Liz Truss Demands Retraction from Keir Starmer Over 'Economy Crash' Claims

[Social Media]

 

Liz Truss has sent a cease and desist letter to Sir Keir Starmer, urging him to stop claiming that she "crashed the economy." The letter, revealed by *The Telegraph*, describes these assertions as "false and defamatory."

 

According to the former prime minister’s legal representatives, these statements by Starmer contributed to Truss losing her seat as the MP for South West Norfolk in the general election. The controversy centers around the fallout from Truss's "mini-Budget" in September 2022, which introduced substantial tax cuts funded by borrowing, leading to adverse reactions in financial markets.

 

Truss’s lawyers argue that the financial upheavals did not equate to an economic crash since there was no decline in economic output or surge in unemployment, which are typical indicators of such a crisis. They cited a report from Andrew Lilico, managing director of Europe Economics and a fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs, to support their claim.

 

Lilico, speaking on *Planet Normal*, a podcast by *Telegraph* columnists Allison Pearson and Liam Halligan, stated, "There wasn’t any crash in the economy. The economy actually grew faster in the period immediately following the mini-Budget." He added, "It’s preposterous to claim that she crashed the economy. Exactly the opposite happened. The economy did better than had been expected."

 

This dispute comes as current borrowing costs increase, potentially erasing fiscal headroom for Chancellor Rachel Reeves after her tax-raising Budget in October. Reeves is expected to reinforce her fiscal rules aimed at reducing borrowing, emphasizing spending cuts over new tax hikes. 

 

Recently, the pound hit a nine-month low, and the yield on 10-year gilts—an indicator of government borrowing costs—rose to 4.8%, the highest since 2008. Concurrently, a quarterly survey by the Confederation of British Industry forecasted a sharp decline in profits within the financial services sector, the steepest since the financial crisis.

 

During the election campaign, leading Labour figures, including Starmer, used Truss’s brief tenure to criticize the Conservatives’ economic management. Truss’s legal letter explicitly states, “We are writing in relation to statements you have made publicly in respect of our client which have caused and will likely continue to cause serious harm to her reputation."

 

The letter emphasizes that Starmer’s repeated claims about Truss "crashing the economy" are damaging and defamatory, urging him to cease making such statements. It concludes by requesting that he "immediately cease and desist from repeating the defamatory statements" to prevent further harm to Truss’s reputation.

 

Moreover, the letter shifts some blame to the Bank of England, alleging that its mishandling of the "liability-driven investment" (LDI) crisis exacerbated market sensitivity to gilt interest rate movements. It asserts, "Those rate movements were caused by the Bank of England, and in particular by its poor handling of the LDI crisis, and its regulatory failures."

 

Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-01-11

 

 

[jippytum]

Liz Truss should 'let sleeping dogs lie' and not engage  in debate   bringing  more attention to her dismal display of ineptness at the helm of UK politcs. 

[Thingamabob]

I backed her all the way until she fired Kwasi Kwarteng in a pathetic attempt to save her own skin. After that I had no time for her.

[roquefort]

She's right of course, it was the BoE's ineptitude that caused interest rates to briefly spike. They came down again pretty quickly, until 'Rachel from accounts' came along and managed to push them even higher than they were under Truss.

[roquefort]

1 minute ago, Thingamabob said:

I backed her all the way until she fired Kwasi Kwarteng in a pathetic attempt to save her own skin. After that I had no time for her.

Agreed. She was a walking PR disaster, but the basic economic ideas she was trying to implement were correct. As Rachel from accounts is now proving in spades.

[James105]

1 hour ago, Thingamabob said:

I backed her all the way until she fired Kwasi Kwarteng in a pathetic attempt to save her own skin. After that I had no time for her.

 

I don't think she had a choice.  The banks actions backed her into a corner and firing the chancellor was a last ditch effort to try and put confidence back in the markets.   I'm still irritated by this as at least she was a conservative (an actual one in the conservative party which is as rare as hens teeth nowadays) but the establishment did not want an actual conservative as PM.  The follow on from this is the Tories went back into Lib dem mode of mass immigration to grow the economy which the country are sick of and in turn led to the election of the clowns we have now.   

