RayC

That's almost certainly true re Charles' comment to Truss. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Mr. Raja's evidence to the parliamentary select committee.

Which is totally irrelevant.

Fair play for admitting your error re the Prof's gender. Nevertheless, the rest of your post is totally irrelevant. I might post on a far-right platform - I don't! - it doesn't mean that my post is supportive of the far right or lacks credibility.

Truss stated that the UK faces 2 tough years. Presumably things should then start to improve*. I am accepting her timescales. Whether I think that her policies will be successful is another matter. * I find the 2 year timescale a bit baffling. If she is correct then it may well be too late for her and she simply gives a present of an improving economy to the incoming Labour-led government. Maybe I've misjudged her and she is unlike two of her recent predecessors, who put self and party before country. Truss may be a true altruistic patriot?

It's fair enough to suggest that we judge the success of her government's policies after two years (assuming that they remain consistent). However, the manner in which these economic policies were introduced - and the general political ineptness of both Kwarteng and Truss - shouldn't be above criticism now.

Assuming the referenced piece of research can also stand alone on its' own merit I don't understand why that should be a problem? Btw: Prof Costas is a man! It seems strange that university academics and researchers can be so easily dismissed as having nothing to contribute to an argument. But, of course, that is just my opinion. I'm unaware of any controversy. My cursory look at the background of the founders of the site revealed that one was a former editor of the Observer and The Age. The other describes himself as "an advisor to CEOs". What's the problem? In any event, none of this casts any doubt about the credibility of the article which I quoted.

I am quite capable of formulating my own arguments but when they have effectively been articulated for me - as in this instance - I prefer not to go to the bother of doing so. With regards to the article itself. Perhaps, if you - and the two individuals who 'liked' your post - had been able to put your bias to one side and had bothered to actually open the link before dismissing the source (and, presumably therefore the article?) as "nonsense", you would have found that the author is an academic named Costas Milas. Prof. Milas teaches Finance at the Univ. of Liverpool, contributes to the World Economic Forum and has written articles for the FT. I would suggest that this makes him a credible source. Moreover, the article is not simply a piece of government bashing. imo it offers a balanced view of what has happened in the money markets and what might happen in the future: it served to llustrate my point, namely that things are not as simple as you portrayed in your original post.

Unfortunately it is nowhere near as straightforward as that https://theconversation.com/bank-of-england-bonds-rescue-has-two-ugly-implications-more-inflation-and-an-even-weaker-pound-191653

She'll be lucky to survive 2 months if she carries on like this.

The whole package is largely unfunded as it is underpinned by increased government borrowing. That's not the issue. The issue is why has this abrupt 'about turn' occurred? I thought that the whole point of cutting the top rate of tax was that the increased spend of this group would generate demand and consumption in lower income brackets? According to the PM yesterday, this was sound economic policy. If that's the case surely it is today? Where is the courage of her convictions?

Almost inevitable in the face of increasing opposition from all quarters including her own party. From Nick Eardley on the BBC website: "This is a colossal government U-turn. Yesterday morning, the prime minister insisted she was pressing ahead with the controversial plan to scrap the 45p tax rate. This morning - it’s dead."

There will come a time when Labour need to clarify their policies and put some flesh on the bones but, for the time being, they don't need to do or say anything. In fact, the less said the better; the Tories are making their case for them.

Then it's not clear where this upsurge in Labour's support is coming from? Polls get it wrong but not normally by the order of 25%!

I guess that'll be the percentage who don't vote Tory?????????

Party took place on the evening after the (mini) budget measures were announced to parliament, so nothing illegal. As it was a private party, Kwarteng did not have to disclose his attendance. As I said before, perhaps not a great look but nothing to see here really.

I disagree. While there might be a finite number of variables, there are an almost infinite number of combinations in the value of the various parameters and underlining assumptions that can be tweaked and modelled. However, I agree that it would be naive to think that any government of whatever colour has a 'cure all' solution(s). I don't think that you can be so definitive about what will be contained in the first budget of any potential Labour administration. Different times and circumstances but Gordon Brown's first budget did not hammer the rich. True enough. Instantaneous results are what is expected.

What's your point? The electorate are fickle? (Un?) fortunately the MRLP never came close to winning a seat. I might have voted for them if I had known that they were standing on a platform of an 'Al dente' Brexit and sending Noel Edmonds to negotiate the Brexit deal because he understood 'Deal or No deal'????

In this instance, it doesn't appear that Kwarteng has actually done anything that is illegal or against parliamentary convention. However, it is another example of how this (mini) budget has badly mismanaged, and of Kwarteng's political naivety and/or arrogance.

It's the EU's fault!????

Whether the opposition have policies that are viable remains to be seen. However, there is little doubt that Labour are viable in terms of being electable as the latest polls show.

???? Obviously???? Given how quickly the measures worked, I wonder why they don't make the (mini) budgets weekly events?

Markets may be fickle, they may be irrational but their reaction is not unimportant. Your words: "Yes market reaction is unimportant and in this case should definitely be ignored." Therefore you don't think that the BoE should have made any statements or allocated £65m to prop up sterling in recent days? I'd hazard a guess that if the BoE hadn't intervened and commented, the value of sterling would have continued to fall.

On Monday, as the pound fell, government supporters on this board were telling us that the positive effects of the (mini) budget would take time to be felt - rough estimates were upwards of 12 months - and that we should reserve judgement about their success: It was - and remains - a fair comment imo. However, I wake up this morning - after a recovery in the value of the pound - to find a number of these same posters declaring that the problem(s) with sterling is now over and claiming this as proof of the success of last Friday's measures!

Either this is a radical new approach to political economy or it shows a lack of understanding about the (global) economy.

Very seldom (if ever). And ...? It's not the sole criterion for judging her performance but are you suggesting market reaction is unimportant and can be ignored?