Defending the indefensible - another PM thread

[malumbu]

Wow, with the Tory media, most of her MPs and the accepted view that was a foregone conclusion hardly a landslide.

[Spartacus]

Will this thread expire tomorrow when BJ officially steps down? Will it morph into another title? Or will it remain and just become a PM bashing thread regardless of who's in charge?

"Curious and Curiouser" said Alice

[diable rouge]

I hope this answers your question Sparty....

[jazzer]

nah, it will continue to do what James "gob on a stick" O'Brien has been doing, slagging off Boris ( and yes he was a sleaze bag who should have gone much, much earlier) and has left UK Plc in a worse position than when he became PM, and Liz Truss who will no doubt get the same treatment as O'Brien already started dishing out several week ago. The continual slagging off actually becomes boring, like the needle got stuck on the record.

[TheCat]

Its arguably pretty optimistic to think that much of the crowd on here would even be willing to give her a chance....

We see it on the national scale already....its pretty hard to take some of the Labour MP's and their media outriders seriously given the howling 12 months ago about how the NI increase was regressive and unfair....only to now be howling about a reversal of the NI increase being regressive and unfair....

Edited September 5, 2022 by TheCat

[jazzer]

They can howl to their hearts content, reducing Nat Ins is a start, but not the long term solution.

Problem's which need resolving are;

i) cost of living crisis

ii) domestic fuel energy crisis

iii) spiralling rate of inflation

NHS

vi) deal with Europe

v) deal with Brexit fallout

vi) sort out the NI divide down the Irish Sea

viii) deal with Scotland

viiii) keep the UK together and no break up.

The UK is going backwards, as a reminder the first and main role of Government is to protect it's citizen's.

Truss needs to communicate, communicate and communicate with the electorate, explaining how her Govt are going to deal and combat i) - viiii) in both the short and long term and what the consequences of these measures will be on us in the UK.

Edited September 6, 2022 by jazzer

[KidKruger]

A tiny part of what needs fixing in this country.

Most fundamentals are screwed and there’s no will to change, even among the population.

“Don’t look up” !

[diable rouge]

Its arguably pretty optimistic to think that much of the crowd on here would even be willing to give her a chance....

 

In the same way Johnson should've been given a chance? I'm reminded of the definition of madness!

We're now on our 4th Tory PM in 6 years, not forgetting the previous 6 years that included years of unnecessary austerity, and we should be giving them 'a chance'.

Judging by latest polls, Tory voters aren't exactly falling over themselves with gay abandon either at the prospect of Truss.

Sorry, but leopards don't change their spots, I've seen and heard enough from Truss during her career to know that she's another PM the Tory party has bestowed on us who simply isn't fit to hold the office of PM, She had a chance to redeem herself during the past 2 months, but all she delivered was empty platitudes pandering to a miniscule of the electorate whose lives bear little resemblance to the average person.

''The jury's out on whether France/Macron is an ally.'' Seriously?

Just as we've experienced since the referendum, boosterism, cakeism, and unicorns will eventually meet reality, meanwhile the country sinks further and further into the mire...

[diable rouge]

We see it on the national scale already....its pretty hard to take some of the Labour MP's and their media outriders seriously given the howling 12 months ago about how the NI increase was regressive and unfair....only to now be howling about a reversal of the NI increase being regressive and unfair....

 

It is possible for both to be true.

If you are a low earner, raising NI rates will hit you much harder as a % of your disposable income than it will for higher earners, even though on the surface higher earners are paying more.

Likewise when you cut NI, the higher earners gain far more than lower earners.

Labour's point is that there are better ways to target lower earners, which surely should be the aim right now with this cost of living crisis. Not forgetting that there are millions of people who don't even earn enough to pay NI.

'Trickle-down economics' of tax cuts has failed as has Johnson's flagship, 'Levelling-up',

The gap between north and south, rich and poor etc has in fact widened these past 3 years, and not just in terms of how much money people have in their pocket.

Until someone comes along with a plan to redistribute wealth that actually narrows that gap, it will continue to widen and the mire will get deeper...

[malumbu]

As said this thread was future proofed. Well at least for the while.

Going back to the outgoing PM, he had a wacking great majority, he had the opportunity to bring the country together, he didn't

No great expectation that the incomer will change this.

[diable rouge]

They can howl to their hearts content, reducing Nat Ins is a start, but not the long term solution

 

It's not even a short-term solution.

Care to explain how reducing NI will go towards solving the problems you listed, in particular item iii), since a lot of economic opinion says that NI cuts are in fact inflationary...

[diable rouge]

''Give them a chance''...

[malumbu]

It's the Express, it's not a serious paper, nobody important reads it and it has little influence unlike 80 years ago.

The Mail, which happily turns on those it once supported is another issue feeding Twitter, Facebook and the like, so touches many who never read old school media.

Still an amusing post though!

[hammerman]

How do you know nobody important reads the Daily Express Malumbu? Considering it's a national newspaper read across the United Kingdom I find this quite an astonishing and absurd point of view.

As for the Daily Mail newspaper, it's the first thing I have to read asap every morning.

