RayC

More pedantry. I imagine that there were people who walked "freely and willingly" to the gallows. It doesn't mean that they wanted to end up dangling from the end of a rope.

So in other words, members of the Tory parliamentary party didn't stick to their principles and were easily influenced by the media. Not great attributes for members of a government.

That he gave a job to a serial groper showed a serious lack of judgement, but what done for Johnson was that he lied - sorry "misled" - people about knowing about this individual's indiscretion. This was the latest in a series where Johnson had misled his colleagues and parliament. That was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Read Johnson's speech and then tell me that you seriously believe that he wanted to resign and, that if hadn't, he would still be PM today?https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.spectator.co.uk/article/full-text-boris-johnson-s-resignation-speech/amp Johnson had no other choice than resign. Ministers were resigning left, right and centre. If he hadn't resigned, there is a strong possibility that he wouldn't have been able to fill all the ministerial positions in his government. What would have most likely happened then is that the 1922 committee would have amended their rules so that another 'No confidence' vote among Tory MPs could have taken place, a vote that Johnson would have lost.

You really do like to be pedantic, don't you? Ok, technically you are right. Happy now? Now, why did Johnson feel it necessary to tender his resignation? Because members of the parliamentary Conservative Party offered him no choice. Is that a fact?

Obviously mother's milk in the UK is lacking in Vitamin Socialism, given that a centre-right government has been in power for the past 12 years and the last UK government, that one might loosely label Socialist was in the 1970s.

You can repeat it as often as you like but it remains untrue that the left and MSM ousted Johnson. The fact is that the Parliamentary Conservative Party got rid of him.

Liz Truss quoted in an FT interview on Thursday: "The way I would do things is in a Conservative way of lowering the tax burden, not giving out handouts." Irrespective of one's opinion of its' merits, I would have thought that this was a pretty clear message. However, seems like I and, no doubt, others were mistaken. From the BBC website today: "Penny Mordaunt, a former Conservative leadership contender, said Ms Truss had not ruled out expanding direct payments - and that to say so was "overinterpreting what she said"." Are there any policy statements that will last more than a few days before Truss backtracks on them?

I'd tread carefully if I were you or you will end up on 'The Step' with Chomper. ('Tread', 'step', geddit? Oh, please yourself!)

For those that refuse to read a Guardian article as a matter of principle, here is a sample of what Sunak said. Imo difficult to disagree with it: “We need to get real about this situation. It’s simply wrong to rule out further direct support at this time as Liz Truss has done, and what’s more, her tax proposals are not going to help very significantly people like pensioners or those on low incomes who are exactly the kind of families that are going to need help.”

Lads, lads ... stop bickering. I have a solution: Chomper, Go and stand on the 'Naughty Boy' step and, on the way, promise not to call Lizzy names in the future.

Just following your example and correcting a factual mistake. Besides, it is relevant if you are including Serbia's inflation rate in your calculation of the EU is inflation rate.

But not for the less well-off and mortgage holders.

Serbia is not in the EU.

The UK public sector debt does not need to be repaid, what needs to be repaid is the interest on the debt. Debt - whether public sector or private sector - is not bad per sec. What is important is what the debt is used for.

Fortunately, the UK government does not need to repay the public sector debt (+/-£2,500bn) - of which Covid costs are part - it needs to finance the deficit (currently +/-£25bn), and ideally pay the debt back over a (prolonged) period of time. I can't find much detail about Trusses' proposed tax cuts. However, the idea that tax cuts will stimulate consumer demand in the current economic circumstances i.e. growing household debt, rising interest rates to the extent that the government's tax revenue is maintained/ increased is an unproven gamble. If this gamble fails, in order to finance the loss of government revenue, Truss will either have to 'print' money - difficult, expensive and likely to be poorly received by the financial markets - and/or cut public expenditure on services, which will hit those who can least afford it the hardest.

You've marked my last post - a reply + question addressed to Mac - with a 'Confused' icon. Apologies if my post is unclear. If you clarify what exactly you are confused about, I'll try to explain things more clearly.

I agree with much of what you say and whoever takes over as PM will certainly have their hands full (largely due to circumstances beyond their control). However, I am curious about your second paragraph: "The Covid cost will need to be paid for through tax adjustments." What do you mean by this? That there should be an increase in taxes?

Folk inside and outside of politics have an opinion about who their next PM will be. You are wrong. Truss is being criticized for her policies, not her appearance.

A comment worthy of an insular Islington elitist. Very disparaging towards your fellow Tories in the 'Red Wall' constituencies, don't you think?

I doubt that very much. Truss could claim that the Earth was flat and she would probably still win, so long as she promised tax cuts and some EU bashing.

Depends how you define Brexit. If you simply mean that we have left the EU, then agreed. However, if you extend the definition to include the effects of leaving then we don't have it eg. the UK government's desire to renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement. Fact! Agreed, Liz Truss could become the next UK PM and the reason for that? The last incumbent was considered unsuitable by his fellow MPs. Fact! Untrue. The relationship between the Labour Party and the Unions remains unchanged. Fact!

Thanks, Slip. However, unfortunately, facts don't matter to some posters.

Gotta feel for the the Brexiters. How gullible can you be? Sold a pup - well, more of a litter of pups - but still believe that the Brexit benefits are just around the corner despite there being no sign of either benefits or the corner.

Let's see what the electorate thinks at the next election.