Incidentally, I don't think it's particularly wise of Truss to constantly slag off her comprehensive school, the one that enabled her to successfully get a place at Oxford, and by implication slagging off comprehensive schools in general.
Somebody may like to point out to her that the vast majority of people - around 90% I think - either went to a state school and/or send their kids to one. That figure includes rather a lot of Tory voters.
Though first two contributors thought Rishi destroyed Liz.
Two sides of the same coin.
Is it really mansplaining to point out your economic plans are fecking cuckoo land bonkers?
Mansplaining is about how it is done.
I know people are very big on clarity of perjorative terms, so other than subjective interpretation are there clear signs when someone is going from explaining to mansplaining? Especially given like any perjorative it might get overused.
You need to ask yourself, was he more assertive and voluble because he was debating a woman?
If yes, the mansplaining charge has legs.
I'm unsure myself. I'd need to see him up against a male Truss as a control.
Yes, but it would have to be an equally dim male.
Truss cannot be quite as dim as she appears to be, after all she did get into Oxford from what she described as a failing comp.
It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim. I think it is her intellectual rigidity and poor communication skills, but May had those faults too, and didn't come over as dim.
Maybe it’s your inner misogynist?
She doesn’t strike me as at all dim. She seems bright, engaged and capable - and much warmer than May
At least it raised their name recognition, Truss' in particular. Neither did too badly
Are you warming to Truss and the thought of a Truss premiership ?
I will still vote Sunak but she worries me far less than she did a year ago
Yes, that’s fair, and my view too (though only up to a point as her stated economic policies are ludicrous and she will encounter fierce resistance from the Rees-Mogg, Dorries, Francois, Baker fruit-cakes if she pivots back towards the centre as PM).
Question is, what job is Liz going to offer Rishi? She can’t make him Chancellor, the only other job that isn’t a demotion is FS; if she offers him a junior role that’s as good as an insult.
I am but a lowly voter, clearly no match for the intellectual titans who make up the Parliamentary Conservative Party, but I still genuinely have no idea what the strategy was for supporting Sunak.
We knew from the first YouGov poll that he lost every matchup, whether it was against Mordaunt, Badenoch or Tugendhat. My assumption was that MPs would understand there's a substantial anyone-but-Rishi vote and that it's non-ideological; somewhere between 30/40% was Sunak's ceiling, and the rest of the membership would back anyone to stop him.
So if you're an MP and you're backing Sunak in the first round of voting, you haven't seen the poll, fine, I get that. And I understand backing him when the field is crowded with Zahawi, Hunt, etc. But I cannot understand, after the second YouGov poll confirming that members have made their minds up and there's no viable path for Sunak to win over the membership, why MPs kept voting for him? Surely it is a suicide mission, handing the leadership to whoever is going against him? Unless you think Sunak can win over the membership despite starting at a massive disadvantage and against all logic or conventional wisdom - but as we've just seen, he can't?
I'm honestly not trolling - can anyone explain this to me?
They thought he was the best candidate, and presumed that given time in the contest he would persuade the members as he had persuaded them?
They wouldn't be MPs without a certain level of self confidence in their judgement.
Have any other well known economists apart from Patrick Minford come out in support of Truss's plans? That's what is keeping me awake at night. Is this not quite similar to the moment George Bush accused Ronald Reagan of voodoo economics?
Borrowing to support the CoL is a reasonable thing to do to protect people, if you anticipate that the inflationary pressures will rapidly reverse shortly. That means a short war and sanctions lifted quickly. I just can't see that happening.
No way can tax cuts and deregulation financed by debt create the level of growth needed to balance the books in 3 years.
I am but a lowly voter, clearly no match for the intellectual titans who make up the Parliamentary Conservative Party, but I still genuinely have no idea what the strategy was for supporting Sunak.
We knew from the first YouGov poll that he lost every matchup, whether it was against Mordaunt, Badenoch or Tugendhat. My assumption was that MPs would understand there's a substantial anyone-but-Rishi vote and that it's non-ideological; somewhere between 30/40% was Sunak's ceiling, and the rest of the membership would back anyone to stop him.
So if you're an MP and you're backing Sunak in the first round of voting, you haven't seen the poll, fine, I get that. And I understand backing him when the field is crowded with Zahawi, Hunt, etc. But I cannot understand, after the second YouGov poll confirming that members have made their minds up and there's no viable path for Sunak to win over the membership, why MPs kept voting for him? Surely it is a suicide mission, handing the leadership to whoever is going against him? Unless you think Sunak can win over the membership despite starting at a massive disadvantage and against all logic or conventional wisdom - but as we've just seen, he can't?
I'm honestly not trolling - can anyone explain this to me?
You’re far more intelligent than the average Tory MP and they should have seen the writing on the wall and acted . The Daily Hate realized the danger for Truss if Mordaunt had gone through and so tried to destroy her campaign and had useful idiots in many Tory MPs who just sat there as Sunak sunk with the membership .
That really was ridiculous and both candidates in fairness said so.
But the BBC thought it was one of the three most important things in the debate, at least according to the push notification (reposted from the end of the last thread):
I have a theory that the BBC News push notification might already be, or in any case will soon become, the single most important thing in news media.
Though first two contributors thought Rishi destroyed Liz.
Two sides of the same coin.
Is it really mansplaining to point out your economic plans are fecking cuckoo land bonkers?
Mansplaining is about how it is done.
I know people are very big on clarity of perjorative terms, so other than subjective interpretation are there clear signs when someone is going from explaining to mansplaining? Especially given like any perjorative it might get overused.
You need to ask yourself, was he more assertive and voluble because he was debating a woman?
If yes, the mansplaining charge has legs.
I'm unsure myself. I'd need to see him up against a male Truss as a control.
Yes, but it would have to be an equally dim male.
Truss cannot be quite as dim as she appears to be, after all she did get into Oxford from what she described as a failing comp.
It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim. I think it is her intellectual rigidity and poor communication skills, but May had those faults too, and didn't come over as dim.
Maybe it’s your inner misogynist?
She doesn’t strike me as at all dim. She seems bright, engaged and capable - and much warmer than May
What did she say that was ‘dim’?
It wasn't me that said she was dim. I did say that she cannot be as dim as she appears to be.
At least it raised their name recognition, Truss' in particular. Neither did too badly
Are you warming to Truss and the thought of a Truss premiership ?
I will still vote Sunak but she worries me far less than she did a year ago
Yes, that’s fair, and my view too (though only up to a point as her stated economic policies are ludicrous and she will encounter fierce resistance from the Rees-Mogg, Dorries, Francois, Baker fruit-cakes if she pivots back towards the centre as PM).
Question is, what job is Liz going to offer Rishi? She can’t make him Chancellor, the only other job that isn’t a demotion is FS; if she offers him a junior role that’s as good as an insult.
FS would actually suit him well, and he’d be sensible to take it. If the Tories lose in 2024 he’d then be ideally placed to take over as leader, and maybe become PM in 2028 - him or Kemi B
The first ten minutes was spent on CoL and Truss had plans - an immediate reversal of National Insurance and suspending the green levy on electricity were both mentioned. Specific policies that can be introduced.
...
The first is an untargeted and therefore not particularly effect way of addressing the particular issue of rising fuel bills, although reducing NI might be a good thing to do in its own terms. "Green levies" are a way of driving desirable behaviours, including getting the UK off dependency on imported and currently short and expensive fossil fuels. If you remove them fuel bills will rise by almost as much as the "green levies" you save.
TBF I don't think Labour have a good response on CoL either, but maybe a bit better than Truss.
Though first two contributors thought Rishi destroyed Liz.
Two sides of the same coin.
Is it really mansplaining to point out your economic plans are fecking cuckoo land bonkers?
Mansplaining is about how it is done.
I know people are very big on clarity of perjorative terms, so other than subjective interpretation are there clear signs when someone is going from explaining to mansplaining? Especially given like any perjorative it might get overused.
You need to ask yourself, was he more assertive and voluble because he was debating a woman?
If yes, the mansplaining charge has legs.
I'm unsure myself. I'd need to see him up against a male Truss as a control.
Yes, but it would have to be an equally dim male.
Truss cannot be quite as dim as she appears to be, after all she did get into Oxford from what she described as a failing comp.
It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim. I think it is her intellectual rigidity and poor communication skills, but May had those faults too, and didn't come over as dim.
Maybe it’s your inner misogynist?
She doesn’t strike me as at all dim. She seems bright, engaged and capable - and much warmer than May
What did she say that was ‘dim’?
It wasn't me that said she was dim. I did say that she cannot be as dim as she appears to be.
“It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim”
Is what you said. So what did she do or say that comes across as ‘dim’?
Kim Campbell gets unfairly traduced. She isn't my politics, but was thrown not a hospital pass, but a morgue one by Mulroney. She's been relatively useful post her disaster too. Which is to her credit.
At least it raised their name recognition, Truss' in particular. Neither did too badly
Are you warming to Truss and the thought of a Truss premiership ?
I will still vote Sunak but she worries me far less than she did a year ago
Yes, that’s fair, and my view too (though only up to a point as her stated economic policies are ludicrous and she will encounter fierce resistance from the Rees-Mogg, Dorries, Francois, Baker fruit-cakes if she pivots back towards the centre as PM).
