John Deering for October 22, 2022

Not really. Except for Liz herself. Who was, I think, completely over-matched by the needs of the job. Exacerbated by her unbending belief in fiscal “policy” that was/is somewhere between insane and stupid.

But the cat stays on.

The parties [and public] in western democracies are paying a heavy price for not culling the incompetent, corrupt, radical, and narcissists from their ranks. Governments must have near-unanimous feelings of trust and respect from the public to succeed.

“C’mon,” said Liz. “Boris could do it. How hard can it be?”

My son, the Brit. explained their system to me which is very different in that people pay for membership in a party. Anyone can vote but you must be a party member to be elected. While it used to be that a general election was called when the government “collapsed”, now the ruling party just has to form a new government which stays in power until their term ends, 5 years.If you follow the UK news, you will notice the same set of names coming up with each new vacancy including Boris J. who some want to see return.

Politics can occasionally operate at the speed of social media. ‘It is already three in the afternoon of her first day and she hasn’t yet solved all our problems’. ‘How long will this be tolerated?’ ‘Click, like, and subscribe. Note the Patreon link in the description.’

a much better con job than Trump, 45 days in office and gets to draw over 100,000 pension for lifewhat a deal

They need a Margaret Thatcher!

Do that to any politician that wants tax breaks for rich people.

Truss is the fourth UK prime minister to resign since 2010. Maybe a more accurate picture than one would think.

https://www.dw.com/en/recent-british-prime-ministers/g-63509169

Conservatives always want money to go to the rich rather than the middle class because they are beholden to them—the money to finance their campaigns comes from the rich. They tell the public that it will “trickle down”, and everyone will benefit. This is the standard Republican rationale for giving money to those who are already rich. Trickle down has never worked, as far as raising the standard of living, anywhere that it has been tried. And, it is completely illogical to believe that it ever could. If you are paying a guy to cut your lawn and he’s doing an adequate job, then you get a tax cut, do you raise his pay? Neither will the 1%ers. The only reason to spend more on hired help is that you need more workers to get the job done. The only way more workers will be needed is if there is an increased demand for product- in other words people are buying more stuff. The only reason people would be buying more stuff is that they can afford it. And, the only reason that more people can afford more is that they are the ones getting the tax cuts, not the rich guys. Trickle down just gives the rich guys more money to hide offshore, or more money to buy more politicians to write laws so they have more money to hide offshore. If you want that money to stay in America, increase production, and raise everyone’s standard of living, trickle UP will do the job, not trickle down.

That’s why the Tories won’t hold a national election. Then the door will swing only one way: out.

That does seem to be accurate so far.