UK's conservative government doing everything it can to crash the UK's and the world's economy (1 Viewer)

[coldseat]

Holy hell Batman! Talk about screwing your own country over. Same thing would happen here if Republicans held both the congress and the presidency.

==============
LondonCNN Business —
The UK government’s decision to implement the biggest tax cuts in 50 years while borrowing tens of billions of dollars to subsidize soaring energy costs this winter is a massive gamble that’s sent shockwaves through financial markets.

Since Friday, when finance minister Kwasi Kwarteng formally announced the plans, the British pound has plunged 5% against the US dollar, bringing its total losses so far this year to an eye-popping 21%. The euro, for comparison, is down about 15% against the dollar during the same period.

The turmoil doesn’t end there. Investors have raced to dump UK government bonds as they worry about the extra £72 billion ($77 billion) in borrowing due before April. The yield on 5-year debt, which moves opposite prices, has jumped from about 3.6% to more than 4.4% over the past two trading sessions — an astronomical jump in a corner of the financial universe that typically logs movements in tiny fractions of a percent.
===============

The pound's crash will make inflation worse and push interest rates higher | CNN Business

The UK government's decision to implement the biggest tax cuts in 50 years while borrowing tens of billions of dollars to subsidize soaring energy costs this winter is a massive gamble that's sent shockwaves through financial markets.

www.cnn.com

 

[coldseat]

It’s a policy - it applies when they say it does. I have seen some rationale that it’s more of a spirit of the policy that prevails over details. Trump is a major player in the GOP, will likely run in 2024, and has been active in his support of candidates in this election. It’s not really like Obama after his eight years in office.

I don't know. I'm of the general opinion that there is too much deference in there matters in general by the DOJ, especially when it comes to the political elites on the right. Somehow the same considerations don't always carry over to the left side of the political isle.

 

[superchuck500]

I don't know. I'm of the general opinion that there is too much deference in there matters in general by the DOJ, especially when it comes to the political elites on the right. Somehow the same considerations don't always carry over to the left side of the political isle.

Example?

 

[coldseat]

Example?

Dozens of subpoenas issued in investigation involving Sen. Bob Menendez

Two people familiar with the matter said one of the entities involved in the probe is a New Jersey company that says it's the only firm authorized by the Egyptian government "to certify Halal exports worldwide."

www.nbcnews.com

Did Comey Cost Clinton the Election? Why We’ll Never Know (Published 2018)

Evidence from polls in October 2016 remains frustratingly inconclusive.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Taurus]

The funny thing to me is that despite loving themselves some tax cuts, the financial professionals in England took one look at that plan and flipped their collective minds.
"You're what!?! Jezus Chroist, that'll nuke the 'ole economy!"

And their bold, know-it-all PM tried to double down. It's almost like someone was holding her kids for ransom or something.

 

[superchuck500]

Dozens of subpoenas issued in investigation involving Sen. Bob Menendez

Two people familiar with the matter said one of the entities involved in the probe is a New Jersey company that says it's the only firm authorized by the Egyptian government "to certify Halal exports worldwide."

www.nbcnews.com

Did Comey Cost Clinton the Election? Why We’ll Never Know (Published 2018)

Evidence from polls in October 2016 remains frustratingly inconclusive.

www.nytimes.com

I'm not seeing the connection?

The policy relates to charging politicians involved in upcoming elections with crimes (i.e. formal prosecution). It doesn't related to investigations. Sen. Menendez is under investigation. Trump is obviously under investigation. Certainly the whole Comey thing running up to the 2016 election was a mess, but it related to an investigation.

And perhaps the Comey/Clinton mess may invite its own policy regarding publicizing investigations, but I was simply referring to DOJ's policy to defer prosecution until after Election Day.

 

[coldseat]

I'm not seeing the connection?

The policy relates to charging politicians involved in upcoming elections with crimes (i.e. formal prosecution). It doesn't related to investigations. Sen. Menendez is under investigation. Trump is obviously under investigation. Certainly the whole Comey thing running up to the 2016 election was a mess, but it related to an investigation.

And perhaps the Comey/Clinton mess may invite its own policy regarding publicizing investigations, but I was simply referring to DOJ's policy to defer prosecution until after Election Day.

Yes, but Trump isn't involved in upcoming elections (at least not as a candidate), so .....

My point is we don't usually see these objections and warnings coming from Democrats, it's always Republicans who are talking about that DOJ policy and not charging them before elections. It's the only time it really comes up or seems to apply.

Just to clarify, I'm not really bent about this. I don't care of DOJ charges him before or after the election. I just kind of notice this double standard is weighted towards Republicans, as most double standards in politics seemingly are.

 

[superchuck500]

Yes, but Trump isn't involved in upcoming elections (at least not as a candidate), so .....

My point is we don't usually see these objections and warnings coming from Democrats, it's always Republicans who are talking about that DOJ policy and not charging them before elections. It's the only time it really comes up or seems to apply.

Just to clarify, I'm not really bent about this. I don't care of DOJ charges him before or after the election. I just kind of notice this double standard is weighted towards Republicans, as most double standards in politics seemingly are.

I hear ya, I just think you're filling in gaps that may not actually be there. The reality is that we don't know that DOJ has formally taken the position that they wouldn't charge Trump before Election Day - only observers have commented that the policy may be in play. I don't think DOJ has said anything about it, nor would I expect that a well-run DOJ would ever do so publicly.

If there's anything about Garland, it's that he's a highly deliberate institutionalist so I would expect that he would give great deference to both the policy and the basis for the policy - but we don't really know what's been discussed within the halls of DOJ. And perhaps more importantly, it's obvious that the Trump investigation is both (1) ongoing, as new interviews and subpoenas seem to be noted in an ongoing way, and (2) the document review has been somewhat distracted by the Trump filing before Judge Cannon and her totally inappropriate appointment of the special master.

The idea that there have been charges ready for Trump but they are waiting based on the policy may or may not even be true.