New Tory Leader

[Yellow Fever 3,810]

17 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

There's no 'of course' about it. The risks had already been established in 2018; the BoE did nothing to address them until there was a real problem.

It was the case here that the trigger was a government decision, but it need not have been; an external trigger could have caused an LDI crisis that the BoE would have been no better prepared for.

And furthermore, there has been no public scrutiny of what changes they've made or whether they're actually sufficient, because people like you want to avoid a true historical look at it to keep it nice and simple for your own political preferences.

Well perhaps Truss could have asked the BoE and OBR to run their eye over her proposed budget.....thought not.

There are actually all sorts of risks in everything. The unknown unknowns let alone unimaginable stupidity

Truss (and her dopey supporters) was just too inept and foolish to even realize what she didn't know and ask for advice.

I guess it's for people like her we have to put labels on things like don't use the microwave to dry your pets.

Edited April 22 by Yellow Fever

[littleyellowbirdie 2,564]

6 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Well perhaps Truss could have asked the BoE and OBR to run their eye over her proposed budget.....thought not.

There are actually all sorts of risks in everything. The unknown unknowns let alone unimaginable stupidity

Truss (and her dopey supporters) was just too inept and foolish to even realize what she didn't know and ask for advice.

I guess it's for people like her we have to put labels on things like don't use the microwave to dry your pets.

Well there you go then. We can put to bed entirely the 'what ifs' about Liz Truss and concentrate on the fact that contingencies for LDIs were known unknowns at the BoE since 2018 and they had nothing in terms of setting up monitoring of risks, stress testing, or contingencies which resulted in the crisis being far greater than it might have been.

Edited April 22 by littleyellowbirdie

[sonyc 5,539]

Whatever the specific issues regarding the OBR and Bank of England advice or non guidance, isn't it clear to us all on these threads that Liz Trusts isn't of PM calibre?

Her various performances / interviews she offered in her brief 40 day plus tenure were very odd. She refused to speak often (sedated?) and even Hunt had to step in during a Commons appearance whilst she sat there on the front bench. She also appeared catatonic in moments. Thinking of the Chris Mason interview. I'm not a fan of her but I was concerned about her health I must admit. It was a very strange period in our political public life.

Before her stint as PM  she appeared to have become overcome with hubristic photo shoots that just made her look quite mad. 

Worse still, this woman has no remorse. It indicates a problem in her psyche surely? She may have got things wrong so why not just admit it, front up to mistakes she may have made. It would be healthier.

Why start touring the US and uttering more of her thoughts. Again, it's a terrible look. One has to assume she is so consumed with herself?

I'm sure details will emerge in many years to come.

She is a gift for any opposition party.

[A Load of Squit 5,194]

33 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Whatever the specific issues regarding the OBR and Bank of England advice or non guidance, isn't it clear to us all on these threads that Liz Trusts isn't of PM calibre?

Her various performances / interviews she offered in her brief 40 day plus tenure were very odd. She refused to speak often (sedated?) and even Hunt had to step in during a Commons appearance whilst she sat there on the front bench. She also appeared catatonic in moments. Thinking of the Chris Mason interview. I'm not a fan of her but I was concerned about her health I must admit. It was a very strange period in our political public life.

Before her stint as PM  she appeared to have become overcome with hubristic photo shoots that just made her look quite mad. 

Worse still, this woman has no remorse. It indicates a problem in her psyche surely? She may have got things wrong so why not just admit it, front up to mistakes she may have made. It would be healthier.

Why start touring the US and uttering more of her thoughts. Again, it's a terrible look. One has to assume she is so consumed with herself?

I'm sure details will emerge in many years to come.

She is a gift for any opposition party.

Don't forget the round of interviews she did with the local radio stations, they were so bad that you felt she would end up in a straight jacket.

Obviously they would've gone much better but the BOE didn't warn her that the interviewers might be combative.

[Herman 9,798]

I'm certain there was another group of people that disregarded the opinions of the BOE and OBR etc. I can't quite remember what happened to them. 😉

[littleyellowbirdie 2,564]

48 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Whatever the specific issues regarding the OBR and Bank of England advice or non guidance, isn't it clear to us all on these threads that Liz Trusts isn't of PM calibre?

