It's time to get behind Liz Truss

BigHandsOliverKahn said:
Similar articles have been written on that happening in the UK too. UK rationing and blackouts
Click to expand...

We at least have diversity of supply, getting gas from our LNG processing ability (something Europe is taking advantage of at the moment), Norway, our own domestic production, and under normal circumstances the European market, ideally we'd have more storage but at least we're not tied to a single unreliable supplier.
 
Shandypants said:
There isn't a hope in hell the tories (sorry ERG loons) will swing behind her if she changes course. I'm truly baffled how true conservative supporters think that this country being run by this cabal of nutters is a good thing? I'll stand corrected but I'll predict she won't last 12 months, she isn't bright enough, has zero charisma and is flip flopping to her political masters beliefs.
Click to expand...
Time will tell; but having seen her in the first PMQ's I thought she did ok.

I think we get the politicians we deserve sadly.
 
TSSeasider said:
I think we get the politicians we deserve sadly.
Click to expand...

Interesting article in the Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...declinist-remainer-class-humiliatingly-wrong/

......it is absurd to state, almost as self-evident fact, that it is bound to collapse, that it cannot last even two years, based in part on an insulting dismissal of the credibility and intellect of all of the members of the new Government.

It is astonishing that pundits with no understanding of economics dismiss the Prime Minister’s ability in this area: she actually worked as an economist for Shell (ideal in the current climate) and as an economic director for Cable and Wireless. The first accountant ever in No 10 – she holds the qualification from the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants – she is more financially literate and comfortable with complex policy matters than almost all of those who patronise her. The fact that she is reflexively written off as lightweight, a dilettante even, is more a reflection of the bizarrely misogynistic and classist minds of some of her more extreme critics than of any objective reality.

Kwasi Kwarteng, the Chancellor, holds a PhD in economic history from Cambridge, perhaps the ideal qualification for the moment; his War and Gold and Ghosts of Empire remain timely.

Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, is an extremely competent, bright and personable lawyer who drives the Left crazy. Kemi Badenoch holds degrees in engineering and law, and is fiendishly clever. Jacob Rees-Mogg, with his background in finance, is the perfect pick for Business (and Energy), given the technical and intellectual complexity of his mission. Kit Malthouse, the Education Secretary, another accountant, has experience running a medium-sized business; Chris Philp, the Chief Secretary, has a degree in physics.

The list goes on. Of course, some ministers are weaker than others, but the average quality is a great improvement on many past governments. Matthew Sinclair, one of Truss’s advisers, is the best free-market economist of his generation in Britain today.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Interesting article in the Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...declinist-remainer-class-humiliatingly-wrong/

......it is absurd to state, almost as self-evident fact, that it is bound to collapse, that it cannot last even two years, based in part on an insulting dismissal of the credibility and intellect of all of the members of the new Government.

It is astonishing that pundits with no understanding of economics dismiss the Prime Minister’s ability in this area: she actually worked as an economist for Shell (ideal in the current climate) and as an economic director for Cable and Wireless. The first accountant ever in No 10 – she holds the qualification from the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants – she is more financially literate and comfortable with complex policy matters than almost all of those who patronise her. The fact that she is reflexively written off as lightweight, a dilettante even, is more a reflection of the bizarrely misogynistic and classist minds of some of her more extreme critics than of any objective reality.

Kwasi Kwarteng, the Chancellor, holds a PhD in economic history from Cambridge, perhaps the ideal qualification for the moment; his War and Gold and Ghosts of Empire remain timely.

Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, is an extremely competent, bright and personable lawyer who drives the Left crazy. Kemi Badenoch holds degrees in engineering and law, and is fiendishly clever. Jacob Rees-Mogg, with his background in finance, is the perfect pick for Business (and Energy), given the technical and intellectual complexity of his mission. Kit Malthouse, the Education Secretary, another accountant, has experience running a medium-sized business; Chris Philp, the Chief Secretary, has a degree in physics.

The list goes on. Of course, some ministers are weaker than others, but the average quality is a great improvement on many past governments. Matthew Sinclair, one of Truss’s advisers, is the best free-market economist of his generation in Britain today.
Click to expand...
Wow Liz Truss worked for Shell! Yeah that definitely makes her ideal. Even better is she got a quarter of her leadership campaign donation from the wife of an ex BP executive.

This is definitely a positive thing that we should be happy about!
 
