Think it is important to show exactly how this has all come about. In time order:-
1. Johnson forced out. Feeling that he cannot be trusted 2. While the Country is in crisis, long drawn-out process to decide which will be the new unelected (by the public) Leader 3. Lots of votes by MPs, whittling down the Candidates 4. Only consistent thing was that Rishi Sunak was the overwhelming choice of MPs. While the true battleground was who was to make the 2nd "open" spot 5. Penny Mordaunt was consistently in 2nd place. But, as the Far Right Candidates lessened, the gap narrowed. And, on the final vote, Liz Truss (for the 1st time) made the Top 2. 6. The polls clearly showed that, amongst the Tory faithful, the policies and abilities were irrelevant. White Woman. Not Brown man. End of. As if by magic, MPs who backed Sunak immediately switch sides for no reason other than self-interest. 7. During the "hustings" (which were nothing of the sort), Truss is allowed to promise that she will (ignoring the massive debt) spend more, and tax less. With completely uncosted fiscal plans. That the Chancellor says is madness. But people vote for giveaways over reality. Every time 8. Truss is elected. And goes ahead with the fiscal madness that is uncosted tax cuts. Ignore the Office for Budget Responsibility. By pretending that a Budget is not a Budget. How dodgy is that? Scrapping the cap on Bankers bonuses and the Top Rate of Tax immediately. While next year, there may be (far smaller) cuts to Basic Rate Tax. While looking at how to reduce spending on things like Benefits. Ignoring the obvious fact that that the most needy in Society do not pay tax at all.
How can all this happen in this way? How can the Conservative Party be voted in on a Manifesto, and then totally change pretty much everything (from Leader to Economic strategy) without calling an Election?
By treating the people of this Country with Contempt.
Chris Philp said UC claimants should be forced to ‘work for dole’
Presides over massive increase in taxes. Proposed solution? Attack the poor for not paying taxes.
Because, apparently, this will break the "vicious circle". Despite decades of statistics that show it costs more to make poor people's life a misery than you save by doing so.
Presides over massive increase in taxes. Proposed solution? Attack the poor for not paying taxes.
Because, apparently, this will break the "vicious circle". Despite decades of statistics that show it costs more to make poor people's life a misery than you save by doing so.
It is difficult to see where they could make savings to fund tax cuts.
The minute Labour suggest anything, the Press are immediately asking how this is to be funded. Yet say nothing when a desperate Government trots out some crackpot theories. Too busy attacking Labour to provide any balance whatsoever.
Some of it is trying to find a gimmick to fight the next election. Because it certainly won't be won on current performance.
But rather more of it is positioning to be the next Tory leader after the election. Because someone who is a Tory actually will win that one.
The minute Labour suggest anything, the Press are immediately asking how this is to be funded. Yet say nothing when a desperate Government trots out some crackpot theories. Too busy attacking Labour to provide any balance whatsoever.
Some of it is trying to find a gimmick to fight the next election. Because it certainly won't be won on current performance.
But rather more of it is positioning to be the next Tory leader after the election. Because someone who is a Tory actually will win that one.
1, Attack the poor. Note how "targeting" the poor via benefits never mentions the costings. Simply because it never saves money. Here's a radical thought-ask people on benefits whether they want a job or not. Then just pay those who do not, end help both employers and the job-seeking unemployed to achieve their goals. Rather than pouring money into a pit checking those who do not, and making employers interview them
2. Just checking. Inflation has been low for about 30 years. "Winflation" is the triumph that is losing control over inflation, then recovering to a position that is still worse than before? That's the way to win the election? Is he on drugs?
3. PS. Love the Iceland CEO (Richard Walker) leaving the "out of touch" Tories. Nothing to do with him demanding a safe seat and not getting one, then?
Comments
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/tory-party-chair-jake-berry-165435478.html
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/chris-philp-said-uc-claimants-should-be-forced-to-work-for-dole/ar-AA12xYrd?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=643f182868864e07b0d281f2c50599a5
Cost of living: Mortgage repayments more damaging that energy bills
Presides over massive increase in taxes. Proposed solution? Attack the poor for not paying taxes.
Because, apparently, this will break the "vicious circle". Despite decades of statistics that show it costs more to make poor people's life a misery than you save by doing so.
Some of it is trying to find a gimmick to fight the next election. Because it certainly won't be won on current performance.
But rather more of it is positioning to be the next Tory leader after the election. Because someone who is a Tory actually will win that one.
1, Attack the poor. Note how "targeting" the poor via benefits never mentions the costings. Simply because it never saves money. Here's a radical thought-ask people on benefits whether they want a job or not. Then just pay those who do not, end help both employers and the job-seeking unemployed to achieve their goals. Rather than pouring money into a pit checking those who do not, and making employers interview them
2. Just checking. Inflation has been low for about 30 years. "Winflation" is the triumph that is losing control over inflation, then recovering to a position that is still worse than before? That's the way to win the election? Is he on drugs?
3. PS. Love the Iceland CEO (Richard Walker) leaving the "out of touch" Tories. Nothing to do with him demanding a safe seat and not getting one, then?