Question is, what job is Liz going to offer Rishi? She can’t make him Chancellor, the only other job that isn’t a demotion is FS; if she offers him a junior role that’s as good as an insult.
FS would actually suit him well, and he’d be sensible to take it. If the Tories lose in 2024 he’d then be ideally placed to take over as leader, and maybe become PM in 2028 - him or Kemi B
He'd be a dreadful fit for FS, he's shown no leadership or backbone over Ukraine.
Home Secretary it would have to be in my eyes. Still a Great Office of State, but not FS or CoE. Get rid of the Patel etc too.
I am but a lowly voter, clearly no match for the intellectual titans who make up the Parliamentary Conservative Party, but I still genuinely have no idea what the strategy was for supporting Sunak.
We knew from the first YouGov poll that he lost every matchup, whether it was against Mordaunt, Badenoch or Tugendhat. My assumption was that MPs would understand there's a substantial anyone-but-Rishi vote and that it's non-ideological; somewhere between 30/40% was Sunak's ceiling, and the rest of the membership would back anyone to stop him.
So if you're an MP and you're backing Sunak in the first round of voting, you haven't seen the poll, fine, I get that. And I understand backing him when the field is crowded with Zahawi, Hunt, etc. But I cannot understand, after the second YouGov poll confirming that members have made their minds up and there's no viable path for Sunak to win over the membership, why MPs kept voting for him? Surely it is a suicide mission, handing the leadership to whoever is going against him? Unless you think Sunak can win over the membership despite starting at a massive disadvantage and against all logic or conventional wisdom - but as we've just seen, he can't?
I'm honestly not trolling - can anyone explain this to me?
They thought he was the best candidate, and presumed that given time in the contest he would persuade the members as he had persuaded them?
They wouldn't be MPs without a certain level of self confidence in their judgement.
I appreciate that they might like him, and think he could convince the membership, but I don't understand what the plan was to actually do that? As far as I can tell, it mostly consists of sending Sunak onto national TV so he can create new attack lines for Labour to throw at the likely next Prime Minister: was that the strategy? It is incomprehensible to me why they took this path instead of trying to colonise the campaigns of Mordaunt or Badenoch, who actually did stood a chance with the membership.
Though first two contributors thought Rishi destroyed Liz.
Two sides of the same coin.
Is it really mansplaining to point out your economic plans are fecking cuckoo land bonkers?
Mansplaining is about how it is done.
I know people are very big on clarity of perjorative terms, so other than subjective interpretation are there clear signs when someone is going from explaining to mansplaining? Especially given like any perjorative it might get overused.
You need to ask yourself, was he more assertive and voluble because he was debating a woman?
If yes, the mansplaining charge has legs.
I'm unsure myself. I'd need to see him up against a male Truss as a control.
At 9pm Mrs Al had a strong preference for Sunak if we must have a Tory PM. By 10pm she had a strong preference for Truss if we must have a Tory PM. Simply because of Sunak's behaviour; his constant interruptions and talking over Truss in the first 20 minutes. Public school, sexist arrogance according to Mrs Al. Not that she has any say, of course.
My wife also preferred Truss in the debate but continues to think Sunak brighter and more competent.
I am but a lowly voter, clearly no match for the intellectual titans who make up the Parliamentary Conservative Party, but I still genuinely have no idea what the strategy was for supporting Sunak.
We knew from the first YouGov poll that he lost every matchup, whether it was against Mordaunt, Badenoch or Tugendhat. My assumption was that MPs would understand there's a substantial anyone-but-Rishi vote and that it's non-ideological; somewhere between 30/40% was Sunak's ceiling, and the rest of the membership would back anyone to stop him.
So if you're an MP and you're backing Sunak in the first round of voting, you haven't seen the poll, fine, I get that. And I understand backing him when the field is crowded with Zahawi, Hunt, etc. But I cannot understand, after the second YouGov poll confirming that members have made their minds up and there's no viable path for Sunak to win over the membership, why MPs kept voting for him? Surely it is a suicide mission, handing the leadership to whoever is going against him? Unless you think Sunak can win over the membership despite starting at a massive disadvantage and against all logic or conventional wisdom - but as we've just seen, he can't?
I'm honestly not trolling - can anyone explain this to me?
If Sunak had got 200+ votes in the final round, he might well be favourite right now. The members aren't voting in a vacuum; some of them at least would take note of results from the MPs ballots. Sunak probably didn't win by enough to swing many people's votes, though.
Also, be very wary of interpreting voodoo polls of Tory members - the more vocal and easy-to-find ones aren't necessarily representative of the whole. Sunak is more competitive than you might think.
He'll still lose, though. Unless something big drops in the next few weeks.
The first ten minutes was spent on CoL and Truss had plans - an immediate reversal of National Insurance and suspending the green levy on electricity were both mentioned. Specific policies that can be introduced.
...
The first is an untargeted and therefore not particularly effect way of addressing the particular issue of rising fuel bills, although reducing NI might be a good thing to do in its own terms. "Green levies" are a way of driving desirable behaviours, including getting the UK off dependency on imported and currently short and expensive fossil fuels. If you remove them fuel bills will rise by almost as much as the "green levies" you save.
TBF I don't think Labour have a good response on CoL either, but maybe a bit better than Truss.
Green levies work over a long term to push people off what you're levying but a suspension now is entirely logical. The fuel bills won't rise by that amount extra because the fuel is a global commodity price, it would be a real price cut (relative to not acting) while still encouraging people to be green because the price is so extremely high.
At least it raised their name recognition, Truss' in particular. Neither did too badly
Are you warming to Truss and the thought of a Truss premiership ?
I will still vote Sunak but she worries me far less than she did a year ago
Yes, that’s fair, and my view too (though only up to a point as her stated economic policies are ludicrous and she will encounter fierce resistance from the Rees-Mogg, Dorries, Francois, Baker fruit-cakes if she pivots back towards the centre as PM).
Question is, what job is Liz going to offer Rishi? She can’t make him Chancellor, the only other job that isn’t a demotion is FS; if she offers him a junior role that’s as good as an insult.
FS would actually suit him well, and he’d be sensible to take it. If the Tories lose in 2024 he’d then be ideally placed to take over as leader, and maybe become PM in 2028 - him or Kemi B
I am but a lowly voter, clearly no match for the intellectual titans who make up the Parliamentary Conservative Party, but I still genuinely have no idea what the strategy was for supporting Sunak.
We knew from the first YouGov poll that he lost every matchup, whether it was against Mordaunt, Badenoch or Tugendhat. My assumption was that MPs would understand there's a substantial anyone-but-Rishi vote and that it's non-ideological; somewhere between 30/40% was Sunak's ceiling, and the rest of the membership would back anyone to stop him.
So if you're an MP and you're backing Sunak in the first round of voting, you haven't seen the poll, fine, I get that. And I understand backing him when the field is crowded with Zahawi, Hunt, etc. But I cannot understand, after the second YouGov poll confirming that members have made their minds up and there's no viable path for Sunak to win over the membership, why MPs kept voting for him? Surely it is a suicide mission, handing the leadership to whoever is going against him? Unless you think Sunak can win over the membership despite starting at a massive disadvantage and against all logic or conventional wisdom - but as we've just seen, he can't?
I'm honestly not trolling - can anyone explain this to me?
If Sunak had got 200+ votes in the final round, he might well be favourite right now. The members aren't voting in a vacuum; some of them at least would take note of results from the MPs ballots. Sunak probably didn't win by enough to swing many people's votes, though.
Also, be very wary of interpreting voodoo polls of Tory members - the more vocal and easy-to-find ones aren't necessarily representative of the whole. Sunak is more competitive than you might think.
He'll still lose, though. Unless something big drops in the next few weeks.
Though first two contributors thought Rishi destroyed Liz.
Two sides of the same coin.
Is it really mansplaining to point out your economic plans are fecking cuckoo land bonkers?
Mansplaining is about how it is done.
I know people are very big on clarity of perjorative terms, so other than subjective interpretation are there clear signs when someone is going from explaining to mansplaining? Especially given like any perjorative it might get overused.
You need to ask yourself, was he more assertive and voluble because he was debating a woman?
If yes, the mansplaining charge has legs.
I'm unsure myself. I'd need to see him up against a male Truss as a control.
At 9pm Mrs Al had a strong preference for Sunak if we must have a Tory PM. By 10pm she had a strong preference for Truss if we must have a Tory PM. Simply because of Sunak's behaviour; his constant interruptions and talking over Truss in the first 20 minutes. Public school, sexist arrogance according to Mrs Al. Not that she has any say, of course.
My wife also preferred Truss in the debate but continues to think Sunak brighter and more competent.
I am but a lowly voter, clearly no match for the intellectual titans who make up the Parliamentary Conservative Party, but I still genuinely have no idea what the strategy was for supporting Sunak.
We knew from the first YouGov poll that he lost every matchup, whether it was against Mordaunt, Badenoch or Tugendhat. My assumption was that MPs would understand there's a substantial anyone-but-Rishi vote and that it's non-ideological; somewhere between 30/40% was Sunak's ceiling, and the rest of the membership would back anyone to stop him.