[TheCat]

We see it on the national scale already....its pretty hard to take some of the Labour MP's and their media outriders seriously given the howling 12 months ago about how the NI increase was regressive and unfair....only to now be howling about a reversal of the NI increase being regressive and unfair....

 

It is possible for both to be true.

If you are a low earner, raising NI rates will hit you much harder as a % of your disposable income than it will for higher earners, even though on the surface higher earners are paying more.

Likewise when you cut NI, the higher earners gain far more than lower earners

'

 

Yes....as a maths graduate, I do understand the mathematics.....basically chop and change between proportion and absolute amount as fits whatever narrative you want to embrace.....

The entire point is that the narrative of 'tory bad' is the priority it seems, rather than judging things on their merits......

Hence why Joe Lycett is being hailed as a 'genuis' for actually doing something totally 'un-genius'.....ragging on the tories for laughs is so farking easy....as most of DR's 'humourous' posts will attest......:)

[diable rouge]

.....basically chop and change between proportion and absolute amount as fits whatever narrative you want to embrace.....

 

No chopping and changing required.

Tax cuts benefit the wealthiest more than the poorest.

Tax rises hit the poorest more than the wealthiest.

And Truss thinks her proposed NI cuts are 'fair' in a cost of living crisis which is already hitting the poorest hardest. Righty Ho!

 

The entire point is that the narrative of 'tory bad' is the priority it seems, rather than judging things on their merits......

 

The above 'fair' comment from Truss tells me everything about her merits.

No 'Tory bad' narrative from me, just an 'anti-incompetence/not fit to govern' narrative. The current incarnation of the Tory Party have been in power for 12 years, this is on them, no one else.

In the past I've ripped into Corbyn and his unfitness to be leader of the Labour party let alone PM. If the Tories had a decent leader and manifesto at the last election I would've voted for them over Corbyn, but with Johnson they managed the impossible and outfuckwitted Corbyn.

At least Labour has since seen sense and returned to more moderate ground. The Tories yet again get another chance to do likewise, but no, they continue to veer right towards the sunlit uplands of small state libertarian 'fwee twade' cakeism. Dream on.

 

Hence why Joe Lycett is being hailed as a 'genuis' for actually doing something totally 'un-genius'.....ragging on the tories for laughs is so farking easy....as most of DR's 'humourous' posts will attest......

 

Excuse me if I pass on yet more confected Daily Mail pearl-clutching at it's finest. Frivolous at best...

[Spartacus]

I'm mighty confused DR

You seem to be making two contradicting statements

"Tax cuts benefit the wealthiest more than the poorest."

and

"Tax rises hit the poorest more than the wealthiest."

Cut it and the poor don't get the full benefit, raise it and the poor are impacted more.

Forgive me for asking, but with taxes what's the solution because you seem to be saying damned if we do damned if we don't?

My personal view is that if you encourage businesses to start or grow by offering tax advantages rather then penalties, the end result is that they need more staff, generate more income and even with a tax advantage, pay more to HMRC.

Of course, this changes with larger companies who play the global taxation game, but in principle for SMEs growth and lower taxes are beneficial and these benefits trickle down to the general population in the form of lower prices and jobs.

[jazzer]

My understanding and please correctly if I have mis-understood (I'm sure you will), Truss indicated that she wants to reward people who work, so that makes me think she wants to get more people working and less people living on Welfare.

[Sephiroth]

"she wants to get more people working and less people living on Welfare."

No-one has thought of this before, right?

And even with fair winds it's not easy. With the sort of self-imposed and external headwinds facing UK, the question is even more relevant than ever

[diable rouge]

I'm mighty confused DR

You seem to be making two contradicting statements

"Tax cuts benefit the wealthiest more than the poorest."

and

"Tax rises hit the poorest more than the wealthiest."

Cut it and the poor don't get the full benefit, raise it and the poor are impacted more.

Forgive me for asking, but with taxes what's the solution because you seem to be saying damned if we do damned if we don't?

 

I hope we can all agree that right now and in the coming months, probably even subsequent autumn/winters, the poorest need financial help far more than moderately/very wealthy people. And we're not just talking about people on benefits, zero-hour contract workers etc, I'm sure most have seen stories of nurses and teachers relying on food banks etc. There are millions of people who have no safety net and won't be able to pay bills and/or keep up with inflation galloping ahead like it is.

What I'm saying is that there are better ways to target and distribute money so it goes to the neediest, rather than what a cut to NI would provide.

It doesn't have to be via a tax cut. Give them a further rebate off their energy bill, and/or some food vouchers. Food banks are running out of food, spend the money set aside for a NI cut on keeping them stocked during the crisis. Free travel for low-paid workers. Anything really that will target those that are struggling.

The other problem I have with a NI cut is that it's being done for ideological reasons. i.e. Tory party = tax cuts, and they are simply playing to 'their' crowd rather than the country as a whole...

[Spartacus]

Thanks DR for your insightful response. Certainly food for thought and a good explanation

[malumbu]

Surely the craziest PM we have had in the lifetime of this forum. Makes that last one seem quite benign. Feel free to say otherwise