It is clear that the political uncertainty of the Truss interregnum has had costs outside of those directly incurred by government legislation (which she didn't have time to pass any of). Markets do not react kindly to instability, and they don't react respond well to leaders with unconventional economics.
Since you are on the political right Chris, here's a hypothetical example that might better align with you priors. Imagine that in 2017 Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party had finished with just a couple extra percent of the vote, enough to take his party into government. Ignore any legislation he seeks to enact. Even before he does that, the economy takes an immediate hit; as soon as the exit poll comes in investors lose confidence, sterling falls, there is noticeable capital flight, etc. Economic reality, and the fragility of his command of the House of Commons, force him to shed most of his radical plans (cf Francois Mitterand's "austerity turn"), but the damage has already been done.
You probably agree that the above scenario is a plausible what-if, so why is Liz Truss different? This isn't just a narrative, it's a real tangible effect of her six weeks of madness. Even though she's no longer PM, the market movers haven't forgotten and the chaos she instigated has left us with a new, permanently higher baseline of uncertainty.
It may be hard to put a figure on the true cost of this. No money was spent directly by the government, but it is clear that the UK economy is smaller for Truss's brief spell in charge. It may be hard to measure/calculate, but economists are able to put a financial value on just about everything. So has anyone done this work and come up with a believable number (including showing their working)?
So overall £3.8Bn up! Well done everybody :)
It is clear that the political uncertainty of the Truss interregnum has had costs outside of those directly incurred by government legislation (which she didn't have time to pass any of). Markets do not react kindly to instability, and they don't react respond well to leaders with unconventional economics.
Since you are on the political right Chris, here's a hypothetical example that might better align with you priors. Imagine that in 2017 Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party had finished with just a couple extra percent of the vote, enough to take his party into government. Ignore any legislation he seeks to enact. Even before he does that, the economy takes an immediate hit; as soon as the exit poll comes in investors lose confidence, sterling falls, there is noticeable capital flight, etc. Economic reality, and the fragility of his command of the House of Commons, force him to shed most of his radical plans (cf Francois Mitterand's "austerity turn"), but the damage has already been done.
You probably agree that the above scenario is a plausible what-if, so why is Liz Truss different? This isn't just a narrative, it's a real tangible effect of her six weeks of madness. Even though she's no longer PM, the market movers haven't forgotten and the chaos she instigated has left us with a new, permanently higher baseline of uncertainty.
It may be hard to put a figure on the true cost of this. No money was spent directly by the government, but it is clear that the UK economy is smaller for Truss's brief spell in charge. It may be hard to measure/calculate, but economists are able to put a financial value on just about everything. So has anyone done this work and come up with a believable number (including showing their working)?
So where is the £37 billion for the app contrived from?