So if you're an MP and you're backing Sunak in the first round of voting, you haven't seen the poll, fine, I get that. And I understand backing him when the field is crowded with Zahawi, Hunt, etc. But I cannot understand, after the second YouGov poll confirming that members have made their minds up and there's no viable path for Sunak to win over the membership, why MPs kept voting for him? Surely it is a suicide mission, handing the leadership to whoever is going against him? Unless you think Sunak can win over the membership despite starting at a massive disadvantage and against all logic or conventional wisdom - but as we've just seen, he can't?
I'm honestly not trolling - can anyone explain this to me?
There were 2 paths for Sunak.
1: MPs backed him by such a considerable margin it puts pressure on Members to do the same. Many members would follow MP's leads. This didn't happen.
2: Sunak was virtually guaranteed a top 2 spot and if the MPs other choice self-destructed then that would leave him the winner.
Number 2 nearly happened but Mordaunt self-destructed too soon allowing Truss to come through. Had Mordaunt pipped out Truss then I think there'd have been a much greater chance of Sunak defeating Mordaunt.
Though first two contributors thought Rishi destroyed Liz.
Two sides of the same coin.
Is it really mansplaining to point out your economic plans are fecking cuckoo land bonkers?
Mansplaining is about how it is done.
I know people are very big on clarity of perjorative terms, so other than subjective interpretation are there clear signs when someone is going from explaining to mansplaining? Especially given like any perjorative it might get overused.
You need to ask yourself, was he more assertive and voluble because he was debating a woman?
If yes, the mansplaining charge has legs.
I'm unsure myself. I'd need to see him up against a male Truss as a control.
Yes, but it would have to be an equally dim male.
Truss cannot be quite as dim as she appears to be, after all she did get into Oxford from what she described as a failing comp.
It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim. I think it is her intellectual rigidity and poor communication skills, but May had those faults too, and didn't come over as dim.
Maybe it’s your inner misogynist?
She doesn’t strike me as at all dim. She seems bright, engaged and capable - and much warmer than May
What did she say that was ‘dim’?
It wasn't me that said she was dim. I did say that she cannot be as dim as she appears to be.
“It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim”
Is what you said. So what did she do or say that comes across as ‘dim’?
The vacuity and economic illiteracy of her arguments.
Either she is dim and doesn't understand, or she is a calculating liar and does understand, and believes that the ends justifies the means to put herself in Number 10.
I am but a lowly voter, clearly no match for the intellectual titans who make up the Parliamentary Conservative Party, but I still genuinely have no idea what the strategy was for supporting Sunak.
We knew from the first YouGov poll that he lost every matchup, whether it was against Mordaunt, Badenoch or Tugendhat. My assumption was that MPs would understand there's a substantial anyone-but-Rishi vote and that it's non-ideological; somewhere between 30/40% was Sunak's ceiling, and the rest of the membership would back anyone to stop him.
So if you're an MP and you're backing Sunak in the first round of voting, you haven't seen the poll, fine, I get that. And I understand backing him when the field is crowded with Zahawi, Hunt, etc. But I cannot understand, after the second YouGov poll confirming that members have made their minds up and there's no viable path for Sunak to win over the membership, why MPs kept voting for him? Surely it is a suicide mission, handing the leadership to whoever is going against him? Unless you think Sunak can win over the membership despite starting at a massive disadvantage and against all logic or conventional wisdom - but as we've just seen, he can't?
I'm honestly not trolling - can anyone explain this to me?
There is a liquid market and if you are 100% sure it is Truss, you should pile in.
Incidentally, I don't think it's particularly wise of Truss to constantly slag off her comprehensive school, the one that enabled her to successfully get a place at Oxford, and by implication slagging off comprehensive schools in general.
Somebody may like to point out to her that the vast majority of people - around 90% I think - either went to a state school and/or send their kids to one. That figure includes rather a lot of Tory voters.
On those lines there was an interesting piece by Richard Quest (CNN, ex-BBC) about his time in same school in mid 70s (I think a few years before her). Nightmare "experiment" was his summary as two small grammar schools were combined and then the catchment area massively widen and the whole thing made a comp with 350 in each year.
Teachers used to wander around saying "help, it wasn't like this in the old days" with no idea how to manage the bullying and violence.
Though first two contributors thought Rishi destroyed Liz.
Two sides of the same coin.
Is it really mansplaining to point out your economic plans are fecking cuckoo land bonkers?
Mansplaining is about how it is done.
I know people are very big on clarity of perjorative terms, so other than subjective interpretation are there clear signs when someone is going from explaining to mansplaining? Especially given like any perjorative it might get overused.
You need to ask yourself, was he more assertive and voluble because he was debating a woman?
If yes, the mansplaining charge has legs.
I'm unsure myself. I'd need to see him up against a male Truss as a control.
Yes, but it would have to be an equally dim male.
Truss cannot be quite as dim as she appears to be, after all she did get into Oxford from what she described as a failing comp.
It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim. I think it is her intellectual rigidity and poor communication skills, but May had those faults too, and didn't come over as dim.
Maybe it’s your inner misogynist?
She doesn’t strike me as at all dim. She seems bright, engaged and capable - and much warmer than May
What did she say that was ‘dim’?
It wasn't me that said she was dim. I did say that she cannot be as dim as she appears to be.
“It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim”
Is what you said. So what did she do or say that comes across as ‘dim’?
The vacuity and economic illiteracy of her arguments.
Either she is dim and doesn't understand, or she is a calculating liar and does understand, and believes that the ends justifies the means to put herself in Number 10.
Her arguments are sound and neither vacuous nor illiterate.
That you disagree with them is politics, it doesn't make her dim.
At least it raised their name recognition, Truss' in particular. Neither did too badly
Are you warming to Truss and the thought of a Truss premiership ?
I will still vote Sunak but she worries me far less than she did a year ago
Yes, that’s fair, and my view too (though only up to a point as her stated economic policies are ludicrous and she will encounter fierce resistance from the Rees-Mogg, Dorries, Francois, Baker fruit-cakes if she pivots back towards the centre as PM).
Question is, what job is Liz going to offer Rishi? She can’t make him Chancellor, the only other job that isn’t a demotion is FS; if she offers him a junior role that’s as good as an insult.
FS would actually suit him well, and he’d be sensible to take it. If the Tories lose in 2024 he’d then be ideally placed to take over as leader, and maybe become PM in 2028 - him or Kemi B
FO is sub-optimal for a young family though.
He will not be in Cabinet under Truss, but rather the backbenches, a bit like Hunt did when he lost.
Kim Campbell gets unfairly traduced. She isn't my politics, but was thrown not a hospital pass, but a morgue one by Mulroney. She's been relatively useful post her disaster too. Which is to her credit.
She was also the last Progressive Conservative PM, today's Conservative Party of Canada is a combination of the 2003 merger of the PCs and the Canadian Alliance/Reform Party, the equivalent of a merger between the UK Conservatives and Farage's RefUK today
Though first two contributors thought Rishi destroyed Liz.
Two sides of the same coin.
Is it really mansplaining to point out your economic plans are fecking cuckoo land bonkers?
Mansplaining is about how it is done.
I know people are very big on clarity of perjorative terms, so other than subjective interpretation are there clear signs when someone is going from explaining to mansplaining? Especially given like any perjorative it might get overused.
You need to ask yourself, was he more assertive and voluble because he was debating a woman?
If yes, the mansplaining charge has legs.
I'm unsure myself. I'd need to see him up against a male Truss as a control.
Yes, but it would have to be an equally dim male.
Truss cannot be quite as dim as she appears to be, after all she did get into Oxford from what she described as a failing comp.
It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim. I think it is her intellectual rigidity and poor communication skills, but May had those faults too, and didn't come over as dim.
Maybe it’s your inner misogynist?
She doesn’t strike me as at all dim. She seems bright, engaged and capable - and much warmer than May
What did she say that was ‘dim’?
It wasn't me that said she was dim. I did say that she cannot be as dim as she appears to be.
“It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim”
Is what you said. So what did she do or say that comes across as ‘dim’?
I don't think Truss is dim. She's definitely a careerist who will at one moment say white is black and the next that black is white without blinking an eye. Question is whether she can be both careerist and batshit at the same time. I suspect she can...
Though first two contributors thought Rishi destroyed Liz.
Two sides of the same coin.
Is it really mansplaining to point out your economic plans are fecking cuckoo land bonkers?
Mansplaining is about how it is done.
I know people are very big on clarity of perjorative terms, so other than subjective interpretation are there clear signs when someone is going from explaining to mansplaining? Especially given like any perjorative it might get overused.
You need to ask yourself, was he more assertive and voluble because he was debating a woman?
If yes, the mansplaining charge has legs.
I'm unsure myself. I'd need to see him up against a male Truss as a control.
Yes, but it would have to be an equally dim male.
Truss cannot be quite as dim as she appears to be, after all she did get into Oxford from what she described as a failing comp.
It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim. I think it is her intellectual rigidity and poor communication skills, but May had those faults too, and didn't come over as dim.
Maybe it’s your inner misogynist?
She doesn’t strike me as at all dim. She seems bright, engaged and capable - and much warmer than May
What did she say that was ‘dim’?
It wasn't me that said she was dim. I did say that she cannot be as dim as she appears to be.
“It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim”
Is what you said. So what did she do or say that comes across as ‘dim’?
