheer to markets, with the pound faltering and stock indexes falling below their opening mark.
But after he finished, it continued to fall, down 1% at $1.178 just before 2pm.
"They will continue to give him the benefit of the doubt and see the impact of this plan, however, there is also a chance that they see this as an overcorrection and that the measures could stifle what economic growth was present."

The Pound is back at 1.19, which is where it was pre-budget. That was a very short blip.

FTSE is higher than it was pre-Budget, so not sure what you’re getting at there either.

The rest seem to be articles put forth by think tanks. Think tanks =/= markets. Markets have money. They can dictate gilt rates and exchange rates. Think tanks…can’t.

As an aside, one of your articles this quote, which I note you didn’t include:

“So far the missing word from this autumn statement is ‘sorry’. Yes inflation, energy costs & recession are global problems but decisions taken in no 10 - Trussonomics, Brexit, legacy of austerity - have made their impact here worse”

Brexit: it’s everywhere.

A101 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

A101 wrote:

Remember someone brought up loopholes

Thats less government revenue and less money for the disadvantaged well done

Why less government revenue? I wasn’t aware of a tax cut?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As pointed out earlier it takes away the incentive to work more which leads to less productivity which reduces both income tax paid and corporation tax stifles growth less revenue for the government

That’s what people on here were happy with now you got it you are still not happy

Do you have any empirical evidence that higher taxes in the order being talked about lead to lower revenues? I feel it’s easy to say but not necessarily true in practice.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

A101 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Why less government revenue? I wasn’t aware of a tax cut?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As pointed out earlier it takes away the incentive to work more which leads to less productivity which reduces both income tax paid and corporation tax stifles growth less revenue for the government

That’s what people on here were happy with now you got it you are still not happy

Do you have any empirical evidence that higher taxes in the order being talked about lead to lower revenues? I feel it’s easy to say but not necessarily true in practice.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, long proven as BS but of course pushed by those, including their malignant over presence in the media, who benefit from it.
Quite obvious really.

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

Nope, the referenda were binary decision in that it was in or out and the result carried, It’s no different in a double majority if the result is close or not one side gets the result the other doesn’t even if won by a single vote.
Cameron told us that the result will be acted upon under the terms of A50
No, it’s not up to those who vote to leave to do anything. It’s the job of government to know use those new freedoms in the UK best interests with good policy. As I have said before in the old threads yes, they will make mistakes you learn from them and try something different. There are lots of independent nations doing alright and not part of the EU organisation.

I don’t really understand what you’re trying to sag here, but by your own logic, there is no reason remainers should build any bridges either. Soo… continue with deep divisions? I can’t see how that can be good for any country, but your mileage may vary.
The other countries are doing fine because they didn’t increase and then cut trade with their biggest trading partner on a whim.

We are not the ones whining because we left and continuing the fight to re-join

ElPistolero wrote:

The other countries are doing fine because they didn’t increase and then cut trade with their biggest trading partner on a whim.

China’s economic sanctions has made Australia more confident, there are lessons there for the UK

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

Who cares what the polls are saying the only vote that mattered was at the referenda. Both mainstream political parties have said no to re-joining the EU and we have to move forward and do what’s best for the UK. And as I said different people have different ideas on how that happens

One of those political parties also put out a mini budget that it flip-flopped on pretty quickly. Nothing is permanent.

True I highlighted that when things go wrong change course bit over dramatic of what happened but that’s life

ElPistolero wrote:

Certainly looks like the tide is turning. Only a matter of time before the UK aligns closer and closer and joins the SM/CU, even if it never fully joins the EU. Think that’s becoming clearer by the day.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I think the political hurdles are greater than you think to do that.
Just my opinion

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

Trade was always expected to be lower and that was acknowledged in the referenda campaign. Coming out trade returned to pre Brexit levels obviously with the new economic trading conditions that will go up and down
UK exports to EU ‘return to pre-Brexit levels

Rebounded to the same level? Sure. Rebounded at the same rate as the rest of the world? No. In fact, the damage to UK exports is becoming more and more apparent.

