The Conservative Party

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Handouts to the rich and business are called subsidies. Subsidies to the less well off and very poor are called handouts. Funny old world…

 

[hillbillyliar]

As a high rate tax payer - the extra money i get will not be offset by the increase in my energy bills. So for me it changes nothing. But I'm concious that the lower you earn the less benefit and everyone's energy bills are going up. Its morally wrong.

An interesting question is how much would a person have to earn for their income tax savings to be larger than the increase in their energy bills?

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

An interesting question is how much would a person have to earn for their income tax savings to be larger than the increase in their energy bills?

If you earn £1M you’ll be £55,000 better off next year.
The good news is that ALL PL football teams will surely hugely reduce their ticket prices as the players will be able to have their salaries cut whilst earning the same amount…….

 

[ZenHalfTimeCrock]

So, income tax to be cut, national insurance rise reversed, cap on energy bills implemented, extra payments going to the most vulnerable. The cost to be paid via more borrowing for now, but if these measures promote growth in the economy this will significantly reduce the bill. A Tory government implementing Tory policies at last. I like it.

Policies that have been shown to be utterly corrosive wherever they have been implemented.

The evidence of Kwarteng's budgetary incompetence is actually already out there in empirical form and has been since the late 90's when John Gray published the first edition of False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism. Gray is, of course, noted for having predicted the 2008 crash.

In that book, Gray looks in detail at four countries that have experimented with neoliberal economic policies of the kind favoured by Truss and Kwarteng: the USA, UK, New Zealand and Mexico. In each instance, the imposition of these policies demonstrably increased economic inequality (thus confirming the well-known research of Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett), and reduced social mobility and cohesion.

For example, according to the Rowntree Report on Income and Wealth, inequality in the UK increased dramatically and quickly between 1977 and 1990, a period during which the poorest income groups ceased to benefit from economic growth, and there was a threefold increase in the proportion of the population earning less than half of the national income. However, by 1984-85, the richest 20% of earners enjoyed a 43% after tax share of that income, the highest since the end of the World War 2. Meanwhile, in New Zealand a previously non-existent underclass was created following the introduction of neoliberal policies (by a Labour government!), while in Mexico the size of the middle classes was substantially reduced, and the very poorest were driven into a state of even more abject poverty.

This time around I will leave it there. But I am quite happy, if need be, to author a much longer post citing multiple sources that all converge on the same conclusion, namely, that Kwarteng's brand of economics is already known to be an epic fail.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Inome tax to be cut for those that earn the most .next to nothing for those who earn little... National Insurance hasn't been cut , its just gone back to were it was prior to the 'party of no tax increases' before.... nothing of any relevance going towards the most vulnerable.


How many moons can you see from your planet?

You know who you are speaking to don't you?

 

[Phil1]

Policies that have been shown to be utterly corrosive wherever they have been implemented.

The evidence of Kwarteng's budgetary incompetence is actually already out there in empirical form and has been since the late 90's when John Gray published the first edition of False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism. Gray is, of course, noted for having predicted the 2008 crash.

In that book, Gray looks in detail at four countries that have experimented with neoliberal economic policies of the kind favoured by Truss and Kwarteng: the USA, UK, New Zealand and Mexico. In each instance, the imposition of these policies demonstrably increased economic inequality (thus confirming the well-known research of Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett), and reduced social mobility and cohesion.

For example, according to the Rowntree Report on Income and Wealth, inequality in the UK increased dramatically and quickly between 1977 and 1990, a period during which the poorest income groups ceased to benefit from economic growth, and there was a threefold increase in the proportion of the population earning less than half of the national income. However, by 1984-85, the richest 20% of earners enjoyed a 43% after tax share of that income, the highest since the end of the World War 2. Meanwhile, in New Zealand a previously non-existent underclass was created following the introduction of neoliberal policies (by a Labour government!), while in Mexico the size of the middle classes was substantially reduced, and the very poorest were driven into a state of even more abject poverty.

This time around I will leave it there. But I am quite happy, if need be, to author a much longer post citing multiple sources that all converge on the same conclusion, namely, that Kwarteng's brand of economics is already known to be an epic fail.

He’s happy though so doesn’t matter about silly little things like that.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Policies that have been shown to be utterly corrosive wherever they have been implemented.

The evidence of Kwarteng's budgetary incompetence is actually already out there in empirical form and has been since the late 90's when John Gray published the first edition of False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism. Gray is, of course, noted for having predicted the 2008 crash.

In that book, Gray looks in detail at four countries that have experimented with neoliberal economic policies of the kind favoured by Truss and Kwarteng: the USA, UK, New Zealand and Mexico. In each instance, the imposition of these policies demonstrably increased economic inequality (thus confirming the well-known research of Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett), and reduced social mobility and cohesion.

For example, according to the Rowntree Report on Income and Wealth, inequality in the UK increased dramatically and quickly between 1977 and 1990, a period during which the poorest income groups ceased to benefit from economic growth, and there was a threefold increase in the proportion of the population earning less than half of the national income. However, by 1984-85, the richest 20% of earners enjoyed a 43% after tax share of that income, the highest since the end of the World War 2. Meanwhile, in New Zealand a previously non-existent underclass was created following the introduction of neoliberal policies (by a Labour government!), while in Mexico the size of the middle classes was substantially reduced, and the very poorest were driven into a state of even more abject poverty.

This time around I will leave it there. But I am quite happy, if need be, to author a much longer post citing multiple sources that all converge on the same conclusion, namely, that Kwarteng's brand of economics is already known to be an epic fail.

He went to meet with the Heritage foundation last week, which is hugely disturbing, as this is straight out of their playbook.

 

[Gabriel]

Would love to be a fly on the wall of the House bars today. Given that more MPs favoured Sunak and his policies and not this flight of fancy, I can’t imagine many will be happy. Suspect quite a few will be feathering their nests even faster than normal and sorting out all those directorships so that they can announce they are ‘stepping down’ at the next General Election.

 

[mancityvstoke]

Always amazed me how gullible poor fuckers voted for these cunts.......

 

[Gabriel]

Always amazed me how gullible poor fuckers voted for these cunts.......

‘Yeah, but, I never voted for any of this! I voted for Boris…’