The vacuity and economic illiteracy of her arguments.
Either she is dim and doesn't understand, or she is a calculating liar and does understand, and believes that the ends justifies the means to put herself in Number 10.
Though first two contributors thought Rishi destroyed Liz.
Two sides of the same coin.
Is it really mansplaining to point out your economic plans are fecking cuckoo land bonkers?
Mansplaining is about how it is done.
I know people are very big on clarity of perjorative terms, so other than subjective interpretation are there clear signs when someone is going from explaining to mansplaining? Especially given like any perjorative it might get overused.
You need to ask yourself, was he more assertive and voluble because he was debating a woman?
If yes, the mansplaining charge has legs.
I'm unsure myself. I'd need to see him up against a male Truss as a control.
Yes, but it would have to be an equally dim male.
Truss cannot be quite as dim as she appears to be, after all she did get into Oxford from what she described as a failing comp.
It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim. I think it is her intellectual rigidity and poor communication skills, but May had those faults too, and didn't come over as dim.
Maybe it’s your inner misogynist?
She doesn’t strike me as at all dim. She seems bright, engaged and capable - and much warmer than May
What did she say that was ‘dim’?
It wasn't me that said she was dim. I did say that she cannot be as dim as she appears to be.
“It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim”
Is what you said. So what did she do or say that comes across as ‘dim’?
The vacuity and economic illiteracy of her arguments.
Either she is dim and doesn't understand, or she is a calculating liar and does understand, and believes that the ends justifies the means to put herself in Number 10.
Fair enough. Can you cite one of these vacuous and ‘illiterate’ arguments?
I watched the debate closely - I’m genuinely undecided. I did not hear any such howlers (from either side)
I suspect this is unpopular view. I don't think Sunak's style will go down well among Con members. Interrupting & combative OK for GE, not Con members. Truss better than expected. Calm, good comebacks, open about flaws, loyal to Johnson. Will go down well in Tory Land #debate
At least it raised their name recognition, Truss' in particular. Neither did too badly
Are you warming to Truss and the thought of a Truss premiership ?
I will still vote Sunak but she worries me far less than she did a year ago
Yes, that’s fair, and my view too (though only up to a point as her stated economic policies are ludicrous and she will encounter fierce resistance from the Rees-Mogg, Dorries, Francois, Baker fruit-cakes if she pivots back towards the centre as PM).
Question is, what job is Liz going to offer Rishi? She can’t make him Chancellor, the only other job that isn’t a demotion is FS; if she offers him a junior role that’s as good as an insult.
FS would actually suit him well, and he’d be sensible to take it. If the Tories lose in 2024 he’d then be ideally placed to take over as leader, and maybe become PM in 2028 - him or Kemi B
FO is sub-optimal for a young family though.
He will not be in Cabinet under Truss, but rather the backbenches, a bit like Hunt did when he lost.
And how did that turn out? Hunt is now history
Sunak is still young and ambitious. If he takes a top job he’s still in there, with an exciting career. And the potential to move up
Have any other well known economists apart from Patrick Minford come out in support of Truss's plans? That's what is keeping me awake at night. Is this not quite similar to the moment George Bush accused Ronald Reagan of voodoo economics?
Borrowing to support the CoL is a reasonable thing to do to protect people, if you anticipate that the inflationary pressures will rapidly reverse shortly. That means a short war and sanctions lifted quickly. I just can't see that happening.
No way can tax cuts and deregulation financed by debt create the level of growth needed to balance the books in 3 years.
Borrowing to support CoL measures is. I think, fine, maybe necessary. But you do need to have the CoL measures - not seeing those.
Kim Campbell gets unfairly traduced. She isn't my politics, but was thrown not a hospital pass, but a morgue one by Mulroney. She's been relatively useful post her disaster too. Which is to her credit.
She was also the last Progressive Conservative PM, today's Conservative Party of Canada is a combination of the 2003 merger of the PCs and the Canadian Alliance/Reform Party, the equivalent of a merger between the UK Conservatives and Farage's RefUK today
What a remarkable series of polls in that parliament.
Though first two contributors thought Rishi destroyed Liz.
Two sides of the same coin.
Is it really mansplaining to point out your economic plans are fecking cuckoo land bonkers?
Mansplaining is about how it is done.
I know people are very big on clarity of perjorative terms, so other than subjective interpretation are there clear signs when someone is going from explaining to mansplaining? Especially given like any perjorative it might get overused.
You need to ask yourself, was he more assertive and voluble because he was debating a woman?
If yes, the mansplaining charge has legs.
I'm unsure myself. I'd need to see him up against a male Truss as a control.
Yes, but it would have to be an equally dim male.
Truss cannot be quite as dim as she appears to be, after all she did get into Oxford from what she described as a failing comp.
It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim. I think it is her intellectual rigidity and poor communication skills, but May had those faults too, and didn't come over as dim.
Maybe it’s your inner misogynist?
She doesn’t strike me as at all dim. She seems bright, engaged and capable - and much warmer than May
What did she say that was ‘dim’?
It wasn't me that said she was dim. I did say that she cannot be as dim as she appears to be.
“It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim”
Is what you said. So what did she do or say that comes across as ‘dim’?
The vacuity and economic illiteracy of her arguments.
Either she is dim and doesn't understand, or she is a calculating liar and does understand, and believes that the ends justifies the means to put herself in Number 10.
Fair enough. Can you cite one of these vacuous and ‘illiterate’ arguments?
I watched the debate closely - I’m genuinely undecided. I did not hear any such howlers (from either side)
She seems to believe that borrowing for tax cuts is not inflationary, nor will it drive up interest rates.
At least it raised their name recognition, Truss' in particular. Neither did too badly
Are you warming to Truss and the thought of a Truss premiership ?
I will still vote Sunak but she worries me far less than she did a year ago
Yes, that’s fair, and my view too (though only up to a point as her stated economic policies are ludicrous and she will encounter fierce resistance from the Rees-Mogg, Dorries, Francois, Baker fruit-cakes if she pivots back towards the centre as PM).
Question is, what job is Liz going to offer Rishi? She can’t make him Chancellor, the only other job that isn’t a demotion is FS; if she offers him a junior role that’s as good as an insult.
FS would actually suit him well, and he’d be sensible to take it. If the Tories lose in 2024 he’d then be ideally placed to take over as leader, and maybe become PM in 2028 - him or Kemi B
FO is sub-optimal for a young family though.
He will not be in Cabinet under Truss, but rather the backbenches, a bit like Hunt did when he lost.
And how did that turn out? Hunt is now history
Sunak is still young and ambitious. If he takes a top job he’s still in there, with an exciting career. And the potential to move up
He will go off in a huff and form a new career in media or abroad like Portillo or David Miliband, 2 other Crown Prince heir apparents rejected for the leadership by their own party
Though first two contributors thought Rishi destroyed Liz.
Two sides of the same coin.
Is it really mansplaining to point out your economic plans are fecking cuckoo land bonkers?
Mansplaining is about how it is done.
I know people are very big on clarity of perjorative terms, so other than subjective interpretation are there clear signs when someone is going from explaining to mansplaining? Especially given like any perjorative it might get overused.
You need to ask yourself, was he more assertive and voluble because he was debating a woman?
If yes, the mansplaining charge has legs.
I'm unsure myself. I'd need to see him up against a male Truss as a control.
Yes, but it would have to be an equally dim male.
Truss cannot be quite as dim as she appears to be, after all she did get into Oxford from what she described as a failing comp.
It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim. I think it is her intellectual rigidity and poor communication skills, but May had those faults too, and didn't come over as dim.
Maybe it’s your inner misogynist?
She doesn’t strike me as at all dim. She seems bright, engaged and capable - and much warmer than May
What did she say that was ‘dim’?
It wasn't me that said she was dim. I did say that she cannot be as dim as she appears to be.
“It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim”
Is what you said. So what did she do or say that comes across as ‘dim’?
I don't think Truss is dim. She's definitely a careerist who will at one moment say white is black and the next that black is white without blinking an eye. Question is whether she can be both careerist and batshit at the same time. I suspect she can...
Sunak is a bit more consistent.
I wouldn't vote for either of them, but with Sunak you do have a fair idea of what sort of programme he would run. Truss is the pig in the poke.
Though first two contributors thought Rishi destroyed Liz.
Two sides of the same coin.
Is it really mansplaining to point out your economic plans are fecking cuckoo land bonkers?
Mansplaining is about how it is done.
I know people are very big on clarity of perjorative terms, so other than subjective interpretation are there clear signs when someone is going from explaining to mansplaining? Especially given like any perjorative it might get overused.
You need to ask yourself, was he more assertive and voluble because he was debating a woman?
If yes, the mansplaining charge has legs.
I'm unsure myself. I'd need to see him up against a male Truss as a control.
Yes, but it would have to be an equally dim male.
Truss cannot be quite as dim as she appears to be, after all she did get into Oxford from what she described as a failing comp.
It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim. I think it is her intellectual rigidity and poor communication skills, but May had those faults too, and didn't come over as dim.
Personally I’m not sure she comes across as dim per se. I think she suffers from a lack of fluidity in speech: anyone can suffer from this including intelligent people - you can have a good mind but find it hard to connect the dots in a way that you can speak dynamically. It can make you come across as tentative and lacking in confidence and I could see how that could also be interpreted as a lack of intelligence in some people.