[Snackbar]

She needs to justify her £150,000.00 a month perpetual salary

[Paul52]

2 hours ago, Thingamabob said:

I backed her all the way until she fired Kwasi Kwarteng in a pathetic attempt to save her own skin. After that I had no time for her.

That means you still backed her when the pound crashed to near parity with the Dollar and the yield on 30 year guilts weren’t just spiking (like now), they were just going to keep going up and up and up….?  Yikes!!!  Now that really is blind loyalty, and kinda dumb.

[newbee2022]

13 hours ago, Social Media said:

 

Liz Truss has sent a cease and desist letter to Sir Keir Starmer, urging him to stop claiming that she "crashed the economy." The letter, revealed by *The Telegraph*, describes these assertions as "false and defamatory."

 

According to the former prime minister’s legal representatives, these statements by Starmer contributed to Truss losing her seat as the MP for South West Norfolk in the general election. The controversy centers around the fallout from Truss's "mini-Budget" in September 2022, which introduced substantial tax cuts funded by borrowing, leading to adverse reactions in financial markets.

 

Truss’s lawyers argue that the financial upheavals did not equate to an economic crash since there was no decline in economic output or surge in unemployment, which are typical indicators of such a crisis. They cited a report from Andrew Lilico, managing director of Europe Economics and a fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs, to support their claim.

 

 

Lilico, speaking on *Planet Normal*, a podcast by *Telegraph* columnists Allison Pearson and Liam Halligan, stated, "There wasn’t any crash in the economy. The economy actually grew faster in the period immediately following the mini-Budget." He added, "It’s preposterous to claim that she crashed the economy. Exactly the opposite happened. The economy did better than had been expected."

 

This dispute comes as current borrowing costs increase, potentially erasing fiscal headroom for Chancellor Rachel Reeves after her tax-raising Budget in October. Reeves is expected to reinforce her fiscal rules aimed at reducing borrowing, emphasizing spending cuts over new tax hikes. 

 

Recently, the pound hit a nine-month low, and the yield on 10-year gilts—an indicator of government borrowing costs—rose to 4.8%, the highest since 2008. Concurrently, a quarterly survey by the Confederation of British Industry forecasted a sharp decline in profits within the financial services sector, the steepest since the financial crisis.

 

During the election campaign, leading Labour figures, including Starmer, used Truss’s brief tenure to criticize the Conservatives’ economic management. Truss’s legal letter explicitly states, “We are writing in relation to statements you have made publicly in respect of our client which have caused and will likely continue to cause serious harm to her reputation."

 

The letter emphasizes that Starmer’s repeated claims about Truss "crashing the economy" are damaging and defamatory, urging him to cease making such statements. It concludes by requesting that he "immediately cease and desist from repeating the defamatory statements" to prevent further harm to Truss’s reputation.

 

Moreover, the letter shifts some blame to the Bank of England, alleging that its mishandling of the "liability-driven investment" (LDI) crisis exacerbated market sensitivity to gilt interest rate movements. It asserts, "Those rate movements were caused by the Bank of England, and in particular by its poor handling of the LDI crisis, and its regulatory failures."

 

Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-01-11

 

 

Ouch, somebody stepped on her tail?

 

[Digitalbanana]

3 hours ago, Thingamabob said:

I backed her all the way until she fired Kwasi Kwarteng in a pathetic attempt to save her own skin. After that I had no time for her.

How did she feel about you?

[Thingamabob]

36 minutes ago, Paul52 said:

That means you still backed her when the pound crashed to near parity with the Dollar and the yield on 30 year guilts weren’t just spiking (like now), they were just going to keep going up and up and up….?  Yikes!!!  Now that really is blind loyalty, and kinda dumb.

Thank you. Have a nice day !

[Thingamabob]

23 minutes ago, Digitalbanana said:

How did she feel about you?

She said 'lets keep it casual' ...

[mrfill]

17 hours ago, Snackbar said:

She needs to justify her £150,000.00 a month perpetual salary

You mean £150,000 per hour......

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

She’s nuts.