Lost Seasider said:
Interesting article in the Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...declinist-remainer-class-humiliatingly-wrong/

......it is absurd to state, almost as self-evident fact, that it is bound to collapse, that it cannot last even two years, based in part on an insulting dismissal of the credibility and intellect of all of the members of the new Government.

It is astonishing that pundits with no understanding of economics dismiss the Prime Minister’s ability in this area: she actually worked as an economist for Shell (ideal in the current climate) and as an economic director for Cable and Wireless. The first accountant ever in No 10 – she holds the qualification from the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants – she is more financially literate and comfortable with complex policy matters than almost all of those who patronise her. The fact that she is reflexively written off as lightweight, a dilettante even, is more a reflection of the bizarrely misogynistic and classist minds of some of her more extreme critics than of any objective reality.

Kwasi Kwarteng, the Chancellor, holds a PhD in economic history from Cambridge, perhaps the ideal qualification for the moment; his War and Gold and Ghosts of Empire remain timely.

Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, is an extremely competent, bright and personable lawyer who drives the Left crazy. Kemi Badenoch holds degrees in engineering and law, and is fiendishly clever. Jacob Rees-Mogg, with his background in finance, is the perfect pick for Business (and Energy), given the technical and intellectual complexity of his mission. Kit Malthouse, the Education Secretary, another accountant, has experience running a medium-sized business; Chris Philp, the Chief Secretary, has a degree in physics.

The list goes on. Of course, some ministers are weaker than others, but the average quality is a great improvement on many past governments. Matthew Sinclair, one of Truss’s advisers, is the best free-market economist of his generation in Britain today.
Click to expand...

Blessed are the bean counters.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Interesting article in the Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...declinist-remainer-class-humiliatingly-wrong/

......it is absurd to state, almost as self-evident fact, that it is bound to collapse, that it cannot last even two years, based in part on an insulting dismissal of the credibility and intellect of all of the members of the new Government.

It is astonishing that pundits with no understanding of economics dismiss the Prime Minister’s ability in this area: she actually worked as an economist for Shell (ideal in the current climate) and as an economic director for Cable and Wireless. The first accountant ever in No 10 – she holds the qualification from the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants – she is more financially literate and comfortable with complex policy matters than almost all of those who patronise her. The fact that she is reflexively written off as lightweight, a dilettante even, is more a reflection of the bizarrely misogynistic and classist minds of some of her more extreme critics than of any objective reality.

Kwasi Kwarteng, the Chancellor, holds a PhD in economic history from Cambridge, perhaps the ideal qualification for the moment; his War and Gold and Ghosts of Empire remain timely.

Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, is an extremely competent, bright and personable lawyer who drives the Left crazy. Kemi Badenoch holds degrees in engineering and law, and is fiendishly clever. Jacob Rees-Mogg, with his background in finance, is the perfect pick for Business (and Energy), given the technical and intellectual complexity of his mission. Kit Malthouse, the Education Secretary, another accountant, has experience running a medium-sized business; Chris Philp, the Chief Secretary, has a degree in physics.

The list goes on. Of course, some ministers are weaker than others, but the average quality is a great improvement on many past governments. Matthew Sinclair, one of Truss’s advisers, is the best free-market economist of his generation in Britain today.
Click to expand...

Are you saying the new PM knows more about economics than football fans on this site? I find that hard to believe.
 
tommytwojags said:
Are you saying the new PM knows more about economics than football fans on this site? I find that hard to believe.
Click to expand...
Rachael Reeves graduated from Oxford and did her masters in Economics from the London School of Economics. She worked as an economist for the Bank of England. Certainly sounds qualified. Maybe we should let Labour take charge so she can be Chancellor? I mean, who are you to think you know better than her?
 
foggy said:
Rachael Reeves graduated from Oxford and did her masters in Economics from the London School of Economics. She worked as an economist for the Bank of England. Certainly sounds qualified. Maybe we should let Labour take charge so she can be Chancellor? I mean, who are you to think you know better than her?
Click to expand...

Well my post asks the question of whether the PM knows more about economics than football fans on this site, not about economists who have no involvement in running the country. Labour aren't in power so their plans for the economy don't really have any bearing on the governence of the UK. Rachel Reeves has only ever been a Shadow and has never made any decisions that affect the country.
 
