Tories have made UK ‘laughing stock’, says donor defecting to Labour | Truss and Kwarteng are ‘zealots’ practising ‘GCSE economics’, says Gareth Quarry
Tories have made UK ‘laughing stock’, says donor defecting to Labour | Truss and Kwarteng are ‘zealots’ practising ‘GCSE economics’, says Gareth Quarry
21 comments
Ad free version:
A top Conservative party donor has announced his defection to Labour with a £100,000 donation to Sir Keir Starmer’s party.
Gareth Quarry accused Liz Truss and her Kwasi Kwarteng of being “zealots” and said the Tories had made Britain “a laughing stock”.
The multimillionaire said the prime minister and chancellor were practising “GCSE economics” but described Labour as “sensible people who have got their feet on the ground”.
“The Tories’ behaviour over several years has made the UK a laughing stock,” Mr Quarry told The Times.
He added: “What’s dawned on me, particularly since the Johnson years, is that there is a desperately growing inequality which just seems unfair. I think people need hope. They need hope that their personal situation will improve, they need hope that they’ll get a break.”
Angry at the radical, borrowing-fuelled tax cuts, the donor said Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng “a game of roulette where they’re just betting everything on one number coming up in the next spin”.
Mr Quarry – a former City lawyer who chairs the legal recruitment giant SSQ – said his £100,000 donation to Labour was “very much the start of a process”. He has also become a party member.
The entrepreneur met shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves and other members of Sir Keir’s team at the conference in Liverpool. “I do think Starmer and his colleagues really do want to build a very close partnership between government and business.”
He previously donated around £75,000 to the Tories under the leadership of David Cameron and Theresa May, and reportedly joined exclusive “leaders’ group” donor events with senior ministers.
It comes as Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng abandon their plans to axe the 45p tax rate for top-earners after a Tory revolt, in a humiliating U-turn at the Tory conference.
“We get it and we have listened,” Mr Kwarteng said, calling the 45p rate cut “a distraction from our overriding mission to tackle the challenges facing the country”.
No 10 would not be drawn on whether Ms Truss or Mr Kwarteng pushed for the U-turn, saying they both “accepted that this was a distraction”.
The prime minister’s official spokesman said she remained was committed to the rest of Budget, and was confident it could be passed through parliament.
The U-turn will reduce the unfunded tax cuts in the chancellor’s mini-Budget by just £2bn, from £45bn to £43bn, said Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) – who called the move “trivial”.
The IFS chief told BBC Radio 4’sToday: “To the extent that what we saw a couple of weeks ago was leading to fiscal unsustainability, it still is. Nothing really has changed.”
Mr Johnson added: “The Bank will be just as concerned that £43bn is being pumped into the economy as it would have been with £45bn.”
Former Tory minister Stephen Crabb said the U-turn will not “draw a line” under Tory MPs’ rebellion, saying many will still worried about cuts to benefits and public services.
However, former cabinet minister Michael Gove – having expressed his own anger at the 45p rate abolition – has indicated he is now willing to vote for the mini-Budget.
“I will want to support and I think, on the basis of everything I’ve heard, there’s lots that can be enthusiastically supported,” he told Times Radio.
But Mr Gove added that he would need “a lot of persuading” to support the government if Ms Truss decided not to uprate benefits in line with inflation – a move likely to be voted on separately from the mini-Budget.
“I wouldn’t want to prejudge an argument … sometimes have to do things and embrace policies that would in other circumstances be deeply unattractive,” he said. “But my basic position, my starting position is, yes, Boris was right [to pledge to uprate benefits in line with inflation].”
So what we will get is the Tory ethos encroaching onto other parties with donations and firm handshakes. They should take the money from them say thank you and then chase them.
TL;DR version: Tory donor realises the game is up, so decides to buy some influence in the next government.
Cameron crashes into Brexit: things are ok, have some money
May runs through fields of wheat: things are ok, have some money
Johnson drinks while people die: things are ok, have some money
Bit late, isn’t it?
I wouldnt describe Truss and Kwarteng understanding of ecominics as GSCE. More similar to flat earth version of economics.
No any GCSE student worth a D would know this is fucking stupid.