Her various performances / interviews she offered in her brief 40 day plus tenure were very odd. She refused to speak often (sedated?) and even Hunt had to step in during a Commons appearance whilst she sat there on the front bench. She also appeared catatonic in moments. Thinking of the Chris Mason interview. I'm not a fan of her but I was concerned about her health I must admit. It was a very strange period in our political public life.

Before her stint as PM  she appeared to have become overcome with hubristic photo shoots that just made her look quite mad. 

Worse still, this woman has no remorse. It indicates a problem in her psyche surely? She may have got things wrong so why not just admit it, front up to mistakes she may have made. It would be healthier.

Why start touring the US and uttering more of her thoughts. Again, it's a terrible look. One has to assume she is so consumed with herself?

I'm sure details will emerge in many years to come.

She is a gift for any opposition party.

Oh come on. You lot would argue Theresa May wasn't PM calibre. That's not what it's really about. It's all about the party with you folk. And if this was labour we were talking about it would be completely the other way, just like John Kelly's suicide was nothing to do with the government.

Edited April 22 by littleyellowbirdie

[Creative Midfielder 1,999]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Oh come on. You lot would argue Theresa May wasn't PM calibre. That's not what it's really about. It's all about the party with you folk.

There would be no need for argument as Theresa May demonstrated very clearly and publically that she wasn't PM calibre although granted in far less spectacular fashion than Truss.

A more pertinent argument/discussion might be whether any of the 5 PM's foisted upon us by the Tories over the last 14 years have been of Prime Ministerial calibre?

My personal starter for 10 would be - no, not one of them.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,564]

Just now, Creative Midfielder said:

There would be no need for argument as Theresa May demonstrated very clearly and publically that she wasn't PM calibre although granted in far less spectacular fashion than Truss.

A more pertinent argument/discussion might be whether any of the 5 PM's foisted upon us by the Tories over the last 14 years have been of Prime Ministerial calibre?

My personal starter for 10 would be - no, not one of them.

Thanks for proving my point.

Frankly, what's PM calibre anyway? Looking polished and sounding reasonable; sounding statesmanlike in stage managed photo ops while committing the UK to a war on false pretenses that irrevocably destroyed the UN's credibility like Tony Blair did?

[sonyc 5,539]

5 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Oh come on. You lot would argue Theresa May wasn't PM calibre. That's not what it's really about. It's all about the party with you folk. And if this was labour we were talking about it would be completely the other way, just like John Kelly's suicide was nothing to do with the government.

Not at all for me. It isn't all about the party. My comment was simply about Truss and her suitability. I argued about this with Teemu Van Basten when she was campaigning. I felt she was disingenuous and a fraud actually in her comments about Roundhay (which I know very well). 

I'm likely to be as critical, possibly more so if Labour get in. That's because I would expect a higher bar to be set. Let's be honest the bar has been set SO low. If you read the Caroline Lucas piece today (Guardian), you'll see she has integrity. She feels Labour are 100 times better than what we have but they are not discussing the real issues that need addressing. I think she is spot on.

You will see me critical of any decision I feel is wrong with the change of government. It's dishonesty I dislike. It's the same for some posters on these forums. They say stuff then try and defend their own posting as if it meant the opposite.

So it's zilch to do with the party. Much that I will never vote Tory. I can at least give credit where it's due. There is little credit with the current lot though. We are now listening to Rwanda and disabled people not working. It's the a r s e end of an appalling administration.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,564]

21 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Not at all for me. It isn't all about the party. My comment was simply about Truss and her suitability. I argued about this with Teemu Van Basten when she was campaigning. I felt she was disingenuous and a fraud actually in her comments about Roundhay (which I know very well). 

I'm likely to be as critical, possibly more so if Labour get in. That's because I would expect a higher bar to be set. Let's be honest the bar has been set SO low. If you read the Caroline Lucas piece today (Guardian), you'll see she has integrity. She feels Labour are 100 times better than what we have but they are not discussing the real issues that need addressing. I think she is spot on.