Last edited:
tommytwojags said:
Well my post asks the question of whether the PM knows more about economics than football fans on this site. Labour aren't in power so their plans for the economy don't really affect the governing of the UK in any way. Rachel Reeves has only ever been a Shadow and has never had any involvement in actually running an economy or in making any decisions that affect the country.
Click to expand...
Once again you are seemingly more interested attacking other posters instead of answering the points raised.
It would appear that Truss (thinks she) knows more than the vast majority of economists and the IFS with her idea that to cut taxes leads to economic growth.

inews.co.uk

Blow to Liz Truss's tax plans as economists warn sweeping cuts are unaffordable

In a blow to Liz Truss's campaign promise of widespread lower taxes, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said 'permanent tax cuts' would exacerbate high pressure on public finances
inews.co.uk inews.co.uk

What do you think of her plans?
 
tommytwojags said:
Well my post asks the question of whether the PM knows more about economics than football fans on this site, not about economists who have no involvement in running the country. Labour aren't in power so their plans for the economy don't really have any bearing on the governence of the UK. Rachel Reeves has only ever been a Shadow and has never made any decisions that affect the country.
Click to expand...
So what's the logical endpoint here? That her qualifications mean I can't criticise her because she knows more? Well what about all the people equally or more qualified who disagree with everything she does? An appeal to authority only works if there is a consensus authority. Not when politicians and economists are as divided as the British public are
 
foggy said:
So what's the logical endpoint here? That her qualifications mean I can't criticise her because she knows more? Well what about all the people equally or more qualified who disagree with everything she does? An appeal to authority only works if there is a consensus authority. Not when politicians and economists are as divided as the British public are
Click to expand...

The PM is the leader of the country being advised by a team of the best economists around but you think "we should let Labour take charge so she (Rachel Reeves) can be Chancellor"

I don't think I need to comment any further.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
Once again you are seemingly more interested attacking other posters instead of answering the points raised.
It would appear that Truss (thinks she) knows more than the vast majority of economists and the IFS with her idea that to cut taxes leads to economic growth.

inews.co.uk

Blow to Liz Truss's tax plans as economists warn sweeping cuts are unaffordable

In a blow to Liz Truss's campaign promise of widespread lower taxes, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said 'permanent tax cuts' would exacerbate high pressure on public finances
inews.co.uk inews.co.uk

What do you think of her plans?
Click to expand...

You're hilarious. Every day you accuse me of attacking other posters. I suspect you don't even read my posts.
 
tommytwojags said:
The PM is the leader of the country being advised by a team of the best economists around but you think "we should let Labour take charge so she (Rachel Reeves) can be Chancellor"

I don't think I need to comment any further.
Click to expand...
No I think you do need to comment further. Is it your contention that the Prime Minister will always make the best decisions possible? Are you suggesting they are infallible? If you could follow my very basic argument, which you've somehow failed to, I wasn't saying let Reeves take charge. I was asking, if she is as qualified as Truss, why do you disagree with her policies?
 
foggy said:
No I think you do need to comment further. Is it your contention that the Prime Minister will always make the best decisions possible? Are you suggesting they are infallible? If you could follow my very basic argument, which you've somehow failed to, I wasn't saying let Reeves take charge. I was asking, if she is as qualified as Truss, why do you disagree with her policies?
Click to expand...
You said exactly what I quoted above.

Regardless of that, Rachel Reeves doesn't matter. She has never been a Minister and has never made any political decision that is relevant to anything the UK does. Talking about the views of other 'experts' is pointless. Some will agree with government policy and some will disagree. This applies to every government department: NHS, education, health. The point is that only one person will ultimately make the decision and only one person will carry the can if it's the wrong decision. If the country doesn't like it, they will vote a new party in at the GE.

As it happens, Truss's Energy Price Guarantee announced today has been pretty well received by both businesses and individuals. The Institute of Directors believes the intervention will put downward pressure on inflation, which is what worries most people. The same help being offered to businesses will apply to the likes of charities and schools. The move aims to keep bills facing the public at less than half the amount predicted for the winter ahead.
 
Last edited:
tommytwojags said:
You said exactly what I quoted above.

Regardless of that, Rachel Reeves doesn't matter. She has never been a Minister and has never made any political decision that is relevant to anything the UK does. Talking about the views of other 'experts' is pointless. Some will agree with government policy and some will disagree. This applies to every government department: NHS, education, health. The point is that only one person will ultimately make the decision and only one person will carry the can if it's the wrong decision. If the country doesn't like it, they will vote a new party in at the GE.