The transcontinental bike race started yesterday. 3-4000km across Europe. Completely unsupported with riders paying for everything they use food/accommodation etc. The frontrunners are sleeping in hedge-bags and eating everything in their way!
I enjoy the dot watching. The unique paths planned between the 6 checkpoints and the schadenfreude of someone cycling across a continent in a week whilst sleeping in bus stops and shitting in bushes.
At least it raised their name recognition, Truss' in particular. Neither did too badly
Are you warming to Truss and the thought of a Truss premiership ?
I will still vote Sunak but she worries me far less than she did a year ago
Yes, that’s fair, and my view too (though only up to a point as her stated economic policies are ludicrous and she will encounter fierce resistance from the Rees-Mogg, Dorries, Francois, Baker fruit-cakes if she pivots back towards the centre as PM).
Question is, what job is Liz going to offer Rishi? She can’t make him Chancellor, the only other job that isn’t a demotion is FS; if she offers him a junior role that’s as good as an insult.
FS would actually suit him well, and he’d be sensible to take it. If the Tories lose in 2024 he’d then be ideally placed to take over as leader, and maybe become PM in 2028 - him or Kemi B
FO is sub-optimal for a young family though.
He will not be in Cabinet under Truss, but rather the backbenches, a bit like Hunt did when he lost.
And how did that turn out? Hunt is now history
Sunak is still young and ambitious. If he takes a top job he’s still in there, with an exciting career. And the potential to move up
He will go off in a huff and form a new career in media or abroad like Portillo or David Miliband, 2 other Crown Prince heir apparents rejected for the leadership by their own party
Will he? He seems to enjoy politics and a top Cabinet post must be fun. Constantly interesting with lots of status. The Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom!
What other job matches that? And recall he already has all the money he needs - and more
Though first two contributors thought Rishi destroyed Liz.
Two sides of the same coin.
Is it really mansplaining to point out your economic plans are fecking cuckoo land bonkers?
Mansplaining is about how it is done.
I know people are very big on clarity of perjorative terms, so other than subjective interpretation are there clear signs when someone is going from explaining to mansplaining? Especially given like any perjorative it might get overused.
You need to ask yourself, was he more assertive and voluble because he was debating a woman?
If yes, the mansplaining charge has legs.
I'm unsure myself. I'd need to see him up against a male Truss as a control.
Yes, but it would have to be an equally dim male.
Truss cannot be quite as dim as she appears to be, after all she did get into Oxford from what she described as a failing comp.
It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim. I think it is her intellectual rigidity and poor communication skills, but May had those faults too, and didn't come over as dim.
Maybe it’s your inner misogynist?
She doesn’t strike me as at all dim. She seems bright, engaged and capable - and much warmer than May
What did she say that was ‘dim’?
It wasn't me that said she was dim. I did say that she cannot be as dim as she appears to be.
“It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim”
Is what you said. So what did she do or say that comes across as ‘dim’?
The vacuity and economic illiteracy of her arguments.
Either she is dim and doesn't understand, or she is a calculating liar and does understand, and believes that the ends justifies the means to put herself in Number 10.
Fair enough. Can you cite one of these vacuous and ‘illiterate’ arguments?
I watched the debate closely - I’m genuinely undecided. I did not hear any such howlers (from either side)
She seems to believe that borrowing for tax cuts is not inflationary, nor will it drive up interest rates.
I felt she defended that contentious point quite well. Didn’t see ‘dimness’
@RoryStewartUK And again Liz Truss keeps saying Levelling up and recession is personal to her because she experienced the pain or the 1980s and 90s in Paisley and Leeds. But somehow she doesn’t seem to be mentioning that was a period of conservative government.
Though first two contributors thought Rishi destroyed Liz.
Two sides of the same coin.
Is it really mansplaining to point out your economic plans are fecking cuckoo land bonkers?
Mansplaining is about how it is done.
I know people are very big on clarity of perjorative terms, so other than subjective interpretation are there clear signs when someone is going from explaining to mansplaining? Especially given like any perjorative it might get overused.
You need to ask yourself, was he more assertive and voluble because he was debating a woman?
If yes, the mansplaining charge has legs.
I'm unsure myself. I'd need to see him up against a male Truss as a control.
Yes, but it would have to be an equally dim male.
Truss cannot be quite as dim as she appears to be, after all she did get into Oxford from what she described as a failing comp.
It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim. I think it is her intellectual rigidity and poor communication skills, but May had those faults too, and didn't come over as dim.
Maybe it’s your inner misogynist?
She doesn’t strike me as at all dim. She seems bright, engaged and capable - and much warmer than May
What did she say that was ‘dim’?
It wasn't me that said she was dim. I did say that she cannot be as dim as she appears to be.
“It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim”
Is what you said. So what did she do or say that comes across as ‘dim’?
The vacuity and economic illiteracy of her arguments.
Either she is dim and doesn't understand, or she is a calculating liar and does understand, and believes that the ends justifies the means to put herself in Number 10.
I think it's obviously the second of those?
Not necessarily alternatives. Truss definitely is "a calculating liar" (liar is not quite the term I would use because we have had Johnson and she is better than him in that respect), but is she also a blind ideologue? Open question.
Though first two contributors thought Rishi destroyed Liz.
Two sides of the same coin.
Is it really mansplaining to point out your economic plans are fecking cuckoo land bonkers?
Mansplaining is about how it is done.
I know people are very big on clarity of perjorative terms, so other than subjective interpretation are there clear signs when someone is going from explaining to mansplaining? Especially given like any perjorative it might get overused.
You need to ask yourself, was he more assertive and voluble because he was debating a woman?
If yes, the mansplaining charge has legs.
I'm unsure myself. I'd need to see him up against a male Truss as a control.
Yes, but it would have to be an equally dim male.
Truss cannot be quite as dim as she appears to be, after all she did get into Oxford from what she described as a failing comp.
It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim. I think it is her intellectual rigidity and poor communication skills, but May had those faults too, and didn't come over as dim.
Maybe it’s your inner misogynist?
She doesn’t strike me as at all dim. She seems bright, engaged and capable - and much warmer than May
What did she say that was ‘dim’?
It wasn't me that said she was dim. I did say that she cannot be as dim as she appears to be.
“It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim”
Is what you said. So what did she do or say that comes across as ‘dim’?
The vacuity and economic illiteracy of her arguments.
Either she is dim and doesn't understand, or she is a calculating liar and does understand, and believes that the ends justifies the means to put herself in Number 10.
I think it's obviously the second of those?
Yes, it's cynicism not stupidity. My money would be strongly on that.
Hence Sunak's palpable contempt for her which was probably not to his benefit in a TV debate.
Though first two contributors thought Rishi destroyed Liz.
Two sides of the same coin.
Is it really mansplaining to point out your economic plans are fecking cuckoo land bonkers?
Mansplaining is about how it is done.
I know people are very big on clarity of perjorative terms, so other than subjective interpretation are there clear signs when someone is going from explaining to mansplaining? Especially given like any perjorative it might get overused.
You need to ask yourself, was he more assertive and voluble because he was debating a woman?
If yes, the mansplaining charge has legs.
I'm unsure myself. I'd need to see him up against a male Truss as a control.
Yes, but it would have to be an equally dim male.
Truss cannot be quite as dim as she appears to be, after all she did get into Oxford from what she described as a failing comp.
It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim. I think it is her intellectual rigidity and poor communication skills, but May had those faults too, and didn't come over as dim.
Maybe it’s your inner misogynist?
She doesn’t strike me as at all dim. She seems bright, engaged and capable - and much warmer than May
What did she say that was ‘dim’?
It wasn't me that said she was dim. I did say that she cannot be as dim as she appears to be.
“It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim”
Is what you said. So what did she do or say that comes across as ‘dim’?
The vacuity and economic illiteracy of her arguments.
Either she is dim and doesn't understand, or she is a calculating liar and does understand, and believes that the ends justifies the means to put herself in Number 10.
It seems hypocritical for people who opposed George Osborne's austerity policies on the basis that the national debt wasn't the priority to call Liz Truss economically illiterate for saying the same thing.
Have any other well known economists apart from Patrick Minford come out in support of Truss's plans? That's what is keeping me awake at night. Is this not quite similar to the moment George Bush accused Ronald Reagan of voodoo economics?
Borrowing to support the CoL is a reasonable thing to do to protect people, if you anticipate that the inflationary pressures will rapidly reverse shortly. That means a short war and sanctions lifted quickly. I just can't see that happening.
No way can tax cuts and deregulation financed by debt create the level of growth needed to balance the books in 3 years.
Borrowing to support CoL measures is. I think, fine, maybe necessary. But you do need to have the CoL measures - not seeing those.
We aren’t borrowing to ensure people in fuel poverty don’t freeze to death
We are borrowing so corporation can pay more out in dividends and so that people earning £30,000 more get a bit more to spend.
@RoryStewartUK And again Liz Truss keeps saying Levelling up and recession is personal to her because she experienced the pain or the 1980s and 90s in Paisley and Leeds. But somehow she doesn’t seem to be mentioning that was a period of conservative government.
