-
They certainly went about it with reckless abandon, I agree. I'm not a huge fan of the OBR, but refusing their forecast was obviously going to spook some traders.
Sacking the permanent secretary of the Treasury though, I don't see that as being unreasonable if a government wants to move away from their typical 'treasury-brained' ways. Reporting on it as an argument for Truss' personal failings is just another bit of Westminster psychodrama, so I'd be inclined to ignore it.
The markets aren't so much committed to the orthodoxy
I think that's debatable, and regardless of their potential reaction to heterodox policies, the press has already learned to react to any change negatively. That's limited current and future governments' ability to change the rules, even when done carefully.
(Edit: not that Labour are interested in doing so anyway)
slippers-
It is, as you indicate, complicated, but the blame here does not fall on the shoulders of the press.
If one wants to pursue ‘heterodox policies’, fine (though of course she had absolutely zero mandate). However, one needs to get or keep the people that bankroll this state on side. That means cosying up to bond markets, pension funds, analysts, hacks, etc beforehand. To not do so is utterly moronic, regardless of whether the policy is the right one or not for the UK.
-
Sacking the permanent secretary of the Treasury though, I don't see that as being unreasonable if a government wants to move away from their typical 'treasury-brained' ways. Reporting on it as an argument for Truss' personal failings is just another bit of Westminster psychodrama, so I'd be inclined to ignore it.
For all that the right wing press like to attack 'mandarins', the truth is they are widely respected by all the people that matter, and unlike literally any politician they have had to apply for their jobs and get to the top of the ladder by proving their skills and experience.
They also take the idea of serving the government of the day - whatever it's political flavour - very seriously, and know which side their bread is buttered.
So the only reason Truss and Kwarteng would have had problems with Tom Scholar is if they wanted to do something absolutely insane. He would have had zero problem with them just wanting a change of direction. Alongside the OBR business, it just screams - I don't even want to listen to what the grown-ups have to say -
You can be sure that if John McDonnell, for example, had got in, he would have wanted to change things up dramatically, but known the importance of not spooking people by acting like a madman. Truss was (is) lacking even the tiniest speck of self awareness
Maybelline
lemonade
'punished by the markets for increasing their risk by appearing to be a maniac' is the truth of it
More than just the unfunded tax cuts, it was the combination of sacking the widely respected permanent secretary of the Treasury on day 1, refusing to let the OBR produce forecast for the budget, and talking about how said budget was only the beginning and things were shortly going to get even wilder
The markets aren't so much committed to the orthodoxy, as they are afraid of not being able to predict what's coming because the people in charge are dogmatic morons. There is plenty of scope to rewrite all the rules provided you do it carefully and predictably