As @DynamicSpirit says, the principle of collective responsibility means that as a cabinet minister, even if you disagree with a policy or decision in private, you have to support it in public or resign your post.
Criticised for blind loyalty to the party, and criticised for not toeing the line.
www.bbc.co.uk
Absolutely no need to buy or even glance at the 'book' as (a) it'll be serialised in the Mail, and (b) all the other papers and their websites will report on that, anything of the remotest interest being in the first part of the serialisation anyway.
They're raising taxes right now, to fill in a "fiscal black hole" caused mainly by their own policies over the past 12 years.
I don't think you are alone by a long way. I am not a natural Conservative voter but have voted blue on occasions. The chances of that happening again diminished massively in September 2019 when Johnson booted out many of their MPs for whom politics is rather more than chanting three-word slogans and rolling out inaccurate stats or unachievable goals (target date - well past the next election). Unfortunately, having seen that the Conservative membership is perfectly capable of electing a clueless and incompetent idealogue once, I don't trust them not to do so again, and they have quite a number to choose from.
If as predicted Labour gain a large number of seats at the next election then by default they should have more talent available, part of the problem was some prospective leaders/shadow cabinet members lost their seats in 2019, limiting Starmer's options. There also seem to be efforts to stop some Corbynites standing as candidates which may help with options in future too.
The BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-63591754) reported Theresa May & Boris Johnson were present but no sign of Liz Truss.
Agreed, using my workplace for example when someone on minimum wage leaves they either don't get replaced (with the work spread to the remaining staff) or the replacement is hired on less hours (35 hours instead of 37.5 hours).
An ideological question that may not fit in this thread, but one has to ask if the loss of a job that is easily filled by a machine is actually a bad thing for society overall? Employment for the sake of employment rather than because the job increases net economic value is a feature of centrally-planned economies.
My solution to this would be to raise the minimum wage, but compensate small business owners somehow by a change to their own taxes. Maybe a reduction on the Employers National Insurance rate for firms with less than 100 employees? Bigger companies can probably afford the increase so any 'compensation' for higher wage bills should be targeted at small businesses.
Alex Wickham from Bloomberg (https://twitter.com/alexwickham) reports that Liz Truss was having lunch away from the Commons:
Yesterday it was Wilton's in St James's, where Iranian beluga caviar 30g is £240 - there was a photo in today's 'Times'. The woman is utterly shameless.
I think it's the sheer rapidity of the change since Covid though that's the issue. People I suspect can deal with change more readily if it's more gradual. Things have gone too far, too fast.
I don't mind it, and use it if I have to (e.g. no staff around), but I am worried about its impact on jobs.
Yes, one of my pet hates, companies hiding themselves behind walls and making it difficult to get through to a real person. Strangely I find small businesses, who one would think would be more financially stretched and thus more likely to be forced to cut costs, are the ones who can be bothered to provide a personal service and ready, accessible help. My ISP for instance, who are small, rather expensive, but good.
True: see above for an example.
