Sunak Agrees To Boris’s Resignation Honours List

[Hymie]

A big mistake for a number of reasons – two by-elections, both of which the Tories could lose. Why not delay giving the MPs a peerage to avoid by-elections, as explained in this video analysis of the move.

[ToraToraTora]

We have a 70+ majority, we don't give a rats April about a few By-elections.

[Peter Pedant]

or as MacMillan ( mac the knife), said - a little local difficulty.

Boris ignoring precedent and custom, thought a place in the Lords cd be taken up at will....their lordships said they couldnt - but had to turn up on the morrow

[Gromit]

Two have been cut from the list, exactly to avoid difficult by elections - Nadine Dorries and Sir Alok Sharma.
The 2 other seats are fairly safe.

[LadyCG]

This country has gone to *** since Boris Johnson was hounded out of his job by the rabid lefties. Be careful what you wish for.

[youngmafbog]

Boris was the liberal.

I think you mean WEF Metropolitan elites rather than lefties.

[Gromit]

^ I agree that Truss and Kwartang made a special effort to be spectacularly inept and damaging, but Sunak is doing well under difficult circumstances.
There are plenty of rabid lefties about, but none of them had the power or position to bring about Johnson’s demise. That was entirely a Conservative Party internal matter.

[lady-janine]

It is just a gut feeling but anything to do with Boris and his use of honesty and power need avoiding completely. I don't support any of the lefties but Boris? no thank you.

[youngmafbog]

IMHO Truss and Kwartang were on the right path. But Sunaks mates in the City took the opportunity to make a few million and they didnt like the policies they were putting forward whcih would have made their day trading a nightmare. So they killed them off.

The problem Truss and Kwartang had was presentation and how to present the message.

[Gromit]

^ Yep, tax cuts for the rich during an cost of living crisis is a difficult sell :-)
The damage to the £ and the resulting hit to the UK economy was an international reaction not a City of London one.

[youngmafbog]

A very simplicstic approach there Gromit even for you and your poor financial acumen.

As for the tax cut for the rich, yes I think the 45% reduction was wrong but it was only a small part. The overall theme, if you could read and understand it, was for growth something that financial bodies are not touting.

[Gromit]

// A very simplicstic approach there Gromit even for you and your poor financial acumen. //

The hedge fund managers in New York and the far east were spooked and abandoned the £. Not sure presentation was the problem, it was just a concrete kite - it was never gonna fly.
Trickle down economics never works because they rich spend abroad, and avoid as much domestic tax as possible.

[ToraToraTora]

The 45% thing was not a tax cut for the rich, you ain't rich if you are paying it anyway. All that does is take away another barrier to endeavour. Remember when TGL came to power? 60% rate was cut as was the 35% basic rate and guess what? Tax receipts went up! Of course the usual bleats from the left ensued but truly rich people are rich enough to avoid most tax anyway. The higher rate on income tax has always been adored by the left as a way to stifle personal advancement. If there is anything the left hate it is prosperity.