You were only comparing to pre-Brexit and we meet that benchmark

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

And it’s all based on assumptions because there is no way to say for fact that we would have been better off. That is the point of context after all Germany recovered in a better position than the UK after 2008 the financial crisis who’s to say it would not happen again hence why they are only assuming that the UK may or may not have fared better

Indeed. Notwithstanding that those same assumptions also informed the markets’ stance on the mini-Budget, and resulted in a PM being ousted.
Very powerful assumptions, those.

Indeed hence why they are still assumption if it followed 2008 we were never going to have the higher recovery terms would we since as you said the market followed the 2008 assumptions

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

Hence the reason for leaving was not just economic

Perhaps not, but they’re contributing enough to the economic pain to make people change their mind.

As I said who care, its not changing the result

ElPistolero wrote:

Clocks ticking. SM and CU seem to be getting closer by the day. Worst nightmare territory for Brexiteers, I would imagine.

Nope, if it happens it happens then the party will face the electorate see what happens then they will either lose or win. But its always going to be a gamble to who ever does it
It will most likely be under Starmer gives a lot of ammunition to the Conservatives in the following election cycle, because he didn’t think he could make it work with the EU holding his hand

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

Your continued reference to some imaginary blaming for the economy is just laughable. I have never blamed Brexit for the economy
How is Brexit indefensible?

How is the economic pain Brexit is inflicting defensible?

I told you Brexit is just not economic remain/re-join only have the one argument. And if it came to a vote again tomorrow id vote leave again

ElPistolero wrote:

The Pound is back at 1.19, which is where it was pre-budget. That was a very short blip.
FTSE is higher than it was pre-Budget, so not sure what you’re getting at there either.
The rest seem to be articles put forth by think tanks. Think tanks =/= markets. Markets have money. They can dictate gilt rates and exchange rates. Think tanks…can’t.

Still shows that that the market don’t 100% agree with Hunts policy didn’t it the £ also rallied under truss, that’s is the point

ElPistolero wrote:

As an aside, one of your articles this quote, which I note you didn’t include:
“So far the missing word from this autumn statement is ‘sorry’. Yes inflation, energy costs & recession are global problems but decisions taken in no 10 - Trussonomics, Brexit, legacy of austerity - have made their impact here worse”

That’s an opinion within the article just like there earlier assumptions

ElPistolero wrote:

Brexit: it’s everywhere.

LOL you make it sound like its is a living organism something from the little house of horrors

flipdewaf wrote:

A101 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Why less government revenue? I wasn’t aware of a tax cut?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As pointed out earlier it takes away the incentive to work more which leads to less productivity which reduces both income tax paid and corporation tax stifles growth less revenue for the government

That’s what people on here were happy with now you got it you are still not happy

Do you have any empirical evidence that higher taxes in the order being talked about lead to lower revenues? I feel it’s easy to say but not necessarily true in practice.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Been their done that in the now closed thread can't be stuffed looking for it. but you can you like

A101 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

A101 wrote:

As pointed out earlier it takes away the incentive to work more which leads to less productivity which reduces both income tax paid and corporation tax stifles growth less revenue for the government

That’s what people on here were happy with now you got it you are still not happy

Do you have any empirical evidence that higher taxes in the order being talked about lead to lower revenues? I feel it’s easy to say but not necessarily true in practice.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Been their done that in the now closed thread can't be stuffed looking for it. but you can you like

That’s a no then.

Thanks.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure what these 'non economic' benefits of BREXIT were.

Also unclear which things have been done which could not have been done within the EU.

flipdewaf wrote:

A101 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Do you have any empirical evidence that higher taxes in the order being talked about lead to lower revenues? I feel it’s easy to say but not necessarily true in practice.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Been their done that in the now closed thread can't be stuffed looking for it. but you can you like

That’s a no then.

Thanks.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did I say no I can't

It's on the forum for you to see