RayC

I'm pleased to be able to (partly) agree with you for once: A socialist party would probably advocate nationalisation. Where you are wrong is in implying that the Labour Party is socialist.

Those old enough to remember the drought of '76 will know that there's a simple solution to this problem: Appoint Dennis Howell as 'Minister of Drought'. No rain for months, but as soon as he takes office it p's down for a week! What's that? Howell's dead! Oh well, back to the drawing board.

Deleted

There is pedantry and there is pedantry but this is something else. I've already admitted that, yes technically Johnson resigned, but the point which you are seemingly unwilling to accept, is that he didn't want to resign but, in the circumstances, he had no choice. These are Johnson's words: "In the last few days I’ve tried to persuade my colleagues that it would be eccentric to change governments when we’re delivering so much...” (If you want to be pedantic again then, no, he does not specifically state that he does not want to resign, but what other way can this statement be interpreted?) Which begs the question, if he didn't want to resign why then did he? Surely - repeating myself yet again - the only logical explanation can be that he was given no choice i.e. resign or be sacked. What shall we call it then? An involuntary or forced resignation? Will that suffice?

Which meant that Johnson had a choice: Resign or be removed by the PCP. The option to remain as PM - for any length of time - which was his preference was not available to him.

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?