Can Liz Truss survive her premiership?

From Sunak's story we learn that:
Don't give up and feel hopeless when you are defeated in the first round, there is always hope if you don't give up.
Cheer.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can Hunt come out with a better mini-budget to address the financial problems?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He's a multi-millionaire who has no need to make a living. The £80k pa he gets from being an MP has never stopped him being an MP. And as leader of the opposition I'm not sure he would have to give up being a columnist, or any other such role, as long as it is disclosed.
But, if he doesn't want to be a leader in opposition then he bides his time until nearer the following election, and then I'm sure his chum Rees-Mogg will stoke the flames of party rebellion to oust whoever is leading at the time (I'd imagine Sunak). BoJo then swoops in with, say, 6 months to the election, and Bob's your Uncle.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If now to hold election, is it true that the Labor will beat Tory and become government?

 

I don't see it, ever. He's disgraced and the more Britain gets into the swamp of Brexit, the more people will question his role in campaigning for it. If the Tories were to revert to Bozo just before a future election, the country would groan and votes support for the party would tank.

The notion that Bozo is a vote winner is a largely a myth. He won for two reasons: the Brexit impasse and, more importantly, he was up against the worst leader of Labour in history.

 

By a landslide, yes. Which is why the Tories are loathe to call an election. They want to see out the rest of their term in the hope that they can repair some/much/all of the damage that Truss has caused (and to an extent BoJo before that, but I can't see their policies being much different from BoJo's). The last time a new Conservative leader called a snap General Election (Theresa May) in an effort to cement her power and give her the mandate she wanted for her new policies, the small Tory majority (c.15 or so seats) turned into a negative majority (i.e. they remained the largest party but only with a minority). So there's bad recent history for them in that regard.

 

Or the traditional Conservative voter could be clamouring for him back by then. He's popular, even outside of the Tory mainstream. He would likely have won a leadership election this time round had it gone to the Party members, such is his appeal, and such are the party willing to forgive his lack of integrity, dishonesty etc.
Personally I hope he doesn't come back, but then personally I'd rather have another party in power - but I say that when Labour are in as well. So the best was when Lib Dems were Cameron's King-maker. For a while, at least. But I just don't think we've seen the last of him vying for, if not achieving, PM status.

It's not a myth: he won the election, and he was instrumental in getting a Yes to the Brexit vote - had he sided on the No then they would surely have won (albeit possibly via other lies plastered on buses). It may not have been rigorously tested beyond that, but all indications are that a proposition gains more votes by having him on its side than they lose. Of course I'm not saying that he would necessarily win a General Election, but he is remarkably popular in his own party (i.e. wider than the parliamentary party), and that puts him in a good position to win a leadership contest.

 

Do you think Labor can do a better job than Tory?
Do you think Scotland will go for independence one day?

 

Than what Truss was proposing? Yes. Anyone with a reasonable sense of economics could.
Than what Sunak will run with? Don't know. It will be different, in that Labour are more willing to borrow whereas Tories prefer to balance the book. But "better"? Maybe, maybe not.

They last went for independence in 2014, lost, and have not stopped going on about it since then. There is now possibly a majority that want independence, but whether there is a willing by either this or the next government to allow a vote is doubtful. But Scotland's eventual independence is an inevitability.

 

Would it be as inevitable if the English were more interested in preserving the union?

I am always disappointed to read comments that more or less wish the Scots would go their own way.

I am happy for them to do so but think we would be worse off in all ways.

I remember once hitch hiking through Scotland and my driver was waxing lyrical about putting armed soldiers at the border

Sure he had his counterparts down South.

It is primitive.

 

Yes, it would still be inevitable. To stave off independence the Westminster government would effectively have to delegate all responsibility for Scottish affairs to the Scottish government - i.e. become independent in all but name - and even then that might not be enough to stave it off, at least not in the long term. So those looking for independence simply won't be satisfied with anything less.
The thing is that independence only requires one independence vote to go in favour of independence. Continued unity requires that every independence vote goes in favour of the union. How many times can you roll a dice before a 1 comes up.

