I am still surprised that she thought she would get away with that policy.

Making rich people richer in a crisis. Is there anything better suitable to <deleted> off 90% of the nation?

What kind of PM makes such decision without even thinking for 5 minutes if that might be a bad idea.

Totally utterly useless!

16 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I am still surprised that she thought she would get away with that policy.

Making rich people richer in a crisis. Is there anything better suitable to <deleted> off 90% of the nation?

What kind of PM makes such decision without even thinking for 5 minutes if that might be a bad idea.

Totally utterly useless!

The idea was that some people would have more money which would then be spent and that would improve the economy 

9 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

The idea was that some people would have more money which would then be spent and that would improve the economy 

Except, of course, that there's a time tested observation in economics that has resulted in something called Marginal Propensity to Spend. And the gist of it is, the less money you have, if you get some extra, the more likely you are to spend it and the less likely to save it.

29 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

The idea was that some people would have more money which would then be spent and that would improve the economy 

Was that really the idea?

Or was it more likely that she wanted to say thank you to the Tory members who voted for her. And then, as an afterthought, had this: Now how can I sell this idea to all those poor stupid people? 

8 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Was that really the idea?

Or was it more likely that she wanted to say thank you to the Tory members who voted for her. And then, as an afterthought, had this: Now how can I sell this idea to all those poor stupid people? 

You're right, of course.

The Tory leaderships claims tax cuts are a panacea.

Whatever the economic challenge is, tax cuts will solve the problem.

But, at bottom, it's all about giving the wealthy a bigger share of the pie.

 

Truss is now dodging questions on whether or not she has trust in her Chancellor.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Truss is now dodging questions on whether or not she has trust in her Chancellor.

 

 

Isn't she entitled to..?   ????

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

The idea was that some people would have more money which would then be spent and that would improve the economy 

It’s reached the stage now where Gove is arguing for £500 Million to be spent on free school meals for children living in poverty.

 

 

4 minutes ago, transam said:

Isn't she entitled to..?   ????

Yes she is, she can also fire the Chancellor she chose and appointed.

 

She’s already blamed him for the idea of the cut to the 45% tax cut she’s had to U-Turn on.

 

He’s obviously in the departure lounge.

 

One erratic move after another.

 

 

Edited October 4, 20223 yr by Chomper Higgot

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s reached the stage now where Gove is arguing for £500 Million to be spent on free school meals for children living in poverty.

 

 

Lucky kids these days , I used to have to buy a loaf of bread , a few slices of spam and that was my packed lunch sandwiches for the week which I had to make myself .

   I would have loved free school cooked meals 

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s reached the stage now where Gove is arguing for £500 Million to be spent on free school meals for children living in poverty.

 

 

 

Ah, the Rashford effect....

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Was that really the idea?

Or was it more likely that she wanted to say thank you to the Tory members who voted for her. And then, as an afterthought, had this: Now how can I sell this idea to all those poor stupid people? 

 

Some of my wealthiest friends are Socialists.

 

 

They were OK with the proposals......... on more than one level.

1 minute ago, hotandsticky said:

 

Some of my wealthiest friends are Socialists.

 

 

They were OK with the proposals......... on more than one level.

Or so you tell us.

Just now, Mac Mickmanus said:

Lucky kids these days , I used to have to buy a loaf of bread , a few slices of spam and that was my packed lunch sandwiches for the week which I had to make myself .

   I would have loved free school cooked meals 

Indeed, the word "poverty" is banded about here well out of context.

Many of us old chaps KNOW about mum watching the pennies was like.

You don't have to look far for poverty in the land most of us now reside, Thailand.

In the UK, an iPhone 6 is poverty......????

 

Just thought, in 1960 my school dinner was 5 pence, that's the old money....  ????

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Or so you tell us.

 

Now, why would I lie about knowing wealthy Labour supporters. I don't lie.

22 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Yes she is, she can also fire the Chancellor she chose and appointed.

 

She’s already blamed him for the idea of the cut to the 45% tax cut she’s had to U-Turn on.

 

He’s obviously in the departure lounge.

 

One erratic move after another.

 

 

No surprises after her leadership campaign which was an exercise in ill conceived notions, u turns and blaming others for the failings of the govt she served in.

15 minutes ago, hotandsticky said:

 

Now, why would I lie about knowing wealthy Labour supporters. I don't lie.

I didn’t say you lied.

 

It’s simply an example claim (statement of a third party’s views) that cannot be substantiated.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 4, 20223 yr by Chomper Higgot

59 minutes ago, hotandsticky said:

 

Now, why would I lie about knowing wealthy Labour supporters. I don't lie.

I can think of 2 classes of persons who could make such a statement.

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I didn’t say you lied.

 

It’s simply an example claim (statement of a third party’s views) that cannot be substantiated.

 

 

 

 

I don't need to substantiate it  -  this is an internet forum.

6 minutes ago, hotandsticky said:

I don't need to substantiate it  -  this is an internet forum.

And given that there's no way of independently confirming your claim, there's no compelling reason to believe it. But given that it was so unpopular that the decidsion got reversed, it seems highly unlikely that a significant number of people from the left would be ok with it. So even if your report is based on fact, it would still be insignificant.

2 hours ago, hotandsticky said:

 

Now, why would I lie about knowing wealthy Labour supporters. I don't lie.

They were your wealthiest friends a few posts ago. At least keep your story straight.

The BoE openly contradicting her statements won't do her standing any good.

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

The BoE openly contradicting her statements won't do her standing any good.

And do you think she cares or even understands what that means?