On topic, "mansplaining" is one of those words that wokeist types have been using indiscriminately for long enough that the in-use definition has broadened to the point where the word is now largely meaningless ("fascist" is another good example).
The original meaning is very specific to a man explaining something to a woman that she already understands, often as well (or better) than the man. It seems to be being used in this case to mean a mixture of Sunak speaking over Truss, being dismissive of what she was saying, and generally being aggressive in his manner.
None of which is necessarily unreasonable in context (and in any event seems to have done Sunak some damage). The interesting question for me is this: is the argument that Sunak would have been more deferential to a male opponent, or is it that he wouldn't have been, but should have showed a female opponent more respect? If it's the former, then that feels like a legitimate argument about implicit sexism. If it's the latter, then the argument is anti-equality rather than pro-.
What I find interesting is that "mansplaining" a la Rishi is basically just talking over people in a loud public school voice, which has been the default mode of communication for most prominent Tories, and indeed a good share of those who have been to public school, since time immemorial. It is how Boris Johnson has always communicated with everyone. It is odd that it has only become seen as problematic when he does it.
#StarmerOut is trending on Twitter, with about 5,000 mentions. When will the Corbynistas realise that 5,000 people on Twitter isn't an important movement of people?
The Unions don't seem to understand that every time they bring out a statement that disagrees with the leadership, Starmer just looks more centre ground and less scary
How do you know they don't understand that?
Because they keep doing it?
Maybe that's exactly what they want you to think...
Because the people that are in charge of the angry unions are nuts
I mean, I think that, even though I don't necessarily agree they are actively stupid.
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?
It might be enough to derail a candidate with the Tory membership? I genuinely dunno. We need the expert insight of @HYUFD!
Also see my quote from the Indy. Allegedly there is kompromat. Photos
That WOULD be dangerous for any candidate
As long as she was not doing anything illegal or doing BDSM with someone other than her husband while married I doubt any such photos if they existed would damage her too much
Is this really the same poster who wouldnt hear a bad word said about Boris?
Given MPs removed Boris for his improper behaviour, members will be looking for someone a bit more straight laced now Brexit is done and Corbyn beaten which Boris was leader to achieve
All the signs are that the next PM will indeed be "more straight laced"
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?
No, but I also don’t think “liking BDSM” is the sex scandal that one camp might be worried about.
It isn't. And before anyone starts shrieking about "slut shaming" I know that I don't care who she is doing or how she is doing them. Frankly if she is a fetlifer I'm more impressed than I otherwise would have been. I assume @leon is of a similar mindset.
But - and its a big but - supposedly there are scandal materials being held back to "bring down the government". Liz doing Ms Whiplash on colleagues is their business. Until the the proof of live video gets used as blackmail by hostile powers. Which is what I assume the Finland (and onwards to Russia) angle relates to...
I didn't pick up anything like this last night during the debate. And I was watching her very closely.
Its the necklace. If she was miss innocent then perhaps she saw it ebay and thought "thats a nice necklace" and has no idea what it is.
But she isn't. So she does. Good for her!
And the dress. This was the same outfit she wore last night. Check the lacing
You and I know this world. We know what this says
Now, is this prurient and sordid speculation which demeans PB?
Yes
Does it matter?
Also yes
I know enough to know that you are correct. It's an amusing story, rather than an actual scandal though.
Yes, absolutely not a scandal in itself. Tho there is apparently a sex scandal floating around out there, according to @bondegezou
As others have said, this makes me warm to Truss, somewhat. She is at ease with herself, and not shy about it. Good for her
I sent you a PM.
What a tease.
In any case, if it means what you and @Leon say it means then she is pretty much out there in every sense because in that case every single item of clothing she is wearing is an indicator.
Or perhaps once more it is her taking us for fools that we wouldn't spot it.
I think she's just very much at ease with herself.
But what a strange (as in why choose it) part of her life to display to all and sundry.
How many retired colonels are there who have both a vote and a Gin and Jesus view of the world.
Pretty sure that Truss's Chancellor will be Simon Clarke, currently Chief Secretary to the Treasury and a prominent supporter of hers. I hear that he is a very clever chap.
Would be a very solid pick if so. 👍
Its funny, a few weeks ago I seemed to be the only one on this site who liked the idea of Truss as PM. As it becomes more probable it seems more people are opening up to the idea.
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?
No, but I also don’t think “liking BDSM” is the sex scandal that one camp might be worried about.