You will see me critical of any decision I feel is wrong with the change of government. It's dishonesty I dislike. It's the same for some posters on these forums. They say stuff then try and defend their own posting as if it meant the opposite.

So it's zilch to do with the party. Much that I will never vote Tory. I can at least give credit where it's due. There is little credit with the current lot though. We are now listening to Rwanda and disabled people not working. It's the a r s e end of an appalling administration.

Fair comment, not you personally, but as you've only come into this later on you can be discounted for the purposes of this discussion and focus on the YF's, CMs and Horseflys in the mix, plus those that like to make snotty, but pointless comments from the sidelines, like Wellbback, Herman and Squit.

They've all bent over backwards to avoid acknowledging that the BoE should be in for legitimate and pretty substantial criticism in the how and the scale of the crisis, and it's purely about party politics.

If you want to talk about Rwanda though, in my view they're doing the right thing given that it's impossible to do anything internationally and there must be some mechanism for removing people who aren't legitimate; there has to be some deterrent to people who abuse the rules like so many undocumented migrants do. There will not be one person on the Rwanda flights who hasn't gone through exhaustive administrative and legal processes in consideration of their cases.

Just like YF can demand absolute proof of a God, but can just assert that he 'knows' what Liz Truss would have done in a 'what if' scenario, so can a democratic government stand up and say 'okay: We believe that Rwanda is a safe place to send these people' and make the lawyers work on that basis.

Once it is underway then we can see if the critics were right. Worst case scenario, Labour can bring them back and answer to the public for it.

Edited April 22 by littleyellowbirdie

[Creative Midfielder 1,999]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Thanks for proving my point.

Frankly, what's PM calibre anyway? Looking polished and sounding reasonable; sounding statesmanlike in stage managed photo ops while committing the UK to a war on false pretenses that irrevocably destroyed the UN's credibility like Tony Blair did?

Happy to oblige, I know you've always had a soft spot for Theresa May although it baffles me as to why, as she was the worst (in mine & many others' estimation) Prime Minister in living memory until Johnson came along and snatched the title from her.

I doubt that we could ever achieve a consensus about what constitutes PM calibre but IMO there would have to be a number of key elements - two which immediately spring to mind, especially in the context of Theresa May who had neither, are leadership quality and the ability to be decisive when faced with difficult and complex decisions.

Having a good set of policies helps quite a bit too, so on the basis of those three factors all five PMs of the last 14 years have been absolute cr@p, which in many ways is validated by the absolute mess the country is now in.

Looking back a bit further, it is pretty obvious that both Thatcher and Blair had those qualities, and whilst there is a never ending debate about whether or not either of them were 'good' PMs, I would suggest that very people people would dispute that they were of Prime Ministerial calibre.

I'm not suggesting for a minute that the three elements I've mentioned are anything like the whole story but they are pretty important ones and also quite easy to spot when people do, or more frequently don't, have them.

 

 

[Yellow Fever 3,810]

28 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Fair comment, not you personally, but as you've only come into this later on you can be discounted for the purposes of this discussion and focus on the YF's, CMs and Horseflys in the mix, plus those that like to make snotty, but pointless comments from the sidelines, like Wellbback, Herman and Squit.

They've all bent over backwards to avoid acknowledging that the BoE should be in for legitimate and pretty substantial criticism in the how and the scale of the crisis, and it's purely about party politics.

Not at all. 

Truss was Prime Minister - First Lord of the Treasury

Kwarteng was the Chancellor of the Exchequer (he at least accepts the issues)

The titles say it all.

They set the disastrous 'policy' in the absence of any advice which they could of so easily of taken. They CHOOSE not too.

Buck stops with them.

 

If Peston and whoever is saying the BoE could of been more prepared for the lunatics in charge then yes. More regulation!

Doesn't change the facts as to who is culpable. After all, even the saner Tories (and the city / markets) rapidly realized they needed Sunak as at least a competent safe pair of hands to unravel the mess and put out the blaze. The truly sad thing is that some in SW Norfolk will still vote for her. Talk about pinning a blue rosette on donkey..... 

