Liz Truss Resigns [Who'll be the next Prime Minister?]

Originally Posted by Chris

You’re correct, what she’s done is incompetence on a scale that ought to be impossible at the hands of someone who has managed to attain such high office.

It really is extraordinary that you wonder how it was allowed to happen or at least what has stopped similar things from happening in decades past.

Did the civil service fail here? Is this on the MPs for forgetting that basic competence is a prerequisite for the role as they allow partisanship to overrule everything else? Is it a failure of the electorate to punish candidates who don't seem up to the job?

Watching this clip from the debates can make you angry when Sunak is trying to warn everyone the consequences of her plans and she simply dismisses it all but faced no consequence: https://youtu.be/OtxKAFUo27g?t=147 (2:26 in)

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

And realistically how does this play out ? GE? Truss somehow clings on ? The party manages to unite ?

Realistically? Sir Graham Brady tells Truss to resign., which she does (because an untenable position is just that).

A Tory MP's vote follows and the King can say "Dear-oh-dear" again.

Imo. All contingent on Truss reading the runes.

[jfman]

I’m not really sure how the Civil Service could have failed - Truss/Kwarteng clearly made up back of a cigarette paper policy making based on the fantasies of think tank a decade earlier.

The prudent thing would of course be to have waited, built an evidence base for the policy, costed it, waited on the OBR report. As Kwarteng attempted to defend the policy he pointed out it was announced a mere few days after the Queen’s funeral.

Originally Posted by Damien

It really is extraordinary that you wonder how it was allowed to happen or at least what has stopped similar things from happening in decades past.

Did the civil service fail here? Is this on the MPs for forgetting that basic competence is a prerequisite for the role as they allow partisanship to overrule everything else? Is it a failure of the electorate to punish candidates who don't seem up to the job?

Watching this clip from the debates can make you angry when Sunak is trying to warn everyone the consequences of her plans and she simply dismisses it all but faced no consequence: https://youtu.be/OtxKAFUo27g?t=147 (2:26 in)

It’s oft repeated but it’s true: the PM is the person most likely to have the confidence of the House of Commons. Or they are supposed to be. Polling the wider party membership has resulted in a party leader few Tory MPs wanted. They do not have confidence in her as Prime Minister regardless of what they say in public.

The failure here is that - not for the first time in recent years - something that is supposed to operate simply on an acceptance of the “right thing to do” has been upended. Had Johnson simply been replaced with the candidate clearly favoured by the one place it actually matters in our constitution - the House of Commons - then Liz Truss would have got nowhere near Downing Street.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Damien

Yeah, that might go. It's already something they've suggested they might cut after the next election and it's such an expense they'll be tempted. If only because they've cut elsewhere so much.

that'll be the end of the pensioner vote, us oldies don't react well to being shat on.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

that'll be the end of the pensioner vote, us oldies don't react well to being shat on.

Not sure why pensioners shouldn’t be exempt from being shat on after all we are all in this together (collectively being shat on)

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Not sure why pensioners shouldn’t be exempt from being shat on after all we are all in this together (collectively being shat on)

Yes, I think it's likely the triple lock will take a breather for a while. Agreed that it's not just the workforce that should have to take a hit.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

that'll be the end of the pensioner vote, us oldies don't react well to being shat on.

Just think about us youngsters being shat on our whole lives.

[1andrew1]

Robert Peston Jeremy Hunt tells me he can't commit to uprating pensions by inflation, or benefits by inflation. Nor can he commit to Truss's promise to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP. "I didn't commit to anything because I want to be honest with people, it's a very serious situation"

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1582081885068746752

---------- Post added at 22:04 ---------- Previous post was at 21:56 ----------

Originally Posted by papa smurf

61 mate and you only get out what you put in to workplace pensions.

If we're talking about final salary schemes they're not based on what you put in (as most private sector plans are these days) but they're based on amongst other things, your final salary.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If we're talking about final salary schemes they're not based on what you put in (as most private sector plans are these days) but they're based on amongst other things, your final salary.

Pretty much all final salary schemes were canned over a decade ago.

Any one such a scheme were transferred onto other plans.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Damien

What does fault have to do with it?

The Government decides where to allocate spending and what it can afford. The Pension lock is an expensive policy and a lot of the low-hanging fruit has already been cut.

Due to the collapsing economic credibility of the country, they're more likely to have to be seen to be eliminating the deficit to bring borrowing under control.

So I reiterate how is any of that the fault of those who are fortunate enough to have paid into pensions worked their whole life and are comfortable in retirement? Yeah it is likely the last group to be that fortunate. I just think a lot of people approaching pension age now are just jealous they wont be as comfortable as those older.

My Dad worked hard all his life. Did not have a great deal for most his life. I certainly do not begrudge him his comfortable twilight years

[Dave42]

she said in BBC interview she still be there at next general election she is deluded her MP's wont allow that

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Pretty much all final salary schemes were canned over a decade ago.

Any one such a scheme were transferred onto other plans.

In the private sector, virtually all have been canned. But in the public sector, they're still the norm. That includes the NHS, local councils, the government, universities, armed forces, emergency services, etc.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

So I reiterate how is any of that the fault of those who are fortunate enough to have paid into pensions worked their whole life and are comfortable in retirement? Yeah it is likely the last group to be that fortunate. I just think a lot of people approaching pension age now are just jealous they wont be as comfortable as those older.

My Dad worked hard all his life. Did not have a great deal for most his life. I certainly do not begrudge him his comfortable twilight years

This is the thing… nobody actually “paid in”. It comes from present day tax revenues and current expenditure (as it always has).

In 1948, when it was set at 65 for men and 60 for women. Life expectancy was about 67. The population had grown over time meaning payments have traditionally been a relatively small amount of all expenditure.

Now people are living longer making it a greater proportion of the current expenditure. It’s £100bn, up from a mere £40bn 20 years ago.

I don’t think anyone is jealous at all - there’s simply a legitimate question about the best use of limited resources.

---------- Post added at 23:04 ---------- Previous post was at 22:58 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

In the private sector, virtually all have been canned. But in the public sector, they're still the norm. That includes the NHS, local councils, the government, universities, armed forces, emergency services, etc.

Most have been moved into an average salary scheme going forward.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by jfman

This is the thing… nobody actually “paid in”. It comes from present day tax revenues and current expenditure (as it always has).

In 1948, when it was set at 65 for men and 60 for women. Life expectancy was about 67. The population had grown over time meaning payments have traditionally been a relatively small amount of all expenditure.

Now people are living longer making it a greater proportion of the current expenditure. It’s £100bn, up from a mere £40bn 20 years ago.

I don’t think anyone is jealous at all - there’s simply a legitimate question about the best use of limited resources.

---------- Post added at 23:04 ---------- Previous post was at 22:58 ----------



Most have been moved into an average salary scheme going forward.

Bollocks. My Dad paid into pensions not just the standard government one as I am sure a lot of the other well off pensioners did.

Lots of pensioners do live of the state pension alone those are not well off and get only a little more than someone on ESA for example