2022 mini-budget discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
lcimg-e29cb40b-41fe-4406-8b58-ec4d4f31ad46.jpeg

If Kwasi Kwarteng is forced to quit as chancellor over the currency and pensions turmoil, he will earn an unenviable record in British political history.

At present the shortest serving chancellor of the exchequer has been Iain Macleod, who died just a month after being appointed to the Treasury by Edward Heath in 1970.

Second shortest was Mr Kwarteng's predecessor Nadhim Zahawi, appointed after Rishi Sunak quit in July and in the job for just two months in the dying days of Boris Johnson's premiership.

So far, Mr Kwarteng has been chancellor for just three weeks. And Treasury sources are defiantly telling Sky News he won't resign or do a U-turn on his tax cuts that triggered the crisis.

But while Sir Keir Starmer has stopped short of calling for him to quit, some despairing Tory MPs are claiming privately that his position is fast becoming untenable.

As for Liz Truss, who found time to talk to President Zelenskyy of Ukraine but not the British people as the Bank of England stepped in to save the nation's pensions, she too could become an unfortunate record holder.

The shortest serving prime minister so far has been George Canning, who saw off the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel to land the top job in 1827 but was PM for just 119 days before he died at the age of 57.

The rest of the unenviable league table has Alex Douglas-Home serving for one year and one day, Sir Anthony Eden one year 279 days, Gordon Brown two years and 318 days, Neville Chamberlain two years and 348 days, Theresa May three years and 11 days, James Callaghan three years and 29 days and Boris Johnson three years and 44 days.

This week, as the economic crisis deepened, bookmakers Ladbrokes slashed their odds on Ms Truss being replaced before the year is out from 40/1 to just 11/1.

Kemi Badenoch leads the way with Ladbrokes in the race to take over as Tory leader, at 7/1, while next in the betting to succeed her, at 8/1, is... Boris Johnson.
 
Aaah right, a classic "it's those damn immigrants" excuse again.
Of course you completely gloss over the fact a vast swathe of the social housing was sold-off under "Right to Buy" and NEVER REPLACED, which has directly impacted the availability of social housing (Note the word SOCIAL, not "Freebie" as you like to call it.)

But of course, it's far easier to blame those "darkies on the dinghy's coming across the channel"

Put down that Tory pamphlet you're reading from and try forming your own opinions for once, instead of just parroting what you've been told to think.

I never said anything about 'darkies' as you put it so save the racial slurs. It applies to anyone sponging off the state regardless of their ethnic background.
 
But that is what will happen if people keep driving up salaries.

You're going to have to try harder than that if you want people to take you seriously...

The markets did not freak out over salary increases, even when some areas were getting upwards of 8% rise..

The markets only freaked out over Brexit, The initial Covid hit and now this absolutely bat-**** insane "mini-budget".
 
Now you're just being silly. You can't seriously suggest we should be paying people circa £31K a year to wait on tables, deliver someone's post, empty some bins, stack shelves, sell you a train ticket etc etc. I thought you lot said you didn't want inflation lol.
You mean all those key workers people were out on their door steps applauding, including our then PM, only a couple of years ago. Yea they defiantly don't deserve to be paid more because who needs people serving them food in restaurants when they can go and get it themselves, who needs letters and parcels, who needs their bins collected or wants to buy a train ticket. :rolleyes:
 
I never said anything about 'darkies' as you put it so save the racial slurs. It applies to anyone sponging off the state regardless of their ethnic background.

You very clearly laid the blame for this at the feet of immigration... Also, I do love the idea that you think someone who may be severely physically or mentally handicapped and unable to work are "sponging off the state" What a truly repugnant opinion to hold.

We shouldn't have let so many people in over the years and then we wouldn't have a chronic shortage of freebie housing.

See this right here? This is you, using "immigrants" as the excuse for the problem, when as I already pointed out, vast chunks of social housing were sold off under the Right-To-Buy scheme and never replaced.
 