Edited April 22 by Yellow Fever

[littleyellowbirdie 2,564]

Just now, Yellow Fever said:

Not at all. 

Truss was Prime Minister - First Lord of the Treasury

Kwarteng was the Chancellor of the Exchequer (he at least accepts the issues)

The titles say it all.

They set the disastrous 'policy' in the absence of any advice which they could of so easily of taken. They CHOOSE not too.

Buck stops with them.

 

If Peston and whoever is saying the BoE could of been more prepared for the lunatics in charge then yes. More regulation!

Doesn't change the facts as to who is culpable. After all, even the saner Tories (and the city / markets) rapidly realized they needed Sunak as at least a competent safe air of hands to unravel the mess and put out the blaze. The truly sad thing is that some in SW Norfolk will still vote for her. Talk about pinning a blue rosette on donkey..... 

Except that in considering why they don't want to talk to the BoE and OBR beforehand, you only have to look at the fact we've had budgets leaked beforehand. Employees of the civil service have again and again broken faith with governments, which is a large part of why we are where we are; discretion is supposed to be part of the job, but they can't resist getting involved in politics.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,564]

10 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

If Peston and whoever is saying the BoE could of been more prepared for the lunatics in charge then yes. More regulation!

 

Stress testing, procedures and contingencies are not regulations. The potential for such problems with LDIs had been foreseen years ago. The crisis could have as easily been triggered by external factors as from a negative reception to the budget. They could and should have had those in place.

Edited April 22 by littleyellowbirdie

[A Load of Squit 5,194]

Fortunately for us other people have listened to the podcast and don't agree with your findings. I can sympathise, Pestons droning voice is enough to hypnotise people into believing he's go some insight but frankly he just comes across as a bloke trying to sell a podcast. After all it's a podcast, if it was anything of substance it would be on the proper radio or TV.

Go and have a lie down, your getting overwrought. 

 

 

[Barbe bleu 830]

This was 2 years ago and has largely been overtakeen by events, it was the work of a different cabinet and neither of the big parties is going to adopt a similar model. I'm not sure it is worth getting into the weeds on this. AlOS has a certain 'style' but he is probably right to advise not getting overwrought about it.

Ironically it might have killed off possibilities at both the right and left wings.  Stymied the left by emphasising the importance of 'the markets' and the threats posed by borrowing too much and constrained the ability of the right to induce investment into enterprise .

[littleyellowbirdie 2,564]

40 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Fortunately for us other people have listened to the podcast and don't agree with your findings. I can sympathise, Pestons droning voice is enough to hypnotise people into believing he's go some insight but frankly he just comes across as a bloke trying to sell a podcast. After all it's a podcast, if it was anything of substance it would be on the proper radio or TV.

Go and have a lie down, your getting overwrought. 

 

 

It amazes me you can write posts like this and call other people stupid with no pause for thought.

Edited April 22 by littleyellowbirdie

[Yellow Fever 3,810]

45 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

This was 2 years ago and has largely been overtakeen by events, it was the work of a different cabinet and neither of the big parties is going to adopt a similar model. I'm not sure it is worth getting into the weeds on this. AlOS has a certain 'style' but he is probably right to advise not getting overwrought about it.

Ironically it might have killed off possibilities at both the right and left wings.  Stymied the left by emphasising the importance of 'the markets' and the threats posed by borrowing too much and constrained the ability of the right to induce investment into enterprise .

Not sure that's really true.

What it did confirm is that you can't borrow money to simply give away.

You can borrow money to invest (the left) - you can borrow money for national emergencies (war, pandemic) or you can cut taxes,  but must cut benefits / expenditure too to balance (the right). 

What Truss did was simply insanity - as any 'stress' test would have confirmed 😉

 

Edited April 22 by Yellow Fever

[A Load of Squit 5,194]

42 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It amazes me you can write posts like this and call other people stupid with no pause for thought.

In order to defend Liz Truss you've become Liz Truss.

