Can Liz Truss survive her premiership?

But it costs so much money?
The money can help poor people in the UK.
Why Truss' phone is hacked?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Someone scrambled Saint's circuits?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It could. But the poor in the UK generally have a roof over their head, running water, electricity, heating, jobs, and, probably most importantly, don't have missinles being fired at them, destroying their infrastructure, and killing them.

Because at the time she was Foreign Secretary, and privy to information that some others might be interested in knowing. You know, the usual reason that phones are hacked.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hunt hinted that he will increase TAX, why people are happier with increased tax instead of reducing tax?
Doesn't sound logic to me.

 

Bank rate hike will hurt UK's economy worse?
Should Braverman resign? Didn't she betray Lizz Truss?

 

Tune into the next instalment of "Trouble in Downing Street"(will Botherum Boris deck Swatty Sunak?)

 

They're not happier, but government shouldn't necessarily do what people are happy with, but rather what is best (in their view) for the country in the longer term. Hence higher taxes to help reduce the deficit, which will aid the economy in the longer term.

That's because you're not adequately informed.

No. It will help by helping reduce the high inflation. It will certainly reduce the amount of money in people's pockets if they have debt interest payments to make that are linked to the bank rate. That means people have less to spend, which will in turn force businesses to keep prices low, become more efficient, otherwise they won't survive. By keeping prices low, this reduces inflation.

 

When people have less money to spend, business is difficult, sales is poor, it will hurt economy.

 

Will Sunak survive until next Election?

 

Think of it as the lesser of two evils. Better to get inflation under control (i.e. down from 10% to c.2%) than worry too much about a growing economy and growing debt. This was Truss' big mistake. The economy (as in most countries) is in pretty bad shape, and sorting out inflation first is the least worst option.

 

She unexpectedly supported Sunak over Johnson, so her acquiring HS again is just generic nepotism on his part rather than ethnic nepotism.

As well as Sunak partly keeping a potential foe or wannabe close and under observation, since Braverman has contended for PM before. (Which is to say, Sunak has a Michael Corleone fetish when it comes to personal mantras.)

Sunak also appointed Gavin Williamson a position, too, who is afflicted with bullying allegations. The latter supported Sunak during both leadership elections (July-Sept and October), and is supposedly a friend.

So that fits into the balancing act of the platitude: friends close, enemies closer. Or someone to throw under the immigration policy Blame Bus if her function is more as fodder.

_

 

There's also the consideration that the party simply lacks any substantial talent in the necessary areas, or those that might do are afflicted with some personality trait that renders them unsuitable for the roles - such as a tendency to bully. In such a scenario, shuffling those who have shown even a modicum of talent is to be expected, rather than risk another Truss/Kwarteng debacle.

 

When people have less power to spend, inflation will come down? Why not government reduces import duty, so that imported goods will be cheaper?

 

I'm sure it has been considered, but the impact on overall inflation due to the reduced tariffs would be relatively small. In the US, for example, it was estimated that reducing the tariffs for all main trading partners might shave about 0.4% off inflation. In the EU this might be 0.1% (most EU trade is already zero-tariff within the EU). Not sure what it would be in UK, but probably similar to EU level.

There's also the impact of cheaper imports replacing home-grown/built products, which reduces the revenue of the home producers, which means they generate less profit (and hence less tax income for the government), or are forced to put up prices to generate the revenue to cover the fixed costs, or go out of business which puts further strain on the government's finances.

Reducing non-tariff barriers (quotas, levies, sanctions, embargoes) would shave off a bigger fraction of inflation (3% maybe) but then you're more likely to see a detrimental offset to government finances due to the things mentioned above, as they're possibly more likely to be things already produced in-country.

The most effective way, hostorically, to tackle inflation is to take money out of the system, through higher interest rates. This both encourages people to save (why save if interest rates are near-zero?) but also reduces the amount of money people have to spend from their weekly/monthly pay packet after the higher cost of servicing their existing debt (mortgage etc).