General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
Correct. The media and apparently the bank of England. Did not understand how a functioning adult could form such stupid ideas.
It was puerile nonsense, right up to the point it was true and the lettuce outlasted her, then it was prophetic and defining.
Truss seem's unable to accept that her ideas and approach were fundamentally broken. Borrowing to fund tax cuts for the wealthy is just a bad idea. The supposed logic that it would stimulate growth as it is based on an over reliance on "trickle down economics" and also a lack of appreciation of the reality of the last 13 years since the 2008 economic crisis. Interest rates have been low, and "quantitative easing" created cheap money amassed by the wealthy and cheap credit with a low return economy; the wealthy have been hoarding this money rather than investing it in growth and enterprise.
Borrowing to invest in infrastructure such as the hospital rebuilds, HS2 and the Northern Power House rail, and to build a fund for a UK public alternative for business & investment financing to foster entrepreneurs - that would have been a good approach. Using the money to build and buy assets, and invest in growing new companies would both stimulate the economy by putting money into peoples & businessed pockets, while getting something directly in exchange - assets and loans/shares in new companies - and should reassure the markets that the money isn't just being frittered away on a crazy experiment.
If you listen to the right-wing commentators they don’t disagree with Truss’ plans - just the speed in which they attempted to implement them. I heard Nick Ferrari say as much yesterday on LBC.
Longer-term, Sunak’s wing of the Tory party is to the right of Truss in terms of economics. Seems to me that the only major difference is that Sunak/Hunt are prepared to use state intervention more aggressively to confinue to channel capital to the already-rich. Just over a longer time.
Edit: weird mis-typings on my phone.
I would imagine what really happened was that the banks and big corporations realised that such ardent, sudden implementation of Truss’ economic policies would have led to more social unrest in the UK than they wanted at this time. They need a longer-term implementation. Truss just represented one section of the capitalist class that are impatient for change (or welcome the chaos of economic instability).