You mean all those key workers people were out on their door steps applauding, including our then PM, only a couple of years ago. Yea they defiantly don't deserve to be paid more because who needs people serving them food in restaurants when they can go and get it themselves, who needs letters and parcels, who needs their bins collected or wants to buy a train ticket. :rolleyes:

You can't justify it, unskilled jobs should be paid as such otherwise you bring a whole load of other problems to the table. No doubt Labour would do nothing other than stoke unskilled labour costs higher.
 
You very clearly laid the blame for this at the feet of immigration... Also, I do love the idea that you think someone who may be severely physically or mentally handicapped and unable to work are "sponging off the state" What a truly repugnant opinion to hold.



See this right here? This is you, using "immigrants" as the excuse for the problem, when as I already pointed out, vast chunks of social housing were sold off under the Right-To-Buy scheme and never replaced.

I never made any reference to those who couldn't work due to disabilities. I thought I was clear in referring to those capable of working since I mentioned not providing more than 6 months safety net of unemployment benefit. You wouldn't be getting unemployment benefit if you were unable to work.
 
Last edited:
But that is what will happen if people keep driving up salaries.
Nope...Estimating the impact of minimum wages on prices - GOV.UK (PDF)).
Abstract
We exploit variation in the extent to which sectors and regions in the United Kingdom are exposed to minimum wage labour costs to identify whether increases in the minimum wage are passed through to consumers in the form of higher prices. Using survey data on monthly inflation at the shop level for a highly disaggregated set of consumer products, we find a small but statistically significant price effect for the most exposed products. This is equivalent to a price elasticity with respect to minimum wages between 0.02 and 0.11, with larger effects since the introduction of the National Living Wage in 2016. This finding is robust to the choice of treatment definition and model specification, and is consistent with the findings of similar studies in the United States and Hungary.
Findings
Descriptively, we observe that inflation is higher in minimum wage uplift months than at other times of the year: 0.04 percentage points higher for the treatment group compared to 0.06 percentage points lower for the control group.
You can't justify it, unskilled jobs should be paid as such otherwise you bring a whole load of other problems to the table. No doubt Labour would do nothing other than stoke unskilled labour costs higher.
But you can justify giving an extra £9k to people earning more than £250k? Because that's not going to do exactly the same thing you're arguing would happen with what you deem as 'unskilled' workers.
 
Last edited:
Buying some farmland and producing your own food would be a safer bet than some arbitrary numbers that could quite simply be cancelled at the stroke of a button. [DEL]
Yes everyone can do that. :rolleyes:
Some serious trolling going on in here today.
 
I never made any reference to those who couldn't work due to disabilities. I thought I was clear in referring to those capable of working since I mentioned not providing more than 6 months safety net of unemployment benefit. You wouldn't be getting unemployment benefit if you were unable to work.

No, you very clearly said :-

I never said anything about 'darkies' as you put it so save the racial slurs. It applies to anyone sponging off the state regardless of their ethnic background.

This is what you said... you made no quantifying statements regarding their level of disability, or any specifics regarding unemployment benefit.

This is you, attempting to re-write history so you can continue your narrative without feeling like a total scumbag for wanting to treat those on unskilled labour like slaves, continue to funnel taxes into the hands of private landlords via Housing Benefit and generally demonize anyone you don't consider "worthy".

It is frankly disgusting.

Like I said, go have this conversation with your binmen next time they come round, tell them how they're just "unskilled labour" and don't deserve a living wage, how they're just "sponging off the state because they need Universal Credit to "top-up" their Minimum Wage to something remotely resembling a "Living Wage" and see how they react.
 
Last edited:
You very clearly laid the blame for this at the feet of immigration... Also, I do love the idea that you think someone who may be severely physically or mentally handicapped and unable to work are "sponging off the state" What a truly repugnant opinion to hold.



See this right here? This is you, using "immigrants" as the excuse for the problem, when as I already pointed out, vast chunks of social housing were sold off under the Right-To-Buy scheme and never replaced.


So the 1000 plus a day "irregular migrants" being ushered ashore at Dover are a positive to the economy, bringing cash and skills with them, and get straight into a productive role in English society, requiring no benefits and able to be self sufficient??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom