The fact that Truss is so open about her sexuality - and stuff the Daily Mail - actually makes me warm to her. She’s her own woman (apart from the times when she’s owned by some Dom)
To be fair the consensus view on PB was that Sunak had missed his chance. I think we were right
Tbf. His main chance was blown. He wouldn't have evicted him a year ago. No way. His big chance was when the FPN came. But he couldn't because he got one too. He's not a lucky general is he?
The fact that Truss is so open about her sexuality - and stuff the Daily Mail - actually makes me warm to her. She’s her own woman (apart from the times when she’s owned by some Dom)
Go, Liz
So who will she be appointing as her ‘chief whip’?
Boris Johnson might not be a January 6th Trump but some of his supporters are.
Just to be safe he needs to be kicked out of parliament by the privileges committee.
Surely the High Court will just tell them to fuck off?
As the US courts did to Trump.
But, regrettably, legal action is no longer seen by some people as about resolving genuine disputes of fact and law, but as a form of campaigning where it isn't the judgment that matters but the perception.
A friend formerly in the Government Legal Service recounts cases where ministers have been advised that their legal case is hopeless, but they pursue it anyway. They actively prefer to be blocked by the courts (even at substantial cost to the taxpayer, and with the delay and inconvenience essentially vexatious cases bring) than to get the policy right as one might hope if one gives a sh1t about the rule of law.
Governments have always lost cases at court of course, but there's a world of difference between losing on balance with a reasonable legal and factual argument and wasting court time - between unsuccessful litigants and vexatious ones.
The reaction to losses has also changed massively. There was a fairly standard response of, "We thank the judge for their careful consideration, and will read the judgment in detail before deciding next steps". Now they turn their fire on the judges - witness Johnson's parting shot at Baroness Hale (a swipe given an air of casual sexism as well given Hale was just one of nine judges who unanimously found against Johnson's illegal prorogation).
She was president of the supreme court and is therefore the person most closely associated with that bullshit judgement.
It was a unanimous judgement of the full court (minus one, to ensure an odd number). Essentially it limited Government power, which the court is well within its rights to decide issues of. If Johnson, or any prime minister, wishes to prorogue parliament for any reason all they need to do is seek Parliament's consent and the court cannot and will not touch it. In our constitutional system Parliament is sovereign. Indeed many Brexiters voted, under the misapprehension that it wasn't, to make it so.
Thank you, at least, for accepting that the judgement changed the rules retrospectively. The consent of Parliament had never been needed for prorogation.
It was a bullshit judgement that interpreted a written law as meaning the exact opposite of what it said.
I mean we can start dancing on the head of a pin with regards to the meaning of retrospective change, but your implication is that any case that results in the development of common law would be retrospective. That is technically the case. It's not the same as enforcing the law retrospectively. The Court didn't insist that Atlee, or Major answer for what would have been unlawful prorogation.
I confess I'm not entirely sure how the court interpreted a written law as meaning the exact opposite of what it said. The power used to prorogue is royal prerogative rather than statutory (though I'm reaching the limits of my understanding here, and I suppose some prerogative powers might be found in statute) and was notoriously vague. All the court said was that you can't prorogue for no reason and that you certainly can't prorogue just because it is convenient.
If she pushes through immediate tax cuts, what does she have to offer the electorate at the GE?
Perhaps Sunak was being too clever by half, but at least he had a reasonably viable plan to win the next GE. Truss has spotted an open goal which will probably score her the leadership, but then what?
Conservative thinking used to be about the long term. The horizon has been shortening ever since 2010.
Now it’s just immediate tax cuts, fuck the economy, fuck the grandchildren.
The fact that Truss is so open about her sexuality - and stuff the Daily Mail - actually makes me warm to her. She’s her own woman (apart from the times when she’s owned by some Dom)
Go, Liz
So who will she be appointing as her ‘chief whip’?
When this percolates into public consciousness the jokes will be endless
Its over, she obliterated him on every issue according to the polled panel
Frankly I think it was over as soon as she was into the final two.
Hes too rich for straitened times. Too rich. I deeply regret that in Liz we Truss
I think he went too late. He'd have won easily a year ago
I am not sure about a year ago, but when Partygate broke in late January in the wake of Paterson a couple of months earlier, he would have stolen a march on his rivals.
To be fair the consensus view on PB was that Sunak had missed his chance. I think we were right
Tbf. His main chance was blown. He wouldn't have evicted him a year ago. No way. His big chance was when the FPN came. But he couldn't because he got one too. He's not a lucky general is he?
He was I think, inflated by his apparent popularity. All those "most popular chancellor since Brown" headlines and the like.
The problem - as I said at the time - was that he was popular because we were in a unique crisis and he was giving money away.
It was evident he lacked political sense when he announced the stupid Eat Out To Help Out. That didn't do for his popularity but it was a sign of what was to come. Then it was all really downhill from there.
He doesn't have much political ability. In a sense I think Truss actually has more.
The fact that Truss is so open about her sexuality - and stuff the Daily Mail - actually makes me warm to her. She’s her own woman (apart from the times when she’s owned by some Dom)
Go, Liz
Im now going to be disappointed if she doesnt present Welby in a gimp suit at a presser
Boris Johnson might not be a January 6th Trump but some of his supporters are.
Just to be safe he needs to be kicked out of parliament by the privileges committee.
Surely the High Court will just tell them to fuck off?
As the US courts did to Trump.
But, regrettably, legal action is no longer seen by some people as about resolving genuine disputes of fact and law, but as a form of campaigning where it isn't the judgment that matters but the perception.
A friend formerly in the Government Legal Service recounts cases where ministers have been advised that their legal case is hopeless, but they pursue it anyway. They actively prefer to be blocked by the courts (even at substantial cost to the taxpayer, and with the delay and inconvenience essentially vexatious cases bring) than to get the policy right as one might hope if one gives a sh1t about the rule of law.
Governments have always lost cases at court of course, but there's a world of difference between losing on balance with a reasonable legal and factual argument and wasting court time - between unsuccessful litigants and vexatious ones.
The reaction to losses has also changed massively. There was a fairly standard response of, "We thank the judge for their careful consideration, and will read the judgment in detail before deciding next steps". Now they turn their fire on the judges - witness Johnson's parting shot at Baroness Hale (a swipe given an air of casual sexism as well given Hale was just one of nine judges who unanimously found against Johnson's illegal prorogation).
She was president of the supreme court and is therefore the person most closely associated with that bullshit judgement.
It was a unanimous judgement of the full court (minus one, to ensure an odd number). Essentially it limited Government power, which the court is well within its rights to decide issues of. If Johnson, or any prime minister, wishes to prorogue parliament for any reason all they need to do is seek Parliament's consent and the court cannot and will not touch it. In our constitutional system Parliament is sovereign. Indeed many Brexiters voted, under the misapprehension that it wasn't, to make it so.
Thank you, at least, for accepting that the judgement changed the rules retrospectively. The consent of Parliament had never been needed for prorogation.
It was a bullshit judgement that interpreted a written law as meaning the exact opposite of what it said.
I mean we can start dancing on the head of a pin with regards to the meaning of retrospective change, but your implication is that any case that results in the development of common law would be retrospective. That is technically the case. It's not the same as enforcing the law retrospectively. The Court didn't insist that Atlee, or Major answer for what would have been unlawful prorogation.
I confess I'm not entirely sure how the court interpreted a written law as meaning the exact opposite of what it said. The power used to prorogue is royal prerogative rather than statutory (though I'm reaching the limits of my understanding here, and I suppose some prerogative powers might be found in statute) and was notoriously vague. All the court said was that you can't prorogue for no reason and that you certainly can't prorogue just because it is convenient.
If it had been a Labour Government led by Corbyn we would not have had any of this opposition to the court's decision
Its over, she obliterated him on every issue according to the polled panel
Frankly I think it was over as soon as she was into the final two.
Hes too rich for straitened times. Too rich. I deeply regret that in Liz we Truss
I think he went too late. He'd have won easily a year ago
I am not sure about a year ago, but when Partygate broke in late January in the wake of Paterson a couple of months earlier, he would have stolen a march on his rivals.
To be fair the consensus view on PB was that Sunak had missed his chance. I think we were right
Tbf. His main chance was blown. He wouldn't have evicted him a year ago. No way. His big chance was when the FPN came. But he couldn't because he got one too. He's not a lucky general is he?
He was I think, inflated by his apparent popularity. All those "most popular chancellor since Brown" headlines and the like.
The problem - as I said at the time - was that he was popular because we were in a unique crisis and he was giving money away.
It was evident he lacked political sense when he announced the stupid Eat Out To Help Out. That didn't do for his popularity but it was a sign of what was to come. Then it was all really downhill from there.
He doesn't have much political ability. In a sense I think Truss actually has more.
The failed spring statement and lack of help it offered was a key moment too
President Joe Biden’s administration is downplaying data due this week that could show the US economy contracted for a second straight quarter -- a development that would match one standard definition of a recession.
The administration’s message: what’s often called a “technical recession” isn’t necessarily a real one.
That is some proper alternative facts stuff there. Yes I know the economists don't like the simplistic idea of recession just anytime being two quarters of negative growth, but it is pretty much established convention in terms of political parlance that when it happens you have to fess up and say its a recession. Them the breaks.
To be fair the consensus view on PB was that Sunak had missed his chance. I think we were right
Tbf. His main chance was blown. He wouldn't have evicted him a year ago. No way. His big chance was when the FPN came. But he couldn't because he got one too. He's not a lucky general is he?
He was I think, inflated by his apparent popularity. All those "most popular chancellor since Brown" headlines and the like.
The problem - as I said at the time - was that he was popular because we were in a unique crisis and he was giving money away.
It was evident he lacked political sense when he announced the stupid Eat Out To Help Out. That didn't do for his popularity but it was a sign of what was to come. Then it was all really downhill from there.
He doesn't have much political ability. In a sense I think Truss actually has more.
The window for the "obvious successor" can often be very fleeting. We can overlook this, because Heseltine, Brown, Osborne held the mantle for so long. But there wasn't a vacancy during those years. Noticeably, two of them never got it and the other wasn't much cop when he did.
Top tip for the Tories - hammer on Starmer dropping his leadership pledges yesterday, it negates any labour hypocrisy on new PM changing direction/u turns etc You know, instead of putting potatoes up your own exhaust pipes
President Joe Biden’s administration is downplaying data due this week that could show the US economy contracted for a second straight quarter -- a development that would match one standard definition of a recession.
The administration’s message: what’s often called a “technical recession” isn’t necessarily a real one.
That is some proper alternative facts stuff there. Yes I know the economists don't like the idea of recession just being two quarters of negative growth, but it is pretty much established convention in terms of political parlance.
It's not hard to imagine the mockery if Trump tried to redefine a recession to avoid negative news.
President Joe Biden’s administration is downplaying data due this week that could show the US economy contracted for a second straight quarter -- a development that would match one standard definition of a recession.
The administration’s message: what’s often called a “technical recession” isn’t necessarily a real one.
That is some proper alternative facts stuff there. Yes I know the economists don't like the idea of recession just being two quarters of negative growth, but it is pretty much established convention in terms of political parlance that when it happens you have to say its a recession.
Yes, that’s a recession
Any other spin is like some vandal saying “technically, yes, I chucked a brick through the window. But only technically”
President Joe Biden’s administration is downplaying data due this week that could show the US economy contracted for a second straight quarter -- a development that would match one standard definition of a recession.
The administration’s message: what’s often called a “technical recession” isn’t necessarily a real one.
That is some proper alternative facts stuff there. Yes I know the economists don't like the simplistic idea of recession just anytime being two quarters of negative growth, but it is pretty much established convention in terms of political parlance that when it happens you have to fess up and say its a recession. Them the breaks.
We're in for a tough year then, where the US goes we will surely follow
The fact that Truss is so open about her sexuality - and stuff the Daily Mail - actually makes me warm to her. She’s her own woman (apart from the times when she’s owned by some Dom)
Go, Liz
So who will she be appointing as her ‘chief whip’?
Top tip for the Tories - hammer on Starmer dropping his leadership pledges yesterday, it negates any labour hypocrisy on new PM changing direction/u turns etc You know, instead of putting potatoes up your own exhaust pipes
They tried this with Blair in 1997 and it really didn't go down too well. Of course Blair was better at responding.
Starmer has a simple response, I have moved the Labour Party away from losing and unpopularity to being able to build broad support. He could also say that Truss voted six times for tax rises she now claims to oppose
President Joe Biden’s administration is downplaying data due this week that could show the US economy contracted for a second straight quarter -- a development that would match one standard definition of a recession.
The administration’s message: what’s often called a “technical recession” isn’t necessarily a real one.
That is some proper alternative facts stuff there. Yes I know the economists don't like the simplistic idea of recession just anytime being two quarters of negative growth, but it is pretty much established convention in terms of political parlance that when it happens you have to fess up and say its a recession. Them the breaks.
Saw that one overnight. Oh, so it’s not really a recession, even if it matches the definition we’ve used for decades as being a recession. Fake News!
President Joe Biden’s administration is downplaying data due this week that could show the US economy contracted for a second straight quarter -- a development that would match one standard definition of a recession.
The administration’s message: what’s often called a “technical recession” isn’t necessarily a real one.
That is some proper alternative facts stuff there. Yes I know the economists don't like the idea of recession just being two quarters of negative growth, but it is pretty much established convention in terms of political parlance.
It's not hard to imagine the mockery if Trump tried to redefine a recession to avoid negative news.
Would have kept CNN going for a good 7 days at least.
President Joe Biden’s administration is downplaying data due this week that could show the US economy contracted for a second straight quarter -- a development that would match one standard definition of a recession.
The administration’s message: what’s often called a “technical recession” isn’t necessarily a real one.
That is some proper alternative facts stuff there. Yes I know the economists don't like the simplistic idea of recession just anytime being two quarters of negative growth, but it is pretty much established convention in terms of political parlance that when it happens you have to fess up and say its a recession. Them the breaks.
We're in for a tough year then, where the US goes we will surely follow
The debate isn't if this year will be tough, it is how many years.....
President Joe Biden’s administration is downplaying data due this week that could show the US economy contracted for a second straight quarter -- a development that would match one standard definition of a recession.
The administration’s message: what’s often called a “technical recession” isn’t necessarily a real one.
That is some proper alternative facts stuff there. Yes I know the economists don't like the simplistic idea of recession just anytime being two quarters of negative growth, but it is pretty much established convention in terms of political parlance that when it happens you have to fess up and say its a recession. Them the breaks.
Saw that one overnight. Oh, so it’s not really a recession, even if it matches the definition we’ve used for decades as being a recession. Fake News!
These are from the same people who said don't worry about us running the money printing presses 24/7, airdropping crazy amounts of money that was poorly targeted, because the west has "solved inflation"....its just transitory....its erhhhh.....
When I heard Biden's advisor saying the no more boom and bust, I mean inflation is solved, 18 months ago, you know where we were heading.
Boris Johnson might not be a January 6th Trump but some of his supporters are.
Just to be safe he needs to be kicked out of parliament by the privileges committee.
Surely the High Court will just tell them to fuck off?
As the US courts did to Trump.
But, regrettably, legal action is no longer seen by some people as about resolving genuine disputes of fact and law, but as a form of campaigning where it isn't the judgment that matters but the perception.
A friend formerly in the Government Legal Service recounts cases where ministers have been advised that their legal case is hopeless, but they pursue it anyway. They actively prefer to be blocked by the courts (even at substantial cost to the taxpayer, and with the delay and inconvenience essentially vexatious cases bring) than to get the policy right as one might hope if one gives a sh1t about the rule of law.
Governments have always lost cases at court of course, but there's a world of difference between losing on balance with a reasonable legal and factual argument and wasting court time - between unsuccessful litigants and vexatious ones.
The reaction to losses has also changed massively. There was a fairly standard response of, "We thank the judge for their careful consideration, and will read the judgment in detail before deciding next steps". Now they turn their fire on the judges - witness Johnson's parting shot at Baroness Hale (a swipe given an air of casual sexism as well given Hale was just one of nine judges who unanimously found against Johnson's illegal prorogation).
She was president of the supreme court and is therefore the person most closely associated with that bullshit judgement.
It was a unanimous judgement of the full court (minus one, to ensure an odd number). Essentially it limited Government power, which the court is well within its rights to decide issues of. If Johnson, or any prime minister, wishes to prorogue parliament for any reason all they need to do is seek Parliament's consent and the court cannot and will not touch it. In our constitutional system Parliament is sovereign. Indeed many Brexiters voted, under the misapprehension that it wasn't, to make it so.
Thank you, at least, for accepting that the judgement changed the rules retrospectively. The consent of Parliament had never been needed for prorogation.
It was a bullshit judgement that interpreted a written law as meaning the exact opposite of what it said.
I mean we can start dancing on the head of a pin with regards to the meaning of retrospective change, but your implication is that any case that results in the development of common law would be retrospective. That is technically the case. It's not the same as enforcing the law retrospectively. The Court didn't insist that Atlee, or Major answer for what would have been unlawful prorogation.
I confess I'm not entirely sure how the court interpreted a written law as meaning the exact opposite of what it said. The power used to prorogue is royal prerogative rather than statutory (though I'm reaching the limits of my understanding here, and I suppose some prerogative powers might be found in statute) and was notoriously vague. All the court said was that you can't prorogue for no reason and that you certainly can't prorogue just because it is convenient.
If it had been a Labour Government led by Corbyn we would not have had any of this opposition to the court's decision
No.
But if a prorogation had been useful to *stop* BREXIT, the advocates of it would now be banging on about the Law Of The Land, and Remainers complaining about the courts interfering with the executive.
It’s a bit like polls. The constitutional outrages are always the decisions you disagree with.
President Joe Biden’s administration is downplaying data due this week that could show the US economy contracted for a second straight quarter -- a development that would match one standard definition of a recession.
The administration’s message: what’s often called a “technical recession” isn’t necessarily a real one.
That is some proper alternative facts stuff there. Yes I know the economists don't like the idea of recession just being two quarters of negative growth, but it is pretty much established convention in terms of political parlance that when it happens you have to say its a recession.
Yes, that’s a recession
Any other spin is like some vandal saying “technically, yes, I chucked a brick through the window. But only technically”
Financial pain during a technical recession is famously illusory of course. Rumbling stomachs and freezing in winter are equal to or greater than You've never had it so good.
President Joe Biden’s administration is downplaying data due this week that could show the US economy contracted for a second straight quarter -- a development that would match one standard definition of a recession.
The administration’s message: what’s often called a “technical recession” isn’t necessarily a real one.
That is some proper alternative facts stuff there. Yes I know the economists don't like the idea of recession just being two quarters of negative growth, but it is pretty much established convention in terms of political parlance that when it happens you have to say its a recession.
Yes, that’s a recession
Any other spin is like some vandal saying “technically, yes, I chucked a brick through the window. But only technically”
Financial pain during a technical recession is famously illusory of course. Rumbling stomachs and freezing in winter are equal to or greater than You've never had it so good.
Top tip for the Tories - hammer on Starmer dropping his leadership pledges yesterday, it negates any labour hypocrisy on new PM changing direction/u turns etc You know, instead of putting potatoes up your own exhaust pipes
They tried this with Blair in 1997 and it really didn't go down too well. Of course Blair was better at responding.
Starmer has a simple response, I have moved the Labour Party away from losing and unpopularity to being able to build broad support. He could also say that Truss voted six times for tax rises she now claims to oppose
He has u turned in his leadership election pledges. However much he can justify it, its the sort of thing those opposed to him should make hay with. You dont need to convince everyone, just sow doubt in the minds of some. As with all things in the great game. Its a shot at goal, take it
President Joe Biden’s administration is downplaying data due this week that could show the US economy contracted for a second straight quarter -- a development that would match one standard definition of a recession.
The administration’s message: what’s often called a “technical recession” isn’t necessarily a real one.
That is some proper alternative facts stuff there. Yes I know the economists don't like the idea of recession just being two quarters of negative growth, but it is pretty much established convention in terms of political parlance that when it happens you have to say its a recession.
Yes, that’s a recession
Any other spin is like some vandal saying “technically, yes, I chucked a brick through the window. But only technically”
Financial pain during a technical recession is famously illusory of course. Rumbling stomachs and freezing in winter are equal to or greater than You've never had it so good.
He will end up sub 20 approval.
“Your children are only technically hungry”
"Technically refueling a car has never been cheaper if you own a Tesla."
President Joe Biden’s administration is downplaying data due this week that could show the US economy contracted for a second straight quarter -- a development that would match one standard definition of a recession.
The administration’s message: what’s often called a “technical recession” isn’t necessarily a real one.
That is some proper alternative facts stuff there. Yes I know the economists don't like the idea of recession just being two quarters of negative growth, but it is pretty much established convention in terms of political parlance that when it happens you have to say its a recession.
Yes, that’s a recession
Any other spin is like some vandal saying “technically, yes, I chucked a brick through the window. But only technically”
Financial pain during a technical recession is famously illusory of course. Rumbling stomachs and freezing in winter are equal to or greater than You've never had it so good.
He will end up sub 20 approval.
As RCS points out though, the dems are holding their own in the November mid terms, especially the senate.
Top tip for the Tories - hammer on Starmer dropping his leadership pledges yesterday, it negates any labour hypocrisy on new PM changing direction/u turns etc You know, instead of putting potatoes up your own exhaust pipes
They tried this with Blair in 1997 and it really didn't go down too well. Of course Blair was better at responding.
Starmer has a simple response, I have moved the Labour Party away from losing and unpopularity to being able to build broad support. He could also say that Truss voted six times for tax rises she now claims to oppose
So many of the PB faithful don't really understand how incumbency works. If Truss pulls us out of economic Armageddon she wins. I can't see that happening myself. This means with a LOTO that doesn't scare the horses, Labour are in with a shout for most seats. All the populist culture wars, racial bigotry and hangin' and flogin' in the world won't change that.
In case anyone missed it (I posted it at about 2am)
Which raises the question: does she not care? Took me 2 mins to google that
Is she trolling?
On the upside, looks like we’re about to have our first kinkster prime minister (I am discounting the lurid rumours about Pitt the Younger)
Maybe she's been trolled, if she'd been given it as a gift and hadn't looked to see where it was bought from.
No, she knows exactly what it means. Her dress also had bondage motifs - overt, egregious lacing on the sides
She’s a kinkster
Does anyone care? It's not even exotic now every woman in the land has read 50 Shades. The last guy (who may or may not have resigned) has a history of screwing the hired help so Liz will be the second prime minister in a row who likes sex.
Top tip for the Tories - hammer on Starmer dropping his leadership pledges yesterday, it negates any labour hypocrisy on new PM changing direction/u turns etc You know, instead of putting potatoes up your own exhaust pipes
They tried this with Blair in 1997 and it really didn't go down too well. Of course Blair was better at responding.
Starmer has a simple response, I have moved the Labour Party away from losing and unpopularity to being able to build broad support. He could also say that Truss voted six times for tax rises she now claims to oppose
So many of the PB faithful don't really understand how incumbency works. If Truss pulls us out of economic Armageddon she wins. I can't see that happening myself. This means with a LOTO that doesn't scare the horses, Labour are in with a shout for most seats. All the populist culture wars, racial bigotry and hangin' and flogin' in the world won't change that.
We are in 2007 at the moment. New Gordon Brown will surely get a bounce but if the economy ends up in the toilet it doesn't matter. 12 years in Government.
Many tory MPs must be shocked to the core by the way this contest is shaping up
I'd have thought the Boris loyalists would be broadly happy that Truss is whupping Sunak ?
Two thirds did not even want Truss in the final two though. I'm sure all those would have happily settled for Rishi in the end.
Now they are watching that candidate really struggle....?
Boris had to go. It doesn't really matter who was next up, Liz Truss or Sunak are both perfectly adequate, and big improvements on the outgoing holder to hold the much debased (I'm afraid by Boris) office of Prime Minister. We don't have Rees Mogg or Dorries heading toward the leadership. Even if it was Dorries or Mogg heading toward No 10 that wouldn't have meant Boris could have stayed on.
In case anyone missed it (I posted it at about 2am)
Which raises the question: does she not care? Took me 2 mins to google that
Is she trolling?
On the upside, looks like we’re about to have our first kinkster prime minister (I am discounting the lurid rumours about Pitt the Younger)
Maybe she's been trolled, if she'd been given it as a gift and hadn't looked to see where it was bought from.
No, she knows exactly what it means. Her dress also had bondage motifs - overt, egregious lacing on the sides
She’s a kinkster
Does anyone care? It's not even exotic now every woman in the land has read 50 Shades. The last guy (who may or may not have resigned) has a history of screwing the hired help so Liz will be the second prime minister in a row who likes sex.
Do I “care”? Not really. Being of the same world I approve, if anything
Do I absolutely love juicy gossip, especially about sex? YES. And so does 98% of humanity. It’s a universal trait
Genuine question, if Truss reverses the BoJo economic policies, isn't that the elderly care plan dumped?
What 'elderly care plan'? There never was one. It was just Boris doing his usual trick of announcing that he's solved a problem without actually doing anything at all.
Genuine question, if Truss reverses the BoJo economic policies, isn't that the elderly care plan dumped?
What 'elderly care plan'? There never was one. It was just Boris doing his usual trick of announcing that he's solved a problem without actually doing anything at all.
There's a cap for care which should allow an insurance market to be formed around that now incoming ?
Anyone asked Truss why she's opposing policies she voted for just weeks ago?
Surely her answer is collective cabinet responsibility?
But this seems to be a fundamental ideological difference?
I think Starmer probably IS in favour of much of Corbyn's economic programme, much as I think Blair is too. But they dismiss them for electability reasons.
President Joe Biden’s administration is downplaying data due this week that could show the US economy contracted for a second straight quarter -- a development that would match one standard definition of a recession.
The administration’s message: what’s often called a “technical recession” isn’t necessarily a real one.
That is some proper alternative facts stuff there. Yes I know the economists don't like the simplistic idea of recession just anytime being two quarters of negative growth, but it is pretty much established convention in terms of political parlance that when it happens you have to fess up and say its a recession. Them the breaks.
Saw that one overnight. Oh, so it’s not really a recession, even if it matches the definition we’ve used for decades as being a recession. Fake News!
These are from the same people who said don't worry about us running the money printing presses 24/7, airdropping crazy amounts of money that was poorly targeted, because the west has "solved inflation"....its just transitory....its erhhhh.....
When I heard Biden's advisor saying the no more boom and bust, I mean inflation is solved, 18 months ago, you know where we were heading.
Who’d have thought that a $6trn stimulus would cause inflation?
John Oliver did a piece on inflation this week, it’s obviously aimed at a very general audience, but he’s correct that a combination of government stimulus money, supply constraints from Covid recovery, and the war in Ukraine, all combine to create a perfect storm of inflation. He’s also correct that the coming interest rate hikes are going to be painful. https://youtube.com/watch?v=MBo4GViDxzc
Top tip for the Tories - hammer on Starmer dropping his leadership pledges yesterday, it negates any labour hypocrisy on new PM changing direction/u turns etc You know, instead of putting potatoes up your own exhaust pipes
They tried this with Blair in 1997 and it really didn't go down too well. Of course Blair was better at responding.
Starmer has a simple response, I have moved the Labour Party away from losing and unpopularity to being able to build broad support. He could also say that Truss voted six times for tax rises she now claims to oppose
I'm not sure "she voted for tax rises" would have that much cut-through if she goes on as leader and PM to cut taxes. People realise that MPs vote with what the leadership says nearly all the time.
President Joe Biden’s administration is downplaying data due this week that could show the US economy contracted for a second straight quarter -- a development that would match one standard definition of a recession.
The administration’s message: what’s often called a “technical recession” isn’t necessarily a real one.
That is some proper alternative facts stuff there. Yes I know the economists don't like the idea of recession just being two quarters of negative growth, but it is pretty much established convention in terms of political parlance that when it happens you have to say its a recession.
Yes, that’s a recession
Any other spin is like some vandal saying “technically, yes, I chucked a brick through the window. But only technically”
Financial pain during a technical recession is famously illusory of course. Rumbling stomachs and freezing in winter are equal to or greater than You've never had it so good.
He will end up sub 20 approval.
As RCS points out though, the dems are holding their own in the November mid terms, especially the senate.
I suspect that will dissipate as we approach but we will see. As it stands they are fucked in the Representatives, senate a toss up
In case anyone missed it (I posted it at about 2am)
Which raises the question: does she not care? Took me 2 mins to google that
Is she trolling?
On the upside, looks like we’re about to have our first kinkster prime minister (I am discounting the lurid rumours about Pitt the Younger)
Maybe she's been trolled, if she'd been given it as a gift and hadn't looked to see where it was bought from.
No, she knows exactly what it means. Her dress also had bondage motifs - overt, egregious lacing on the sides
She’s a kinkster
Does anyone care? It's not even exotic now every woman in the land has read 50 Shades. The last guy (who may or may not have resigned) has a history of screwing the hired help so Liz will be the second prime minister in a row who likes sex.
Did Theresa May not enjoy sex? This will come as a crushing bow to the ego of Phillip May.
I understand sex is a very popular hobby and has been for some time. End of story for a political betting website.
The juvenile masturbators parading themselves on this thread should probably go to a different website and leave us be. I understand a range of such sites are available to suit every taste.
Its over, she obliterated him on every issue according to the polled panel
Frankly I think it was over as soon as she was into the final two.
Hes too rich for straitened times. Too rich. I deeply regret that in Liz we Truss
I think he went too late. He'd have won easily a year ago
I am not sure about a year ago, but when Partygate broke in late January in the wake of Paterson a couple of months earlier, he would have stolen a march on his rivals.
Perhaps if he'd quit instead of putting NI up, and put the blame on Johnson's profligate spending, he would have stood a chance. But that decision was announced last September, before Paterson, when Johnson was still set fair for re-election in 2024.
Politics can be hard to predict and change rapidly, though it doesn't always. Convinced nothing will stop Truss now.
Top tip for the Tories - hammer on Starmer dropping his leadership pledges yesterday, it negates any labour hypocrisy on new PM changing direction/u turns etc You know, instead of putting potatoes up your own exhaust pipes
They tried this with Blair in 1997 and it really didn't go down too well. Of course Blair was better at responding.
Starmer has a simple response, I have moved the Labour Party away from losing and unpopularity to being able to build broad support. He could also say that Truss voted six times for tax rises she now claims to oppose
So many of the PB faithful don't really understand how incumbency works. If Truss pulls us out of economic Armageddon she wins. I can't see that happening myself. This means with a LOTO that doesn't scare the horses, Labour are in with a shout for most seats. All the populist culture wars, racial bigotry and hangin' and flogin' in the world won't change that.
We are in 2007 at the moment. New Gordon Brown will surely get a bounce but if the economy ends up in the toilet it doesn't matter. 12 years in Government.
There should still be the chance for a polling boost. I have a gut feeling that any honeymoon will be short-lived.
Perhaps Truss's USP is that the voting public don't have much idea of who she is. She will claim that she did all the trade deals, and she has tweaked Putin's nose, and unlike us the punters won't twig it is all B.S. But then how many times can she repeat that before everyone thinks "one trick pony"!
Mr. Chris, well, some eras are entirely fictional, never mind brief. The heptarchy of England and tetrarchy of Diocletian spring to mind (a government system that requires one specific man to be in charge is not a sustainable or sensible arrangement).
It comes after Conservative peer and former party treasurer Lord Cruddas claimed yesterday that Johnson "does not want to resign" and "wished that he could carry on" as prime minister.
Cruddas said the comments were made to him by the prime minister over lunch at Chequers on Friday, but in response a No 10 spokeswoman said that Johnson has resigned as party leader and "set out his intention to stand down as PM when the new leader is in place".
Top tip for the Tories - hammer on Starmer dropping his leadership pledges yesterday, it negates any labour hypocrisy on new PM changing direction/u turns etc You know, instead of putting potatoes up your own exhaust pipes
They tried this with Blair in 1997 and it really didn't go down too well. Of course Blair was better at responding.
Starmer has a simple response, I have moved the Labour Party away from losing and unpopularity to being able to build broad support. He could also say that Truss voted six times for tax rises she now claims to oppose
So many of the PB faithful don't really understand how incumbency works. If Truss pulls us out of economic Armageddon she wins. I can't see that happening myself. This means with a LOTO that doesn't scare the horses, Labour are in with a shout for most seats. All the populist culture wars, racial bigotry and hangin' and flogin' in the world won't change that.
We are in 2007 at the moment. New Gordon Brown will surely get a bounce but if the economy ends up in the toilet it doesn't matter. 12 years in Government.
There should still be the chance for a polling boost. I have a gut feeling that any honeymoon will be short-lived.
Perhaps Truss's USP is that the voting public don't have much idea of who she is. She will claim that she did all the trade deals, and she has tweaked Putin's nose, and unlike us the punters won't twig it is all B.S. But then how many times can she repeat that before everyone thinks "one trick pony"!
The length of the honeymoon, is very closely related to petrol prices and this winter’s energy bills.
Anyone asked Truss why she's opposing policies she voted for just weeks ago?
Surely her answer is collective cabinet responsibility?
But this seems to be a fundamental ideological difference?
I think Starmer probably IS in favour of much of Corbyn's economic programme, much as I think Blair is too. But they dismiss them for electability reasons.
But I don't see that with Truss?
Then the question is why didn't you leave the cabinet several months ago? But the answer to that is also pretty simple for a politician. The Government has done a lot that both Truss and Sunak agree with. Where they don't agree, they've preferred to argue the case around the cabinet table, than heckle from the backbenches. After all, had Truss resigned as Foreign Secretary (which was never on the cards) her opponent would still have been Chancellor.
Top tip for the Tories - hammer on Starmer dropping his leadership pledges yesterday, it negates any labour hypocrisy on new PM changing direction/u turns etc You know, instead of putting potatoes up your own exhaust pipes
They tried this with Blair in 1997 and it really didn't go down too well. Of course Blair was better at responding.
Starmer has a simple response, I have moved the Labour Party away from losing and unpopularity to being able to build broad support. He could also say that Truss voted six times for tax rises she now claims to oppose
So many of the PB faithful don't really understand how incumbency works. If Truss pulls us out of economic Armageddon she wins. I can't see that happening myself. This means with a LOTO that doesn't scare the horses, Labour are in with a shout for most seats. All the populist culture wars, racial bigotry and hangin' and flogin' in the world won't change that.
We are in 2007 at the moment. New Gordon Brown will surely get a bounce but if the economy ends up in the toilet it doesn't matter. 12 years in Government.
There should still be the chance for a polling boost. I have a gut feeling that any honeymoon will be short-lived.
Perhaps Truss's USP is that the voting public don't have much idea of who she is. She will claim that she did all the trade deals, and she has tweaked Putin's nose, and unlike us the punters won't twig it is all B.S. But then how many times can she repeat that before everyone thinks "one trick pony"!
The length of the honeymoon, is very closely related to petrol prices and this winter’s energy bills.
Genuine question, if Truss reverses the BoJo economic policies, isn't that the elderly care plan dumped?
What 'elderly care plan'? There never was one. It was just Boris doing his usual trick of announcing that he's solved a problem without actually doing anything at all.
The NI increases were a semi-hypothecated tax that would go towards plugging the gap on healthcare spending. If you get rid of them , and assuming spending on a now collapsed healthcare system won't be reduced, you are simply adding to a black hole instead.
What job do we think Rishi might do in Truss' cabinet. I think remaining as Chancellor is right out, they're too fiscally different and Simon Clark is getting that. Perhaps health ? He's got links there with his parents after all.
Mr. Chris, well, some eras are entirely fictional, never mind brief. The heptarchy of England and tetrarchy of Diocletian spring to mind (a government system that requires one specific man to be in charge is not a sustainable or sensible arrangement).
If Liz Truss's prime-ministership lasts as long as the Heptarchy, I'll gladly withdraw my comment (though as you know [?] it would require her to be the longest-lived woman in human history).
What job do we think Rishi might do in Truss' cabinet. I think remaining as Chancellor is right out, they're too fiscally different and Simon Clark is getting that. Perhaps health ? He's got links there with his parents after all.
He won't and will step down at the next election imo
What job do we think Rishi might do in Truss' cabinet. I think remaining as Chancellor is right out, they're too fiscally different and Simon Clark is getting that. Perhaps health ? He's got links there with his parents after all.
What job do we think Rishi might do in Truss' cabinet. I think remaining as Chancellor is right out, they're too fiscally different and Simon Clark is getting that. Perhaps health ? He's got links there with his parents after all.
It comes after Conservative peer and former party treasurer Lord Cruddas claimed yesterday that Johnson "does not want to resign" and "wished that he could carry on" as prime minister.
Cruddas said the comments were made to him by the prime minister over lunch at Chequers on Friday, but in response a No 10 spokeswoman said that Johnson has resigned as party leader and "set out his intention to stand down as PM when the new leader is in place".
In case anyone missed it (I posted it at about 2am)
Which raises the question: does she not care? Took me 2 mins to google that
Is she trolling?
On the upside, looks like we’re about to have our first kinkster prime minister (I am discounting the lurid rumours about Pitt the Younger)
Maybe she's been trolled, if she'd been given it as a gift and hadn't looked to see where it was bought from.
No, she knows exactly what it means. Her dress also had bondage motifs - overt, egregious lacing on the sides
She’s a kinkster
Does anyone care? It's not even exotic now every woman in the land has read 50 Shades. The last guy (who may or may not have resigned) has a history of screwing the hired help so Liz will be the second prime minister in a row who likes sex.
Did Theresa May not enjoy sex? This will come as a crushing bow to the ego of Phillip May.
I understand sex is a very popular hobby and has been for some time. End of story for a political betting website.
The juvenile masturbators parading themselves on this thread should probably go to a different website and leave us be. I understand a range of such sites are available to suit every taste.
lol. And also: wrong
Truss is heading for victory. She is going to be the next UK PM. She’s got past the solitary debate without harm, so what’s left? A few hustings?
Realistically, the one thing that could derail her campaign now is a scandal. Now what form might such a scandal take? There were rumours in the Times - yes, the Times - that one of the leadership candidates “likes BDSM”. Thanks to my genius insight, PB now knows who this is, very probably
Two things generally cause scandals: sex and money. Sunak was nearly derailed by a money scandal. Truss?
All this has serious betting implications, as well as consequences for the nation, and the idea we should ignore it because a bunch of incels on PB get upset is frankly absurd
What job do we think Rishi might do in Truss' cabinet. I think remaining as Chancellor is right out, they're too fiscally different and Simon Clark is getting that. Perhaps health ? He's got links there with his parents after all.
What job do we think Rishi might do in Truss' cabinet. I think remaining as Chancellor is right out, they're too fiscally different and Simon Clark is getting that. Perhaps health ? He's got links there with his parents after all.
It comes after Conservative peer and former party treasurer Lord Cruddas claimed yesterday that Johnson "does not want to resign" and "wished that he could carry on" as prime minister.
Cruddas said the comments were made to him by the prime minister over lunch at Chequers on Friday, but in response a No 10 spokeswoman said that Johnson has resigned as party leader and "set out his intention to stand down as PM when the new leader is in place".
Who does everyone think will be Foreign and Home for Truss ?
Somewhat off-piste, but anything for Theresa May? If she was willing to come back, it would be evidence of 'big-tent' and 'moving on from Boris'. Would Foreign Sec be suitable - an ex Pm potentially has more gravitas / relationship status abroad?
It comes after Conservative peer and former party treasurer Lord Cruddas claimed yesterday that Johnson "does not want to resign" and "wished that he could carry on" as prime minister.
Cruddas said the comments were made to him by the prime minister over lunch at Chequers on Friday, but in response a No 10 spokeswoman said that Johnson has resigned as party leader and "set out his intention to stand down as PM when the new leader is in place".
It comes after Conservative peer and former party treasurer Lord Cruddas claimed yesterday that Johnson "does not want to resign" and "wished that he could carry on" as prime minister.
Cruddas said the comments were made to him by the prime minister over lunch at Chequers on Friday, but in response a No 10 spokeswoman said that Johnson has resigned as party leader and "set out his intention to stand down as PM when the new leader is in place".
It's irrelevant. When the new leader is elected, they'll be presumed to have the confidence of the Commons, so if Boris doesn't resign PDQ he'll get sacked.
Hopefully now we can move on from the conspiracy theory nonsense.
In case anyone missed it (I posted it at about 2am)
Which raises the question: does she not care? Took me 2 mins to google that
Is she trolling?
On the upside, looks like we’re about to have our first kinkster prime minister (I am discounting the lurid rumours about Pitt the Younger)
Maybe she's been trolled, if she'd been given it as a gift and hadn't looked to see where it was bought from.
No, she knows exactly what it means. Her dress also had bondage motifs - overt, egregious lacing on the sides
She’s a kinkster
Does anyone care? It's not even exotic now every woman in the land has read 50 Shades. The last guy (who may or may not have resigned) has a history of screwing the hired help so Liz will be the second prime minister in a row who likes sex.
Did Theresa May not enjoy sex? This will come as a crushing bow to the ego of Phillip May.
I understand sex is a very popular hobby and has been for some time. End of story for a political betting website.
The juvenile masturbators parading themselves on this thread should probably go to a different website and leave us be. I understand a range of such sites are available to suit every taste.
lol. And also: wrong
Truss is heading for victory. She is going to be the next UK PM. She’s got past the solitary debate without harm, so what’s left? A few hustings?
Realistically, the one thing that could derail her campaign now is a scandal. Now what form might such a scandal take? There were rumours in the Times - yes, the Times - that one of the leadership candidates “likes BDSM”. Thanks to my genius insight, PB now knows who this is, very probably
Two things generally cause scandals: sex and money. Sunak was nearly derailed by a money scandal. Truss?
All this has serious betting implications, as well as consequences for the nation, and the idea we should ignore it because a bunch of incels on PB get upset is frankly absurd
I'm not sure "likes BDSM" is even really much of a scandal any more, is it?
Comments
to her. She’s her own woman (apart from the times when she’s owned by some Dom)
Go, Liz
It would be really helpful to know who Truss and Sunak would intend to make Chancellor.
His big chance was when the FPN came.
But he couldn't because he got one too.
He's not a lucky general is he?
I confess I'm not entirely sure how the court interpreted a written law as meaning the exact opposite of what it said. The power used to prorogue is royal prerogative rather than statutory (though I'm reaching the limits of my understanding here, and I suppose some prerogative powers might be found in statute) and was notoriously vague. All the court said was that you can't prorogue for no reason and that you certainly can't prorogue just because it is convenient.
If she pushes through immediate tax cuts, what does she have to offer the electorate at the GE?
Perhaps Sunak was being too clever by half, but at least he had a reasonably viable plan to win the next GE. Truss has spotted an open goal which will probably score her the leadership, but then what?
Conservative thinking used to be about the long term. The horizon has been shortening ever since 2010.
Now it’s just immediate tax cuts, fuck the economy, fuck the grandchildren.
This is no way to run a country.
The problem - as I said at the time - was that he was popular because we were in a unique crisis and he was giving money away.
It was evident he lacked political sense when he announced the stupid Eat Out To Help Out. That didn't do for his popularity but it was a sign of what was to come. Then it was all really downhill from there.
He doesn't have much political ability. In a sense I think Truss actually has more.
The administration’s message: what’s often called a “technical recession” isn’t necessarily a real one.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-25/biden-team-s-take-on-technical-recession-it-s-not-a-real-one
That is some proper alternative facts stuff there. Yes I know the economists don't like the simplistic idea of recession just anytime being two quarters of negative growth, but it is pretty much established convention in terms of political parlance that when it happens you have to fess up and say its a recession. Them the breaks.
We can overlook this, because Heseltine, Brown, Osborne held the mantle for so long. But there wasn't a vacancy during those years.
Noticeably, two of them never got it and the other wasn't much cop when he did.
You know, instead of putting potatoes up your own exhaust pipes
Any other spin is like some vandal saying “technically, yes, I chucked a brick through the window. But only technically”
Starmer has a simple response, I have moved the Labour Party away from losing and unpopularity to being able to build broad support. He could also say that Truss voted six times for tax rises she now claims to oppose
When I heard Biden's advisor saying the no more boom and bust, I mean inflation is solved, 18 months ago, you know where we were heading.
But if a prorogation had been useful to *stop* BREXIT, the advocates of it would now be banging on about the Law Of The Land, and Remainers complaining about the courts interfering with the executive.
It’s a bit like polls. The constitutional outrages are always the decisions you disagree with.
He will end up sub 20 approval.
That’s a bit egregious
I’m giving you priceless insights into the psyche of our future prime minister, from the perspective of a pro flint dildoizer
I could CHARGE for this commentary
Now they are watching that candidate really struggle....?
“Your children are only technically hungry”
Its a shot at goal, take it
Even if it was Dorries or Mogg heading toward No 10 that wouldn't have meant Boris could have stayed on.
Do I absolutely love juicy gossip, especially about sex? YES. And so does 98% of humanity. It’s a universal trait
I think Starmer probably IS in favour of much of Corbyn's economic programme, much as I think Blair is too. But they dismiss them for electability reasons.
But I don't see that with Truss?
John Oliver did a piece on inflation this week, it’s obviously aimed at a very general audience, but he’s correct that a combination of government stimulus money, supply constraints from Covid recovery, and the war in Ukraine, all combine to create a perfect storm of inflation. He’s also correct that the coming interest rate hikes are going to be painful.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=MBo4GViDxzc
Now?
I understand sex is a very popular hobby and has been for some time. End of story for a political betting website.
The juvenile masturbators parading themselves on this thread should probably go to a different website and leave us be. I understand a range of such sites are available to suit every taste.
Betfair next prime minister
1.29 Liz Truss 78%
4.5 Rishi Sunak 22%
Next Conservative leader
1.28 Liz Truss 78%
4.5 Rishi Sunak 22%
Politics can be hard to predict and change rapidly, though it doesn't always. Convinced nothing will stop Truss now.
Perhaps Truss's USP is that the voting public don't have much idea of who she is. She will claim that she did all the trade deals, and she has tweaked Putin's nose, and unlike us the punters won't twig it is all B.S. But then how many times can she repeat that before everyone thinks "one trick pony"!
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-62305094
Buy stocks in jumper sellers.
Cruddas said the comments were made to him by the prime minister over lunch at Chequers on Friday, but in response a No 10 spokeswoman said that Johnson has resigned as party leader and "set out his intention to stand down as PM when the new leader is in place".
Phew
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-62273292
Gas over £4/therm.
This is not good very bad.
Starmer did the same (in opposition). I don't have a problem with it.
Perhaps health ? He's got links there with his parents after all.
Be sure to let me know it that happens.
Sell stocks in EU heavy industry.
Be thankful the UK is no longer in the EU.
5.x to lay on the next PM market.
I'll be very surprised if there isnt pretty extensive civil unrest in the EU
Truss is heading for victory. She is going to be the next UK PM. She’s got past the solitary debate without harm, so what’s left? A few hustings?
Realistically, the one thing that could derail her campaign now is a scandal. Now what form might such a scandal take? There were rumours in the Times - yes, the Times - that one of the leadership candidates “likes BDSM”. Thanks to my genius insight, PB now knows who this is, very probably
Two things generally cause scandals: sex and
money. Sunak was nearly derailed by a money scandal. Truss?
All this has serious betting implications, as well as consequences for the nation, and the idea we should ignore it because a bunch of incels on PB get upset is frankly absurd
Mad Nad= FS
Hopefully now we can move on from the conspiracy theory nonsense.
And yet PB should ignore it, because it distresses some maiden aunts?
@Dura_Ace please come back from Cairo