@RoryStewartUK And again Liz Truss keeps saying Levelling up and recession is personal to her because she experienced the pain or the 1980s and 90s in Paisley and Leeds. But somehow she doesn’t seem to be mentioning that was a period of conservative government.
For all their constant references to the Eighties, surely neither could usefully remember them and analyse them. Sunak wasn't even born when Thatcher moved into number 10. He was in nappies when inflation was being squeezed out by her monetarist policy. Truss was 4 when Thatcher was elected, perhaps starting primary school at the height of the battle with inflation.
They may well have read of what went on, but neither are credible primary witnesses of what went on, good or bad.
Though first two contributors thought Rishi destroyed Liz.
Two sides of the same coin.
Is it really mansplaining to point out your economic plans are fecking cuckoo land bonkers?
Mansplaining is about how it is done.
I know people are very big on clarity of perjorative terms, so other than subjective interpretation are there clear signs when someone is going from explaining to mansplaining? Especially given like any perjorative it might get overused.
You need to ask yourself, was he more assertive and voluble because he was debating a woman?
If yes, the mansplaining charge has legs.
I'm unsure myself. I'd need to see him up against a male Truss as a control.
Yes, but it would have to be an equally dim male.
Truss cannot be quite as dim as she appears to be, after all she did get into Oxford from what she described as a failing comp.
It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim. I think it is her intellectual rigidity and poor communication skills, but May had those faults too, and didn't come over as dim.
Maybe it’s your inner misogynist?
She doesn’t strike me as at all dim. She seems bright, engaged and capable - and much warmer than May
What did she say that was ‘dim’?
It wasn't me that said she was dim. I did say that she cannot be as dim as she appears to be.
“It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim”
Is what you said. So what did she do or say that comes across as ‘dim’?
The vacuity and economic illiteracy of her arguments.
Either she is dim and doesn't understand, or she is a calculating liar and does understand, and believes that the ends justifies the means to put herself in Number 10.
Her arguments are sound and neither vacuous nor illiterate.
That you disagree with them is politics, it doesn't make her dim.
It's not sound to claim fiscal loosening is deflationary. It's a lie.
I think that's an excellent point, Liz has the best chance of surprising and doing a very good job.
My gut - which was ultimately right about BoJo - says it won't happen
I think you’re right. There’s weirdly a potential upside to Truss - I think it’s unlikely and will go the same way as May and Brown (but worse) but you could at least see the argument for rolling the dice with her, whereas Sunak is a known quantity.
I can totally see why the Tories are going for Truss.
I just don’t think she’s any more charismatic than Starmer, that’s all
I don't think she's more charismatic than Starmer.
I think she's leaps ahead in tackling the issues and having ideas, as is Sunak..
How well or badly you think her ideas might go is up for political debate, but there is real substance there. What real substance from Keir's leadership debate is there that points to a policy a PM Keir might introduce?
So how is Liz going to to sort out CoL
Student debt
The environment
What are her policies on the above
Did you watch the debate?
The first ten minutes was spent on CoL and Truss had plans - an immediate reversal of National Insurance and suspending the green levy on electricity were both mentioned. Specific policies that can be introduced.
Student debt never came up.
Environment mentioned technology etc which is the right answer.
Right now, the Green Levy involves buying solar and wind power on existing (already signed) contracts that are below market rates. If you get rid of the levy, you don't get rid of the purchase agreements. And of course, as the contracts are at below market prices, you wouldn't want to get rid of the actual contracts.
Ms Truss is correct that buying solar and wind should not be a separate part of the bill. But I think it's a little misleading not to acknowledge that removing the green levy does not remove the cost of buying the power. (And the need to charge consumers for it.)
In general, I think people under-estimate how much fun you must have as a very senior politician. We all say ‘oh god who would want the scrutiny, pressure and hassle’ and fair enough, but if you can cope with that - or even thrive on it - then being a senior minister or PM must be a blast
Thatch describes it well in her memoirs. Finding the job consistently absorbing, compelling, surprising - surrounded by brilliant people and remarkable events - plus you get all the status. Big country house. Police everywhere. Lots of groveling
What matches that? Portillo doing trains for the Beeb? Miliband doing refugees in NYC? I just don’t see it. Only if you are finished or need the money would you accept the lesser job. Sunak is neither finished nor impoverished
Though first two contributors thought Rishi destroyed Liz.
Two sides of the same coin.
Is it really mansplaining to point out your economic plans are fecking cuckoo land bonkers?
Mansplaining is about how it is done.
I know people are very big on clarity of perjorative terms, so other than subjective interpretation are there clear signs when someone is going from explaining to mansplaining? Especially given like any perjorative it might get overused.
You need to ask yourself, was he more assertive and voluble because he was debating a woman?
If yes, the mansplaining charge has legs.
I'm unsure myself. I'd need to see him up against a male Truss as a control.
Yes, but it would have to be an equally dim male.
Truss cannot be quite as dim as she appears to be, after all she did get into Oxford from what she described as a failing comp.
It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim. I think it is her intellectual rigidity and poor communication skills, but May had those faults too, and didn't come over as dim.
Maybe it’s your inner misogynist?
She doesn’t strike me as at all dim. She seems bright, engaged and capable - and much warmer than May
What did she say that was ‘dim’?
I must admit I was amazed that she actually managed to tell a couple of jokes this evening - and they didn’t land appallingly.
Have any other well known economists apart from Patrick Minford come out in support of Truss's plans? That's what is keeping me awake at night. Is this not quite similar to the moment George Bush accused Ronald Reagan of voodoo economics?
Borrowing to support the CoL is a reasonable thing to do to protect people, if you anticipate that the inflationary pressures will rapidly reverse shortly. That means a short war and sanctions lifted quickly. I just can't see that happening.
No way can tax cuts and deregulation financed by debt create the level of growth needed to balance the books in 3 years.
Borrowing to support CoL measures is. I think, fine, maybe necessary. But you do need to have the CoL measures - not seeing those.
We aren’t borrowing to ensure people in fuel poverty don’t freeze to death
We are borrowing so corporation can pay more out in dividends and so that people earning £30,000 more get a bit more to spend.
It’s utterly insane
I couldn't agree more. Things are getting difficult for normal people - we can't avoid it. But spending a bit of money so vulnerable people are not tipped into outright poverty is humane, sensible and obvious. Why aren't we prioritising on that?
Here’s an interesting thought, you could imagine Sunak leading the Lib Dems.
I don't think so because economically he is v dry.
He is the Thatcherite economics guy not Truss. But unbelievably, and thanks partly to Dacre and co, the members seem to think she is the dry one.
She's gonna spend money we don't have like a sailor on shore leave. Now it is a perfectly respectable economic position to spend money we don't have now using money from the future via debts but it aint exactly Thatcher.
Though first two contributors thought Rishi destroyed Liz.
Two sides of the same coin.
Is it really mansplaining to point out your economic plans are fecking cuckoo land bonkers?
Mansplaining is about how it is done.
I know people are very big on clarity of perjorative terms, so other than subjective interpretation are there clear signs when someone is going from explaining to mansplaining? Especially given like any perjorative it might get overused.
You need to ask yourself, was he more assertive and voluble because he was debating a woman?
If yes, the mansplaining charge has legs.
I'm unsure myself. I'd need to see him up against a male Truss as a control.
Yes, but it would have to be an equally dim male.
Truss cannot be quite as dim as she appears to be, after all she did get into Oxford from what she described as a failing comp.
It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim. I think it is her intellectual rigidity and poor communication skills, but May had those faults too, and didn't come over as dim.
Maybe it’s your inner misogynist?
She doesn’t strike me as at all dim. She seems bright, engaged and capable - and much warmer than May
What did she say that was ‘dim’?
It wasn't me that said she was dim. I did say that she cannot be as dim as she appears to be.
“It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim”
Is what you said. So what did she do or say that comes across as ‘dim’?
The vacuity and economic illiteracy of her arguments.
Either she is dim and doesn't understand, or she is a calculating liar and does understand, and believes that the ends justifies the means to put herself in Number 10.
It seems hypocritical for people who opposed George Osborne's austerity policies on the basis that the national debt wasn't the priority to call Liz Truss economically illiterate for saying the same thing.
I didn't oppose Osborne's austerity. I was very pro-coalition. I think that it should have been slowly relaxed after 2015, but supported it on here at the time.
Though first two contributors thought Rishi destroyed Liz.
Two sides of the same coin.
Is it really mansplaining to point out your economic plans are fecking cuckoo land bonkers?
Mansplaining is about how it is done.
I know people are very big on clarity of perjorative terms, so other than subjective interpretation are there clear signs when someone is going from explaining to mansplaining? Especially given like any perjorative it might get overused.
You need to ask yourself, was he more assertive and voluble because he was debating a woman?
If yes, the mansplaining charge has legs.
I'm unsure myself. I'd need to see him up against a male Truss as a control.
Yes, but it would have to be an equally dim male.
Truss cannot be quite as dim as she appears to be, after all she did get into Oxford from what she described as a failing comp.
It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim. I think it is her intellectual rigidity and poor communication skills, but May had those faults too, and didn't come over as dim.
Maybe it’s your inner misogynist?
She doesn’t strike me as at all dim. She seems bright, engaged and capable - and much warmer than May
What did she say that was ‘dim’?
