Updated: Boris resigns as party leader

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Except that, contrary to what you have strongly implied in your post, Liz knows how she will pay it back.

Go down Rishi’s route and there will not be enough money to help people with their bills. Is that what you want?

Liz Truss intends to cut bills, by such measures as removing the green levy and reducing tax on petrol, which is non-inflationary because that brings prices down. It will be paid for in a number of ways, for example by using existing headroom in the economy, by growing the economy, and making the UK a more attractive offer for investors.

An excellent point.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

I think most of us watching from the outside can see neither candidate really gives two hoots about the economy or anyone who's not a paid up member of the party. They will say and do whatever they need to say or do to win the vote. I don't understand some people here, they were very quick to call out what they saw as unrealistic proposals from Labour at the last GE but seem blinded to the same outlandishly stupid promises from their own party. One day someone will do a PhD on the reasons for this strange behaviour.

Corbynomics presented by a Conservative candidate. You couldn't make it up, well not as effectively as Truss has anyway! Dorries's calculator is working hard.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Except that, contrary to what you have strongly implied in your post, Liz knows how she will pay it back.

Go down Rishi’s route and there will not be enough money to help people with their bills. Is that what you want?

Liz Truss intends to cut bills, by such measures as removing the green levy and reducing tax on petrol, which is non-inflationary because that brings prices down. It will be paid for in a number of ways, for example by using existing headroom in the economy, by growing the economy, and making the UK a more attractive offer for investors.

And employing more advisors at Downing Street .

[1andrew1]

The issues an incoming PM faces include:
- Ukraine war
- Climate change crisis
- NHS
- Cost of living crisis
- Poor energy strategy
- Poor relationship and excessive red tape with our major trading bloc
- Poor UK productivity
- Scarcity of housing

I'm not sure either candidate has the wherewithal to do anything but kick these issues into the long grass.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

And employing more advisors at Downing Street .

As long as she takes Redwood's advice, things will go well.

---------- Post added at 14:06 ---------- Previous post was at 13:57 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The issues an incoming PM faces include:
- Ukraine war
- Climate change crisis
- NHS
- Cost of living crisis
- Poor energy strategy
- Poor relationship and excessive red tape with our major trading bloc
- Poor UK productivity
- Scarcity of housing

I'm not sure either candidate has the wherewithal to do anything but kick these issues into the long grass.

The immediate issues she must/can rectify are:

- Doctors' appointments
- Medical procedure backlog, at all costs
- Passport applications
- Energy prices (VAT & Green Tax)
- Energy self-sufficiency (short term= coal & gas)
- Sensible approach to Net Zero (including Hybrid Cars)
- The Northern Ireland Protocol
- Increased farmland yields (food self sufficiency)
- Illegal migration (ECHR); get on with it not talk about it.

[GrimUpNorth]

Mod edit (Chris): Please do not type replies within quote tags. It makes following and responding to the the thread needlessly difficult. Separate individual paragraphs you wish to respond to with their own quote tags if necessary.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The kind of cuts that do not impact on services.


You misunderstand. Unfortunately, many people on the Left of politics cannot grasp that you can pay down debt by growing the economy. The well being of future generations is in much better hands with the Conservatives in power that if Labour were calling the shots. You know very well that they are the ones with the reputation of being high-spending and selling off all the family fortune to solve short-term problems.

Are you drunk or simply wuming, the kind of cuts that don't impact services and trying to slag of labour for spending when the con party have borrowed 70% of the money this nation has owed since 1945, it's also one thing selling of the family gold it's entirely another to sell of all of it's assets to foreign countries in some respects who have zero interest in infrastructure or keeping bills down

A general reminder that users should *not* type their replies within quote tags. It needlessly messes up later responses to your post. Just use them as designed.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by Chris

A general reminder that users should *not* type their replies within quote tags. It needlessly messes up later responses to your post. Just use them as designed.

Sorry

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Corbynomics presented by a Conservative candidate. You couldn't make it up, well not as effectively as Truss has anyway! Dorries's calculator is working hard.

I don’t think you get it, Andrew. Was it not you who claimed not to be a leftie?

There is the world of difference in approach between the two parties, but you don’t see it, do you?

---------- Post added at 19:37 ---------- Previous post was at 19:31 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Are you drunk or simply wuming, the kind of cuts that don't impact services and trying to slag of labour for spending when the con party have borrowed 70% of the money this nation has owed since 1945, it's also one thing selling of the family gold it's entirely another to sell of all of it's assets to foreign countries in some respects who have zero interest in infrastructure or keeping bills down

Not all departments of the Civil Service are productive or needed, TheDaddy. It’s far too bureaucratic and badly needs pruning.

You do understand why we had to borrow that money, don’t you? If not, never mind.

It was Gordon Brown who sold off all our gold reserves.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I don’t think you get it, Andrew. Was it not you who claimed not to be a leftie?

There is the world of difference in approach between the two parties, but you don’t see it, do you?

If you've got some facts to suppport your opinon, I'm all ears. But the two candidates for the role of PM couldn't fill a fag packet with their calculations.

---------- Post added at 21:33 ---------- Previous post was at 21:23 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Not all departments of the Civil Service are productive or needed, TheDaddy. It’s far too bureaucratic and badly needs pruning.

You do understand why we had to borrow that money, don’t you? If not, never mind.

It was Gordon Brown who sold off all our gold reserves.

After 12 years of Conservative governments, if any pruning was needed of the civil service, it would have happened by now. Unless you think that Cameron, May and Johnson were in fact all profligate lefties in cahoots with the civil service.

And, no one, and that includes Gordon Brown, has ever sold off all our gold reserves. I don't think you get it, Old Boy.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If you've got some facts to suppport your opinon, I'm all ears. But the two candidates for the role of PM couldn't fill a fag packet with their calculations.

---------- Post added at 21:33 ---------- Previous post was at 21:23 ----------


After 12 years of Conservative governments, if any pruning was needed of the civil service, it would have happened by now. Unless you think that Cameron, May and Johnson were in fact all profligate lefties in cahoots with the civil service.

And, no one, and that includes Gordon Brown, has ever sold off all our gold reserves. I don't think you get it, Old Boy.

He sold half our gold reserves, which was nothing short of economic mismanagement.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-reserves.html

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

He sold half our gold reserves, which was nothing short of economic mismanagement.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-reserves.html

I see that you have not challenged my significant point that after 12 years of Conservative governments, if any pruning was needed of the civil service, it would have happened by now. Great to reach agreement with you on that point.

We're also both getting closer on the gold reserves as you've moved on from your original statement that Gordon Brown sold all our gold reserves, so that's another positive development.

Conservatives tell me the Daily Mail is more of a comfort blanket for them which tells them what they want to hear. Here's another view as you seem to like the tabloids. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d...s-gold-5614853

I found this FT article informative, hope you enjoy it too, extracts below

The continued run of the gold price is a global investment sensation. Recently it broke the $1,500 an ounce barrier for the first time, 30 per cent higher than a year ago. Surely this lays bare the extraordinary foolishness of Gordon Brown’s announcement, 12 years ago this week, that the UK Treasury would sell off some of Britain’s gold holdings?

Actually, no. On this one occasion, Mr Brown’s decision was the right one. Let speculators go gambling on a shiny metal, if they want to. For most governments in rich countries, holding gold remains a largely pointless activity.

With hindsight, of course, Mr Brown could have gained a better price by waiting. At current rates, the $3.5bn the UK received selling bullion between 1999 and 2002 would have been closer to $19bn. The difference at current exchange rates, by the way, would be enough to cover a little over three weeks of the UK’s expected public deficit for the fiscal year 2010-2011 – not negligible, but hardly pivotal.
has gold at all.

In common with most rich nations, the function of British foreign exchange reserves is not for the government to manage wealth on behalf of the country. British citizens do that themselves. The UK does not have a sovereign wealth fund that aims to maximise returns, and nor should it. It is not a big net oil and gas exporter such as Norway – UK net foreign exchange reserves are about $40bn, equivalent to 2 per cent of nominal gross domestic product, while Norway’s sovereign fund has $525bn, equivalent to almost 140 per cent of its GDP.

Nor does the UK pile up foreign assets by persistently selling its own currency to manipulate the exchange rate, as does China. It is notable that the much-vaunted official purchases of gold over the past year are mainly by countries such as China and Russia – and, to a lesser extent, Mexico – with big excess reserves.

UK reserves are there mainly for precautionary reasons – to intervene in currency markets to stop a run on sterling or to pursue monetary policy objectives. Yet gold is badly suited for this task because, despite recent interest from private investors, a large proportion of global above-ground stocks – 18 per cent in 2010 – is still held by governments.

https://www.ft.com/content/5788dbac-...b-00144feabdc0

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

And employing more advisors at Downing Street .

She will also cut back the Civil Service.

---------- Post added at 08:02 ---------- Previous post was at 07:56 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I see that you have not challenged my significant point that after 12 years of Conservative governments, if any pruning was needed of the civil service, it would have happened by now. Great to reach agreement with you on that point.

We're also both getting closer on the gold reserves as you've moved on from your original statement that Gordon Brown sold all our gold reserves, so that's another positive development.

Conservatives tell me the Daily Mail is more of a comfort blanket for them which tells them what they want to hear. Here's another view as you seem to like the tabloids. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d...s-gold-5614853

I found this FT article informative, hope you enjoy it too, extracts below


https://www.ft.com/content/5788dbac-...b-00144feabdc0

The gold was held as balances. Brown sold it off and spent it on day to day stuff. Had he not done that, the financial crash would not have had such an impact.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

She will also cut back the Civil Service.

---------- Post added at 08:02 ---------- Previous post was at 07:56 ----------



The gold was held as balances. Brown sold it off and spent it on day to day stuff. Had he not done that, the financial crash would not have had such an impact.

So Liz is going to find bits of the Civil Service to cut that have been missed in the last 12 years? Shows the Conservatives were pretty inept when it came to tightening their belts during austerity doesn't it? Thanks for pointing that out to us .

Also, if she didn't surround herself with people to tell her what she wants to hear she could save even more money. I wonder how many adult care staff you could get for the salary of a typical Downing Street advisor?

I remember reading an article that argued if Geoffrey Howe had sold the gold and purchased US T-Bonds when the Conservatives came to power in 1979 he would have made the country a significant amount of money compared to keeping the gold (his inaction 'cost' us more than Gordon Brown did), but you probably knew that already and anyway hindsight is a wonderful thing when pointing out mistakes you think the other team made in politics.