Is that a fact?

 As attention turns to the PM electoral circus, there are some who still have it in for Liz Truss. The mischief continues as she is out of office but far from finished as far as the vengeful public are concerned. If you doubt the ability of the great unwashed to be happily ill-informed the responses to this tweet by Dragon Deborah Meaden would be a useful primer.

"Can anyone who knows clarify the two-month threshold for PM to receive salary for life?"

For a start, the tweet itself is disingenuous. Surely somebody like Meaden isn’t incapable of doing a bit of research for herself, but if she is so tied-up busy why ask Twitter, of all places? For those who are not in the know this is about the Public Duty Costs Allowance against which Former Prime Ministers can retrospectively claim – backed up by vetted receipts - up to £115,000 a year for expenses associated with continuing public duties. It is neither a pension, nor a salary and it is not granted.

But this is the internet, where the truth falls into a poor also-ran place against speculation, ignorance and blind prejudice. A good number of respondents took Meaden’s query as a statement of fact that yes, any ex PM automatically receives a pension/salary of £115k for the rest of his or her days. As. A. Fact. I quote some of the responses below:

·       “I think as long as you have been appointed by His Majesty the King Prime Minister. Even if that lasted for a few minutes before resigning.”

·       “It will be right. Jobs for the boys and girls Westminster. She will probably get promoted to the Lords. Where she will be able to collect £332 per day attendance allowance.”

·       “It is true and even Keir Starmer has called for Thick Lizzie not to get that money of £115 thousand a year for life around that figure I think”

·       “I've heard she's 100% getting it but is being urged to decline it. She hasn't yet declined.”

·       “I worked it out and if she lives 30 years she will get over 3.4 million. Works out at £78,000 a day for 44 days and that’s paying her for the weekend.”

A small number of respondents sought to correct the assumptions but quickly segued into wondering how well it is policed. Another few used the opportunity to speculate over whether Boris Johnson was funding his holiday from this supposed slush fund and a few came up with such kite flying illiteracy as “How many free school meals would the ministers' pensions actually fund? Think about it. Likely the whole nation. Not likely they actually need and depend on said pensions, what with all those hedge funds and private investments they vote on to protect.”[sic]

Still more piled in to suggest that people like Deborah Meaden herself ought to be running the country, oblivious to the reality that she had begun this mendacious thread out of either malice or ignorance, neither quality being one you would seek in a leader. Or maybe it was just naivety and laziness and she tweeted without a though as to its effect. Again, not something you would look for in a figurehead.

Which brings us back to Starmer who once again demonstrated his lack of guile in handling the media when he was effectively pushed into calling for Ms Truss to reject an offer which was not even being made. Somebody really needs to get forensic over this stuff, I mean, it’s embarrassing when people get things so wrong.

Instead of looking to how we get the country back on its tracks, people are fixated by somebody they don’t know, not being given something they don’t deserve… and using the opportunity to add their two penn’orth on financial affairs about which they also nothing. And we give these people a vote? But maybe it is all just harmless bloviation. As the saying goes “I’m sorry dear, I can’t come to bed. Somebody on the internet is wrong.”