It wasn't me that said she was dim. I did say that she cannot be as dim as she appears to be.
“It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim”
Is what you said. So what did she do or say that comes across as ‘dim’?
The vacuity and economic illiteracy of her arguments.
Either she is dim and doesn't understand, or she is a calculating liar and does understand, and believes that the ends justifies the means to put herself in Number 10.
Fair enough. Can you cite one of these vacuous and ‘illiterate’ arguments?
I watched the debate closely - I’m genuinely undecided. I did not hear any such howlers (from either side)
She seems to believe that borrowing for tax cuts is not inflationary, nor will it drive up interest rates.
I felt she defended that contentious point quite well. Didn’t see ‘dimness’
Though first two contributors thought Rishi destroyed Liz.
Two sides of the same coin.
Is it really mansplaining to point out your economic plans are fecking cuckoo land bonkers?
Mansplaining is about how it is done.
I know people are very big on clarity of perjorative terms, so other than subjective interpretation are there clear signs when someone is going from explaining to mansplaining? Especially given like any perjorative it might get overused.
You need to ask yourself, was he more assertive and voluble because he was debating a woman?
If yes, the mansplaining charge has legs.
I'm unsure myself. I'd need to see him up against a male Truss as a control.
Yes, but it would have to be an equally dim male.
Truss cannot be quite as dim as she appears to be, after all she did get into Oxford from what she described as a failing comp.
It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim. I think it is her intellectual rigidity and poor communication skills, but May had those faults too, and didn't come over as dim.
Personally I’m not sure she comes across as dim per se. I think she suffers from a lack of fluidity in speech: anyone can suffer from this including intelligent people - you can have a good mind but find it hard to connect the dots in a way that you can speak dynamically. It can make you come across as tentative and lacking in confidence and I could see how that could also be interpreted as a lack of intelligence in some people.
No offence, but if this is the case what the feck is she doing at the very front line of politics?
Strikes me that Chief to the Treasury was an ideal position and everything else has been classic Peter principle.
In general, I think people under-estimate how much fun you must have as a very senior politician. We all say ‘oh god who would want the scrutiny, pressure and hassle’ and fair enough, but if you can cope with that - or even thrive on it - then being a senior minister or PM must be a blast
Thatch describes it well in her memoirs. Finding the job consistently absorbing, compelling, surprising - surrounded by brilliant people and remarkable events - plus you get all the status. Big country house. Police everywhere. Lots of groveling
What matches that? Portillo doing trains for the Beeb? Miliband doing refugees in NYC? I just don’t see it. Only if you are finished or need the money would you accept the lesser job. Sunak is neither finished nor impoverished
Wait: I thought you were surrounded by civil servants.
I wonder if Sunak declining to give Truss any advice at the end was a kind of concession of defeat. He's already playing for second and trying to defend his record as Chancellor with dignity.
Though first two contributors thought Rishi destroyed Liz.
Two sides of the same coin.
Is it really mansplaining to point out your economic plans are fecking cuckoo land bonkers?
Mansplaining is about how it is done.
I know people are very big on clarity of perjorative terms, so other than subjective interpretation are there clear signs when someone is going from explaining to mansplaining? Especially given like any perjorative it might get overused.
You need to ask yourself, was he more assertive and voluble because he was debating a woman?
If yes, the mansplaining charge has legs.
I'm unsure myself. I'd need to see him up against a male Truss as a control.
Yes, but it would have to be an equally dim male.
Truss cannot be quite as dim as she appears to be, after all she did get into Oxford from what she described as a failing comp.
It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim. I think it is her intellectual rigidity and poor communication skills, but May had those faults too, and didn't come over as dim.
Personally I’m not sure she comes across as dim per se. I think she suffers from a lack of fluidity in speech: anyone can suffer from this including intelligent people - you can have a good mind but find it hard to connect the dots in a way that you can speak dynamically. It can make you come across as tentative and lacking in confidence and I could see how that could also be interpreted as a lack of intelligence in some people.
No offence, but if this is the case what the feck is she doing at the very front line of politics?
Strikes me that Chief to the Treasury was an ideal position and everything else has been classic Peter principle.
Completely agree with you - I’ve said before she strikes me as a policy wonk not a frontline (and certainly not a senior) politician. But here we are.
Though first two contributors thought Rishi destroyed Liz.
Two sides of the same coin.
Is it really mansplaining to point out your economic plans are fecking cuckoo land bonkers?
Mansplaining is about how it is done.
I know people are very big on clarity of perjorative terms, so other than subjective interpretation are there clear signs when someone is going from explaining to mansplaining? Especially given like any perjorative it might get overused.
You need to ask yourself, was he more assertive and voluble because he was debating a woman?
If yes, the mansplaining charge has legs.
I'm unsure myself. I'd need to see him up against a male Truss as a control.
Yes, but it would have to be an equally dim male.
Truss cannot be quite as dim as she appears to be, after all she did get into Oxford from what she described as a failing comp.
It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim. I think it is her intellectual rigidity and poor communication skills, but May had those faults too, and didn't come over as dim.
Maybe it’s your inner misogynist?
She doesn’t strike me as at all dim. She seems bright, engaged and capable - and much warmer than May
What did she say that was ‘dim’?
It wasn't me that said she was dim. I did say that she cannot be as dim as she appears to be.
“It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim”
Is what you said. So what did she do or say that comes across as ‘dim’?
The vacuity and economic illiteracy of her arguments.
Either she is dim and doesn't understand, or she is a calculating liar and does understand, and believes that the ends justifies the means to put herself in Number 10.
It seems hypocritical for people who opposed George Osborne's austerity policies on the basis that the national debt wasn't the priority to call Liz Truss economically illiterate for saying the same thing.
I didn't oppose Osborne's austerity. I was very pro-coalition. I think that it should have been slowly relaxed after 2015, but supported it on here at the time.
I was pro austerity too but not of the Osborne variety. Too skewed at those who could least afford it.
I wonder if Sunak declining to give Truss any advice at the end was a kind of concession of defeat. He's already playing for second and trying to defend his record as Chancellor with dignity.
Yes. Felt that way to me, too. Which is why I think he MIGHT take a senior job in her Cabinet
Sadly for Sunak, Parris seems to represent a type of Tory that is no longer very common in the new semi-GOP version of the party.
Didn't Sunak win the MP ballot? At least a third of the party must support him, and many of the rest are just scratching an itch for perceived change after their experience of Johnson.
Though first two contributors thought Rishi destroyed Liz.
Two sides of the same coin.
Is it really mansplaining to point out your economic plans are fecking cuckoo land bonkers?
Mansplaining is about how it is done.
I know people are very big on clarity of perjorative terms, so other than subjective interpretation are there clear signs when someone is going from explaining to mansplaining? Especially given like any perjorative it might get overused.
You need to ask yourself, was he more assertive and voluble because he was debating a woman?
If yes, the mansplaining charge has legs.
I'm unsure myself. I'd need to see him up against a male Truss as a control.
Yes, but it would have to be an equally dim male.
Truss cannot be quite as dim as she appears to be, after all she did get into Oxford from what she described as a failing comp.
It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim. I think it is her intellectual rigidity and poor communication skills, but May had those faults too, and didn't come over as dim.
Personally I’m not sure she comes across as dim per se. I think she suffers from a lack of fluidity in speech: anyone can suffer from this including intelligent people - you can have a good mind but find it hard to connect the dots in a way that you can speak dynamically. It can make you come across as tentative and lacking in confidence and I could see how that could also be interpreted as a lack of intelligence in some people.
No offence, but if this is the case what the feck is she doing at the very front line of politics?
Strikes me that Chief to the Treasury was an ideal position and everything else has been classic Peter principle.
Completely agree with you - I’ve said before she strikes me as a policy wonk not a frontline (and certainly not a senior) politician. But here we are.
How on earth have the Tories got themselves into this mess?
She'll be a disaster and about as popular on the swing vote doorsteps as a covid variant.
Though first two contributors thought Rishi destroyed Liz.
Two sides of the same coin.
Is it really mansplaining to point out your economic plans are fecking cuckoo land bonkers?
Mansplaining is about how it is done.
I know people are very big on clarity of perjorative terms, so other than subjective interpretation are there clear signs when someone is going from explaining to mansplaining? Especially given like any perjorative it might get overused.
You need to ask yourself, was he more assertive and voluble because he was debating a woman?
If yes, the mansplaining charge has legs.
I'm unsure myself. I'd need to see him up against a male Truss as a control.
Yes, but it would have to be an equally dim male.
Truss cannot be quite as dim as she appears to be, after all she did get into Oxford from what she described as a failing comp.
It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim. I think it is her intellectual rigidity and poor communication skills, but May had those faults too, and didn't come over as dim.
Personally I’m not sure she comes across as dim per se. I think she suffers from a lack of fluidity in speech: anyone can suffer from this including intelligent people - you can have a good mind but find it hard to connect the dots in a way that you can speak dynamically. It can make you come across as tentative and lacking in confidence and I could see how that could also be interpreted as a lack of intelligence in some people.
No offence, but if this is the case what the feck is she doing at the very front line of politics?
Strikes me that Chief to the Treasury was an ideal position and everything else has been classic Peter principle.