It is. It's nationalistic, which I tend to dislike as a matter of course, as I find it narrow-minded. I was anti-Brexit, and I am anti Scexit (or whatever it'll be called). I am one who would wish them well if they do decide to go it alone, but have no desire to see them do so. I'll also admit that there is a small part that hopes that when they do go it alone that they struggle and realise how much better off they were as part of the UK, the same way the UK should be realising about their Brexit decision. But it's a small part. And quickly quashed.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And the idea of a hard border between England and Scotland, as would be required should they ever decide to join the EU... hilarious.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But I am rather tired with the only thing seemingly occupying Sturgeon's mind is independence, rather on how they can actually work better with the Westminster government. But they don't seem to want to, and seem to want to make everything Westminster does look bad for Scotland, and state how much better things could be for an independent Scotland etc. It's a snowball gently rolling downhill that gradually gathers more and more impetus. If the UK government putd off another vote for too long, that alone will stoke anti-UK / pro-independence sentiment.

 

Time and Always

Prime Ministers each have their season,

and even Monarchs​

answer time, but

Scotland is forever.​

 

If Scotland is independent, will she use british pound as currency?
Or will she use Euro by joining EU?

 

The ministers who only served for a few weeks and almost do nothing, when cabinet reshuffled, why have to pay them separation fees?
They just got free money from the tax-payers.
Very bad impression to the people.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Initially I don't think there would be an option, as changing currency takes time to put in place.
Her stated intention would to then switch over to the Scottish Pound, a currency that does technically exist in name but is just the pound Sterling in disguise. I presume they will make this an official currency on the world market, and peg it to Sterling, although how that's done / what it entails I don't know. My understanding is that by pegging it to Sterling, however, they lose key controls over monetary policy, as decisions will be made by the Bank of England / Westminster government that will affect Sterling's value. The Scottish pound then simply follows. It would be like taking control of your currency and then giving it back immediately. Better, I'd have thought, just to not give it up. Of course, they may not want to peg it to Sterling, in which case there would be exchange rates/costs, and a whole level of bureaucracy that doesn't exist now. But that might pale into the background compared to other issues.

The EU has a "rule" that all new members joining must use the Euro. If an independent Scotland want to join the EU they will therefore have to use the Euro. As this is also the intention of Sturgeon's Scotland, I personally can see little point in switching from Sterling to the Scottish Pound for a few years before then switching again to the Euro.

 

It's relatively small in the grand scheme of things, but yeah, it's not ideal. It's been a bad time for UK politics recently, so this is just another issue to throw on the heap. The rules were set up in 1991, and have been used ever since without complaint, and I don't think they were written in anticipation of such turmoil. But, yeah. It is what it is. Maybe when Labour get in next election they can get the rules re-written.

 

Just because. This is Bruce Dickinson:

Born in a mining town in '58, when black and white TV was up to date, and men were still around who fought for freedom, stood their ground and died that I could be alive and see the damage that we've managed since: In this sceptered isle, is nothing sacred, just a one square mile?

Justice and Liberty, you can buy, but you don't get free. In a world of steel and glass, we bury our past.

On and on, we slept 'til dawn. When we awoke, we hardly spoke.​

My grandfather taught me how to fight, old fashioned stuff like wrong and right; but all around I see his morals buried in a mess of money troubles. Born in a mining town in '58, when black and white TV was up to date, and men were still around who fought for freedom, stood their ground and died.

Justice and Liberty, you can buy, but you don't get free. In a world of steel and glass, we bury our past.

On and on, we slept 'til dawn. When we awoke, we hardly spoke.​

Spoiler

​

Anyway, good luck

 

The military aid given to Ukraine by UK, is it free or need to pay back?

 

My understanding is that we are gifting it to them, so no need to pay back.