As it happens, Truss's Energy Price Guarantee announced today has been pretty well received by both businesses and individuals. The Institute of Directors believes the intervention will put downward pressure on inflation, which is what worries most people. The same help being offered to businesses will apply to the likes of charities and schools. The move aims to keep bills facing the public at less than half the amount predicted for the winter ahead.
Click to expand...
You managed to miss my point completely, bizarrely. Did I said let Rachel Reeves take charge? No, I said if we're just saying qualifications mean they are immune, why is she any different? Do politicians become inflalible when they take power? Do they gain special abilities to never be wrong?

Yes the country will decide and judge her. Despite not having economic qualifications. Funny that.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
I'll see your 12 months and raise a no confidence vote by the end of November. January GE probably with Boris at the helm again
Click to expand...
Far too detailed a prediction. No chance, too many variables. Today's news and how politicians respond will have a big say in how things pan out.
 
foggy said:
You managed to miss my point completely, bizarrely. Did I said let Rachel Reeves take charge? No, I said if we're just saying qualifications mean they are immune, why is she any different? Do politicians become inflalible when they take power? Do they gain special abilities to never be wrong?

Yes the country will decide and judge her. Despite not having economic qualifications. Funny that.
Click to expand...


You said in post #58 "Maybe we should let Labour take charge so she can be Chancellor" That's the beauty of this site. Posters' comments are recorded for all to see.
 
TSSeasider said:
Comparing a democratically elected politician becoming PM and giving her a fair chance to rectify some of the issues which are wrong with country to releasing murderers is ridiculous - and you know it.
Click to expand...
I think that he was giving that as an example . If Liz Truss is doing wrong ,she has not been rehabilitated ,she hasn't changed her mind on anything and she is certainly shafting us on energy .
 
WIZARD OF TANGERINE said:
Why a clean slate . Has she suddenly changed her ideas . She is certainly shafting us with the energy problem . She seems smug to me now shes got the job.
Click to expand...
Not so sure about smug; she comes over as being able to give a straight answer; you might not like her reasons, but at least it's an answer to the question asked, not I've she wish had been asked.

I only think about a clean slate because she's now setting this agenda, not following it; her policies rather than someone else's.

That said, although I like the idea of a limit of the cost per unit of energy; I wouldn't have chosen to take it out of general taxation.

There's a part of me which thinks we should probably put our Covid borrowing and this one as some form of War Debt. Essentially they are unprecedent expenditures and should be financed differently; and some of that could come from windfall taxes from those profiteering from the war.
 
TSSeasider said:
That said, although I like the idea of a limit of the cost per unit of energy; I wouldn't have chosen to take it out of general taxation.

There's a part of me which thinks we should probably put our Covid borrowing and this one as some form of War Debt. Essentially they are unprecedent expenditures and should be financed differently; and some of that could come from windfall taxes from those profiteering from the war.
Click to expand...

I suspect there will be windfall taxes or similar on renewables and north sea gas, but since we import about 60% of our gas that can only go so far, and for political reasons she doesn't want to announce them now, or call them windfall taxes.
 
TSSeasider said:
Not so sure about smug; she comes over as being able to give a straight answer; you might not like her reasons, but at least it's an answer to the question asked, not I've she wish had been asked.

I only think about a clean slate because she's now setting this agenda, not following it; her policies rather than someone else's.

That said, although I like the idea of a limit of the cost per unit of energy; I wouldn't have chosen to take it out of general taxation.

There's a part of me which thinks we should probably put our Covid borrowing and this one as some form of War Debt. Essentially they are unprecedent expenditures and should be financed differently; and some of that could come from windfall taxes from those profiteering from the war.
Click to expand...
Straight answer? She blows with whatever wind gives her an advantage. Check out her history.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Straight answer? She blows with whatever wind gives her an advantage. Check out her history.
Click to expand...
Absolutely no idea about her voting patterns and historical behaviour and I've said previously I've not watched the leadership contest as I couldn't vote anyway.

Which brings us back to giving her a clean slate as she's now the PM and to see how she performs in this role.

So far, in the Q&A sessions in Parliament, she's said she's against taxing profits, is all for reducing taxation which is an actual answer, rather than a deflection which was one of the things people didn't value in the previous PM.

You going to give her a chance irrespective of her previous voting record to see if she's up to the job, or is your mind already made up?
 