When I was in highschool in 2005, trickle down economics were being taught as the general structure that worked or at least functioned somewhat. When I was in university in 2013 it was understood that trickle down may have had its place previously but was now defunct.
This is a PM and chancellor, who should have access to the best economic and financial advisors the world has, yet they’ve gambled and lost on a strategy proven to not work in modern economics.
Yep the UK government currently looks like a joke to the rest of the world and have little confidence in their ability to govern in a functional way atm. It seems like the Conservative party have given up and left the toddlers with the reins to burn the house down.
It’s pretty wild. Truss has a PPE degree from Oxford and Kwarteng has a PhD in economic history from Cambridge so presumably it’s not *ignorance* driving any of this. Although in the latter case it might just be that the field of study was very *specific* as PhDs are wont to be.
Sometimes I think those PPE courses ought to have some kind of obligation to publish what they’re actually supposed to be teaching seeing as they seem to have an outsized impact on how the country is run. Between Truss and Cameron they sure seem to be producing some car crashes on economic policy.
Are these politicians actually applying what they supposedly learned? How accurate is what they learned with respect to an up to date understanding of the subject? Could Oxford maybe email these people a refresher pack once they get into the cabinet or something?
Although I suspect they’re just cynical and arrogant.
Is walking around in a hard hat an obligatory photo op when a politician comes to power in this country?
If Tories continue with these economic policies that help no one but the top wealthy they’re going to be fucked the next election.
I’d feel reassured if I thought for even a moment that they were practising GCSE economics insread of outright fascist corruption.
As if austerity and Brexit were not evidence enough. Cameron, May and Johnson may have had more veneer and a better plan, but they all damaged the economy in their own way for the benefits of their friends and party donors. Truss and Kwarteng are just an extension of all those PMs and their unique damage to the economy and Tory party as a whole.
Whilst so ever there is money; there’ll be corruption. Either ban money altogether, or anticipate its influence with enhanced regulation & deterrence: That’s nigh impossible these days, unless all nations are on the same page.
My biggest gripe with politicians is their total lack of vocational experience outside of politics. If I apply for a surgeon position, & my qualifications are a politics, philosophy & economics degree from Oxbridge; I won’t hold my breath. Yet most cabinet positions are occupied by just such examples. Health ministers with zero medical background; or defense ministers with medical backgrounds (Fox). In fairness to the CCP🇨🇳, their central committee is packed with engineers, who actually know a thing or two about things & stuff. ‘Politician’ shouldn’t be a career in & of itself: it’s public service. What service can these professional politicians offer; other than serving themselves? I think the House of Lords should be shaken up as well; its members representing the swathe of society, selected as a jury would be for set terms. The hereditary seats are just a breading ground for the old boy’s/Etonian/banking network; which I think most people are sick to the back teeth with by now.
The 5th November is fast approaching. I imagine a great boost to public morale right now would be a raging bonfire, but instead replace the Catholics with the most culpable wankers of this shit show of a government. That would be a fantastic deterrent to any future transgressions & a great day out for the kids.
>practising ‘GCSE economics
Apart from Kwarteng has a PhD in economic history from Cambridge and was a Kennedy Scholar at Harvard. Don’t make a false assumption that any of their actions are naive or ill-understood. These are highly educated people, fully cognizant of their actions. Which leads one to deduce that their intentions must be to some benefit other than those they are meant to serve, and instead are a set of greedy, corrupt, twisted thieves who would be better dragged out of office by a baying mob than allowed to prey on us further.
Comparing ‘GCSE economics’ to Kwarteng’s original mini-budget is frankly insulting to the ingenuity of our youth.
I’d sooner trust a bunch of school kids with our country’s finances than a hardline Tory. And I say this as an accountant.
Are you kidding, this was planned. They all buy other currencies, crash the pound, then buy even more money at the cost of our money.
Bit ambitious calling those GCSE economics, more like primary school at best.. and they’d still get an F.
Come on now, GSCE economists should have been learning trickle down economics was a bullshit theory more than twelve years back.
At least number 10 will have another free make over
“GCSE economics” lmao first time a Tory donor’s made me laugh. Didn’t even know they had economics at GCSE.