AS the Tories peddle their excuses and finger-pointing over the economic shambles that followed Kwasi Kwarteng's mini-budget, the world watches on.
Business Secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg has been telling the public that the Bank of England is responsible for the recent catastrophe and not the Tory government, saying it is “more to do with interest rates than a minor part of fiscal policy”.
What is a fact, however, is that soon after the publication of that “minor part of fiscal-policy” – namely unfunded tax cuts to the tune of £45 billion – the pound fell to its lowest value against the dollar ever and pension funds were at risk of collapse.
Responding to the Business Secretary’s speculation, Gillian Tett, the chair of The Financial Times’ editorial board, gave the idea that the Tories aren’t to blame short shrift on Channel 4 news.
When asked by Krishnan Guru-Murthy for her views on Rees-Mogg's claims, Tett said the excuses were "bollocks".
Incredible scenes on channel 4. Worth staying for the last five seconds of this pic.twitter.com/qds3Clep83
— Alan White (@aljwhite) October 12, 2022
She said: “To use a non-technical term, that’s pretty much bollocks.
“For the most part, it really was the budget and the way it was delivered and the message inside it that sparked the beginning of the crisis.”
In a lighthearted fashion, Guru-Murthy, unsure of whether the word "bollocks" was allowed on air, apologised for Tett's use of the word.
Later on, however, he amusingly confirmed that Ofcom deemed it "medium language" that was "potentially unacceptable" but less problematic when used to mean "nonsense" - perfect for Rees-Mogg's explanation of the economic crisis, then.
During her interview, Tett went on to say that the Bank of England was at fault for not “preparing for these kinds of dislocations” and that British pension funds had been “asleep at the wheel in terms of their risk management systems” but that these were not the main reasons for the turmoil.
She concluded by stating: “But at the end of the day, the spark that lit the fire was very much the budget announcement.”
Well, there you have it in no uncertain terms - the Tories are to blame for this chaos. Quelle surprise.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here