TSSeasider said:
Absolutely no idea about her voting patterns and historical behaviour and I've said previously I've not watched the leadership contest as I couldn't vote anyway.

Which brings us back to giving her a clean slate as she's now the PM and to see how she performs in this role.

So far, in the Q&A sessions in Parliament, she's said she's against taxing profits, is all for reducing taxation which is an actual answer, rather than a deflection which was one of the things people didn't value in the previous PM.

You going to give her a chance irrespective of her previous voting record to see if she's up to the job, or is your mind already made up?
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about her voting history - although I bet it would make interesting reading. I'm talking about the way she has swayed wherever the wind blows: student member of the Lib Dems, Republican, Remainer. Whatever fits at the appropriate time seems to work for her.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
I'm not talking about her voting history - although I bet it would make interesting reading. I'm talking about the way she has swayed wherever the wind blows: student member of the Lib Dems, Republican, Remainer. Whatever fits at the appropriate time seems to work for her.
Click to expand...
That's a worry.
 
foggy said:
Wow Liz Truss worked for Shell! Yeah that definitely makes her ideal. Even better is she got a quarter of her leadership campaign donation from the wife of an ex BP executive.

This is definitely a positive thing that we should be happy about!
Click to expand...
Explains why she's against a windfall tax on....Shell
 
Lost Seasider said:
Interesting article in the Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...declinist-remainer-class-humiliatingly-wrong/

......it is absurd to state, almost as self-evident fact, that it is bound to collapse, that it cannot last even two years, based in part on an insulting dismissal of the credibility and intellect of all of the members of the new Government.

It is astonishing that pundits with no understanding of economics dismiss the Prime Minister’s ability in this area: she actually worked as an economist for Shell (ideal in the current climate) and as an economic director for Cable and Wireless. The first accountant ever in No 10 – she holds the qualification from the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants – she is more financially literate and comfortable with complex policy matters than almost all of those who patronise her. The fact that she is reflexively written off as lightweight, a dilettante even, is more a reflection of the bizarrely misogynistic and classist minds of some of her more extreme critics than of any objective reality.

Kwasi Kwarteng, the Chancellor, holds a PhD in economic history from Cambridge, perhaps the ideal qualification for the moment; his War and Gold and Ghosts of Empire remain timely.

Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, is an extremely competent, bright and personable lawyer who drives the Left crazy. Kemi Badenoch holds degrees in engineering and law, and is fiendishly clever. Jacob Rees-Mogg, with his background in finance, is the perfect pick for Business (and Energy), given the technical and intellectual complexity of his mission. Kit Malthouse, the Education Secretary, another accountant, has experience running a medium-sized business; Chris Philp, the Chief Secretary, has a degree in physics.

The list goes on. Of course, some ministers are weaker than others, but the average quality is a great improvement on many past governments. Matthew Sinclair, one of Truss’s advisers, is the best free-market economist of his generation in Britain today.
Click to expand...
Completely deluded article.
 
tommytwojags said:
You said exactly what I quoted above.

Regardless of that, Rachel Reeves doesn't matter. She has never been a Minister and has never made any political decision that is relevant to anything the UK does. Talking about the views of other 'experts' is pointless. Some will agree with government policy and some will disagree. This applies to every government department: NHS, education, health. The point is that only one person will ultimately make the decision and only one person will carry the can if it's the wrong decision. If the country doesn't like it, they will vote a new party in at the GE.

As it happens, Truss's Energy Price Guarantee announced today has been pretty well received by both businesses and individuals. The Institute of Directors believes the intervention will put downward pressure on inflation, which is what worries most people. The same help being offered to businesses will apply to the likes of charities and schools. The move aims to keep bills facing the public at less than half the amount predicted for the winter ahead.
Click to expand...
Dont think its been well received.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
Once again you are seemingly more interested attacking other posters instead of answering the points raised.
It would appear that Truss (thinks she) knows more than the vast majority of economists and the IFS with her idea that to cut taxes leads to economic growth.

inews.co.uk

Blow to Liz Truss's tax plans as economists warn sweeping cuts are unaffordable

In a blow to Liz Truss's campaign promise of widespread lower taxes, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said 'permanent tax cuts' would exacerbate high pressure on public finances
inews.co.uk inews.co.uk

What do you think of her plans?
Click to expand...
Dreamy.
Watch who goes bust as many are on the brink
You all have a leader only 70,000 people elected - not democratic
I think millions face a bleak and dull future as the rich (Tories in the main) get richer
The UK isn’t in a good place and I for one wish it could be for the masses
 
Johnson knew what the way forward for the country was, he even said so.