[Well b back 3,248]

plus those that like to make snotty, but pointlesscomments from the sidelines, like Wellbback, Herman and Squit.
 

You are brave behind your computer, insulting people to defend your b******* is really brave behind a computer. At least have a go at spelling user names properly.

You seem to think every word you utter on here everybody else should have the same opinion, in fact most of it I am sure you just do to wind people up. Had people on here ( or in general in the U.K. your opinion is in a minority on Gaza ) had said Israel was right to bomb the f*** out of Gaza, you would have said they weren’t. 

[Well b back 3,248]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It amazes me you can write posts like this and call other people stupid with no pause for thought.

So his opinion doesn’t count and is stupid, but your rubbish and right wing conspiracy theories is fact ? Try listening sometimes, other people’s opinions are sometimes different to yours, but necessarily incorrect.

[Barbe bleu 830]

2 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Not sure that's really true.

What it did confirm is that you can't borrow money to simply give away.

You can borrow money to invest (the left) - you can borrow money for national emergencies (war, pandemic) or you can cut taxes,  but must cut benefits / expenditure too to balance (the right). 

What Truss did was simply insanity - as any 'stress' test would have confirmed 😉

 

It wasn't really what was to happen to the borrowed money that caused the shock.  Truss wanted to borrow to pay for tax cuts that would feed investment but it could just have easily been corbyn borrowing for social projects.

Truss felt she had very limited time to act so felt the need to go all in (and did so at a time when the BoE was doing something in the opposite direction but let's not get into that). The sting that created will prevent anyone else trying something similar (on either side) for sometime yet.  That's why there is nothing between the parties, both are scared of market reaction.

I'd say that this event is paradoxically both irrelevant to any election in the next 20 plus years and also a very big reason why the politics of those 20 plus years will be as they will.

Edited April 22 by Barbe bleu

[Well b back 3,248]

2 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

It wasn't really what happened to the borrowed money that caused the shock.  Truss wanted to borrow to pay for tax cuts that would feed investment but it could just have easily been corbyn borrowing for social projects.

Truss felt she had very limited time to act so felt the need to go all in (and did so at a time when the BoE was doing something in the opposite direction but let's not get into that). The sting that created will prevent anyone else trying something similar (on either side) for sometime yet.  That's why there is nothing between the parties, both are scared of market reaction.

You will have the bird on your back, how dare you quote factual information. As I guess you are confirming, she announced £45 billion of unfunded tax cuts, that one could only assume were to be paid for by borrowing.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,564]

 

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

The sting that created will prevent anyone else trying something similar (on either side) for sometime yet.  That's why there is nothing between the parties, both are scared of market reaction.

Absolutely. With so much debt hanging over the country along with a structural deficit, there's really very little choice to be had on fiscal policy for any PM, whatever the ideology.

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,564]

1 hour ago, Well b back said:

You will have the bird on your back, how dare you quote factual information. As I guess you are confirming, she announced £45 billion of unfunded tax cuts, that one could only assume were to be paid for by borrowing.

What have I said that's not factual?

No rush for an answer. If you want time to go and ask your MP, then I'm happy to wait. 😉

Seriously: Where have I negated any of that?

Edited April 22 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,564]

5 minutes ago, Well b back said:

 

Dean Smith should not have been sacked and when I said you were a w***** you said you weren’t, there’s a couple for a start.

I'm interested in why you seem to be going downhill into just base insults these days, and pretty much out of the blue at that. Am I not paying you enough attention?

Edited April 22 by littleyellowbirdie

[Herman 9,798]

How far we've come.......

 

[Yellow Fever 3,810]

Rwanda flights in July?

That' a little bit of an optimistic date I think to send the Tory party into exile.

 

 

[dylanisabaddog 4,954]

[dylanisabaddog 4,954]

Bearing in mind the mess that Angela Rayner is in, you wouldn't have thought she would survive PMQ'S.

This thread is entitled 'Next Tory Leader'. It's probably fair to say after this lunchtime it won't be Oliver Dowden. An astonishgly shocking performance.