Completely agree with you - I’ve said before she strikes me as a policy wonk not a frontline (and certainly not a senior) politician. But here we are.
How on earth have the Tories got themselves into this mess?
She'll be a disaster and about as popular on the swing vote doorsteps as a covid variant.
And yet, the first polls say completely the opposite
I wonder if Sunak declining to give Truss any advice at the end was a kind of concession of defeat. He's already playing for second and trying to defend his record as Chancellor with dignity.
Yes. Felt that way to me, too. Which is why I think he MIGHT take a senior job in her Cabinet
Doubt she will offer one. She doesn't strike me as a cabinet of all the talents person.
But he would be wise to hang around until next summer and the next leadership contest.
In general, I think people under-estimate how much fun you must have as a very senior politician. We all say ‘oh god who would want the scrutiny, pressure and hassle’ and fair enough, but if you can cope with that - or even thrive on it - then being a senior minister or PM must be a blast
Thatch describes it well in her memoirs. Finding the job consistently absorbing, compelling, surprising - surrounded by brilliant people and remarkable events - plus you get all the status. Big country house. Police everywhere. Lots of groveling
What matches that? Portillo doing trains for the Beeb? Miliband doing refugees in NYC? I just don’t see it. Only if you are finished or need the money would you accept the lesser job. Sunak is neither finished nor impoverished
Terrible toll on family though.
And at the very top you are basically signing up to having police armed protection within yards for the rest of your days.
@RoryStewartUK And again Liz Truss keeps saying Levelling up and recession is personal to her because she experienced the pain or the 1980s and 90s in Paisley and Leeds. But somehow she doesn’t seem to be mentioning that was a period of conservative government.
For all their constant references to the Eighties, surely neither could usefully remember them and analyse them. Sunak wasn't even born when Thatcher moved into number 10. He was in nappies when inflation was being squeezed out by her monetarist policy. Truss was 4 when Thatcher was elected, perhaps starting primary school at the height of the battle with inflation.
They may well have read of what went on, but neither are credible primary witnesses of what went on, good or bad.
Which is probably why she as absolutely no idea what Thatcher actually stood for economically.
@RoryStewartUK And again Liz Truss keeps saying Levelling up and recession is personal to her because she experienced the pain or the 1980s and 90s in Paisley and Leeds. But somehow she doesn’t seem to be mentioning that was a period of conservative government.
It's even worse than Rory says as a comment since the 1980s and early 1990s were not just a conservative government - it was a Thatcher/Lawson government which is the one she claims to worship and emulate the most (followed by mini-thatcher economics of Major/Clarke at the tail end).
In general, I think people under-estimate how much fun you must have as a very senior politician. We all say ‘oh god who would want the scrutiny, pressure and hassle’ and fair enough, but if you can cope with that - or even thrive on it - then being a senior minister or PM must be a blast
Thatch describes it well in her memoirs. Finding the job consistently absorbing, compelling, surprising - surrounded by brilliant people and remarkable events - plus you get all the status. Big country house. Police everywhere. Lots of groveling
What matches that? Portillo doing trains for the Beeb? Miliband doing refugees in NYC? I just don’t see it. Only if you are finished or need the money would you accept the lesser job. Sunak is neither finished nor impoverished
Terrible toll on family though.
And at the very top you are basically signing up to having police armed protection within yards for the rest of your days.
And also - for the entirely theoretical notion - of witnessing the Mail's moral dilemma if it should have helped put Betty Whiplash into Downing Street.
Also makes for an interesting dilemma for other newspapers sitting on this theoretical story - do they go early and crash the candidacy? Or wait to see if they can bring down a sitting PM?
I don't quite understand why another six weeks are required - it can't just be the time taken to send and retrieve ballots?
The Commons isn't back until September.
I don't understand the relevance. The new leader could be in place by mid-August if it's just a postal service concern, then call an election on day one, no Commons required.
Comments
Somebody may like to point out to her that the vast majority of people - around 90% I think - either went to a state school and/or send their kids to one. That figure includes rather a lot of Tory voters.
She doesn’t strike me as at all dim. She seems bright, engaged and capable - and much warmer than May
What did she say that was ‘dim’?
They wouldn't be MPs without a certain level of self confidence in their judgement.
No way can tax cuts and deregulation financed by debt create the level of growth needed to balance the books in 3 years.
I have a theory that the BBC News push notification might already be, or in any case will soon become, the single most important thing in news media.
TBF I don't think Labour have a good response on CoL either, but maybe a bit better than Truss.
“It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim”
Is what you said. So what did she do or say that comes across as ‘dim’?
She's been relatively useful post her disaster too. Which is to her credit.
Home Secretary it would have to be in my eyes. Still a Great Office of State, but not FS or CoE. Get rid of the Patel etc too.
So that's the wives gogglebox on this.
Mine still likes Jeremy btw.
Also, be very wary of interpreting voodoo polls of Tory members - the more vocal and easy-to-find ones aren't necessarily representative of the whole. Sunak is more competitive than you might think.
He'll still lose, though. Unless something big drops in the next few weeks.
‘Something big drops’
I understand the drops are big in Helsinki
1: MPs backed him by such a considerable margin it puts pressure on Members to do the same. Many members would follow MP's leads. This didn't happen.
2: Sunak was virtually guaranteed a top 2 spot and if the MPs other choice self-destructed then that would leave him the winner.
Number 2 nearly happened but Mordaunt self-destructed too soon allowing Truss to come through. Had Mordaunt pipped out Truss then I think there'd have been a much greater chance of Sunak defeating Mordaunt.
Either she is dim and doesn't understand, or she is a calculating liar and does understand, and believes that the ends justifies the means to put herself in Number 10.
Teachers used to wander around saying "help, it wasn't like this in the old days" with no idea how to manage the bullying and violence.
He failed all his o levels.
That you disagree with them is politics, it doesn't make her dim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1993_Canadian_federal_election
She was also the last Progressive Conservative PM, today's Conservative Party of Canada is a combination of the 2003 merger of the PCs and the Canadian Alliance/Reform Party, the equivalent of a merger between the UK Conservatives and Farage's RefUK today
Sunak is a bit more consistent.
I watched the debate closely - I’m genuinely undecided. I did not hear any such howlers (from either side)
I suspect this is unpopular view. I don't think Sunak's style will go down well among Con members. Interrupting & combative OK for GE, not Con members. Truss better than expected. Calm, good comebacks, open about flaws, loyal to Johnson. Will go down well in Tory Land #debate
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1551672858383884289
Sunak is still young and ambitious. If he takes a top job he’s still in there, with an exciting career. And the potential to move up
@JuliaHB1
Can someone tell @RishiSunak to stop interrupting @trussliz? She hasn't been able to finish a sentence."
https://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/1551661309162409986
I enjoy the dot watching. The unique paths planned between the 6 checkpoints and the schadenfreude of someone cycling across a continent in a week whilst sleeping in bus stops and shitting in bushes.
https://www.transcontinental.cc/
What other job matches that? And recall he already has all the money he needs - and more
@RoryStewartUK
And again Liz Truss keeps saying Levelling up and recession is personal to her because she experienced the pain or the 1980s and 90s in Paisley and Leeds. But somehow she doesn’t seem to be mentioning that was a period of conservative government.
https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1551666286668795904
Hence Sunak's palpable contempt for her which was probably not to his benefit in a TV debate.
We are borrowing so corporation can pay more out in dividends and so that people earning £30,000 more get a bit more to spend.
It’s utterly insane
They may well have read of what went on, but neither are credible primary witnesses of what went on, good or bad.
Ms Truss is correct that buying solar and wind should not be a separate part of the bill. But I think it's a little misleading not to acknowledge that removing the green levy does not remove the cost of buying the power. (And the need to charge consumers for it.)
Thatch describes it well in her memoirs. Finding the job consistently absorbing, compelling, surprising - surrounded by brilliant people and remarkable events - plus you get all the status. Big country house. Police everywhere. Lots of groveling
What matches that? Portillo doing trains for the Beeb? Miliband doing refugees in NYC? I just don’t see it. Only if you are finished or need the money would you accept the lesser job. Sunak is neither finished nor impoverished
I felt a bit guilty thinking that.
He is the Thatcherite economics guy not Truss. But unbelievably, and thanks partly to Dacre and co, the members seem to think she is the dry one.
She's gonna spend money we don't have like a sailor on shore leave. Now it is a perfectly respectable economic position to spend money we don't have now using money from the future via debts but it aint exactly Thatcher.
Strikes me that Chief to the Treasury was an ideal position and everything else has been classic Peter principle.
Shouty Sunak out to 4.
He's at 4
And I am topping up.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/who-won-the-tory-leadership-debate-our-commentators-verdicts-wmmqzwgnq
She'll be a disaster and about as popular on the swing vote doorsteps as a covid variant.
But he would be wise to hang around until next summer and the next leadership contest.
Who knows. I just think for me 4 represents the value line.
And at the very top you are basically signing up to having police armed protection within yards for the rest of your days.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tories-should-turn-their-backs-on-clacton-j0k5h6zld08
Also makes for an interesting dilemma for other newspapers sitting on this theoretical story - do they go early and crash the candidacy? Or wait to see if they can bring down a sitting PM?
Parris is simply a snob that writes well