A high tax high skilled economy.

He didn't launch the changes required, truss won't launch the changes required, no politician will.

Its not in their self interest.
 
Shandypants said:
Yes, I've just seen she's appointed that awful culture war queen Suella Braverman as Home Secretary. A women who appeals to the lowest common denominator, I saw a recent interview where she answered genuine questions by ranting about wokeism at every turn. A cretin of the highest order.
Click to expand...
Saw the new Front Bench this week.
OMG, I thought the last one was bad, but this one is awful. (and ugly). 😲
 
glasshalffull said:
The problem for me is however well educated, and clever they may be they are all affected by the same ideology and held to account by the hard right wing of the Party.
Not a One Nation Conservative in sight, which is a great shame.
Click to expand...
I am still astonished that the PM got a £100k K donation from at the wife of an Old Industry Exec, and so little is made of it. The majority of the country is in favour of a windfall tax, the companies themselves have discounted it from their plans, and yet, instead, we are all paying for a loan for them. Corruption is a very strong word, but what else can someone simple like me see it as?
 
Tangerinemoss said:
I am still astonished that the PM got a £100k K donation from at the wife of an Old Industry Exec, and so little is made of it. The majority of the country is in favour of a windfall tax, the companies themselves have discounted it from their plans, and yet, instead, we are all paying for a loan for them. Corruption is a very strong word, but what else can someone simple like me see it as?
Click to expand...
The wife not able to make her own decisions, or is she a chattel of her husband?
 
Tangerinemoss said:
I am still astonished that the PM got a £100k K donation from at the wife of an Old Industry Exec, and so little is made of it. The majority of the country is in favour of a windfall tax, the companies themselves have discounted it from their plans, and yet, instead, we are all paying for a loan for them. Corruption is a very strong word, but what else can someone simple like me see it as?
Click to expand...
We seem to turn a blind eye in this country to all the blatant corruption by politicians in the hope that the kind of anarchy seen in places like Venuzuela can be averted. Fundamentally though, the corruption going on is the same.
 
TSSeasider said:
Comparing a democratically elected politician becoming PM and giving her a fair chance to rectify some of the issues which are wrong with country to releasing murderers is ridiculous - and you know it.
Click to expand...
She will do more damage to peoples lives and I am sure from her policies she will kill a lot more people then a murderer . Her first major decision to start fracking again , and look for more gas and oil will no doubt effect peoples lives in a negative way . I wouldn't be surprised if some kind of back hander may be coming her way . She certainly doesn't want to tax them. WHY? I wonder how many people will freeze to death with her so called energy cap.
 
WIZARD OF TANGERINE said:
She will do more damage to peoples lives and I am sure from her policies she will kill a lot more people then a murderer . Her first major decision to start fracking again , and look for more gas and oil will no doubt effect peoples lives in a negative way . I wouldn't be surprised if some kind of back hander may be coming her way . She certainly doesn't want to tax them. WHY? I wonder how many people will freeze to death with her so called energy cap.
Click to expand...
That's muddled thinking.

Being critical of her work to reduce energy prices by producing more of it and being critical of her not doing enough to lower prices?

You have to look at all her policies in the round rather than pick one you don't like.

What do you think about the NI increase reverse to put more money in people's pockets?
 
TSSeasider said:
That's muddled thinking.

Being critical of her work to reduce energy prices by producing more of it and being critical of her not doing enough to lower prices?

You have to look at all her policies in the round rather than pick one you don't like.

What do you think about the NI increase reverse to put more money in people's pockets?
Click to expand...
She is not making the gas and oil companies back into public ownership . She is allowing the firms that are shafting us now to carry on looking for the fossil fuels that are killing the planet and making these firms have even more power . O
 
TSSeasider said:
That's muddled thinking.

Being critical of her work to reduce energy prices by producing more of it and being critical of her not doing enough to lower prices?

You have to look at all her policies in the round rather than pick one you don't like.

What do you think about the NI increase reverse to put more money in people's pockets?
Click to expand...
I have already explained what I think about her gas and oil idea and if you think that not charging as much NI will make much impact on the price rises we are facing your having a laugh . It just make the rich richer as they would have paid more NI then the ones on poorer wages. She is a proper tory ready to shaft the workers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top