It isn't. And before anyone starts shrieking about "slut shaming" I know that I don't care who she is doing or how she is doing them. Frankly if she is a fetlifer I'm more impressed than I otherwise would have been. I assume @leon is of a similar mindset.
But - and its a big but - supposedly there are scandal materials being held back to "bring down the government". Liz doing Ms Whiplash on colleagues is their business. Until the the proof of live video gets used as blackmail by hostile powers. Which is what I assume the Finland (and onwards to Russia) angle relates to...
I didn't pick up anything like this last night during the debate. And I was watching her very closely.
Its the necklace. If she was miss innocent then perhaps she saw it ebay and thought "thats a nice necklace" and has no idea what it is.
But she isn't. So she does. Good for her!
And the dress. This was the same outfit she wore last night. Check the lacing
You and I know this world. We know what this says
Now, is this prurient and sordid speculation which demeans PB?
Yes
Does it matter?
Also yes
I know enough to know that you are correct. It's an amusing story, rather than an actual scandal though.
Yes, absolutely not a scandal in itself. Tho there is apparently a sex scandal floating around out there, according to @bondegezou
As others have said, this makes me warm to Truss, somewhat. She is at ease with herself, and not shy about it. Good for her
I sent you a PM.
What a tease.
In any case, if it means what you and @Leon say it means then she is pretty much out there in every sense because in that case every single item of clothing she is wearing is an indicator.
Or perhaps once more it is her taking us for fools that we wouldn't spot it.
I think she's just very much at ease with herself.
But what a strange (as in why choose it) part of her life to display to all and sundry.
How many retired colonels are there who have both a vote and a Gin and Jesus view of the world.
Surely a risky strategy?
Soldiers are hardly monks. TBH, I think that most people who'd have been upset about it have died off.
Who is opening up to the idea of Truss being PM? Seems like we're at where Labour was in 2015, most are saying it's a terrible idea, a few true believers are going all in
I think the PB Tories are just trying to rationalise an inevitable bad decision in the same way that Corbyn’s opponents (myself included) did in the aftermath of 2015. Fair play, but it’s not going to help, and the rest of us think you’re bonkers.
Who is opening up to the idea of Truss being PM? Seems like we're at where Labour was in 2015, most are saying it's a terrible idea, a few true believers are going all in
Who is opening up to the idea of Truss being PM? Seems like we're at where Labour was in 2015, most are saying it's a terrible idea, a few true believers are going all in
Did you have to ninja my post so cleanly? 😅
We do basically have the same opinions but sorry matey
Who is opening up to the idea of Truss being PM? Seems like we're at where Labour was in 2015, most are saying it's a terrible idea, a few true believers are going all in
Did you have to ninja my post so cleanly? 😅
We do basically have the same opinions but sorry matey
Have you ever seen us in the same room at the same time? Makes you think.
I think the PB Tories are just trying to rationalise an inevitable bad decision in the same way that Corbyn’s opponents (myself included) did in the aftermath of 2015. Fair play, but it’s not going to help, and the rest of us think you’re bonkers.
I don't think I ever managed to rationalise Corbyn. In his defence he wasn't as bad as I thought he was going to be. Maybe it will be the same for Truss - a pleasant surprise every time she manages to tie her own shoelaces.
Who is opening up to the idea of Truss being PM? Seems like we're at where Labour was in 2015, most are saying it's a terrible idea, a few true believers are going all in
My expectations of Truss are so low that if the whole country isn't on fire in the style of thisisfine.jpg by mid October, I'd say she'll have surprised to the upside.
Who is opening up to the idea of Truss being PM? Seems like we're at where Labour was in 2015, most are saying it's a terrible idea, a few true believers are going all in
Not opening, fully open, true believer here sorry.
Disappointed I won't get my £5k bet coming in but I've managed to cash out a decent chunk of it now at decent odds, so I win either way, so can't complain.
I think the PB Tories are just trying to rationalise an inevitable bad decision in the same way that Corbyn’s opponents (myself included) did in the aftermath of 2015. Fair play, but it’s not going to help, and the rest of us think you’re bonkers.
The difference is, in 2015 there were reasons that Corbyn would be bad that were both obvious and simple to express - problems with antisemitism and past history of dislike for the West in general and the UK in particular.
For all that Truss's opponents are saying she'll be an obvious disaster, I haven't seen any reasons expressed so clearly.
#StarmerOut is trending on Twitter, with about 5,000 mentions. When will the Corbynistas realise that 5,000 people on Twitter isn't an important movement of people?
The Unions don't seem to understand that every time they bring out a statement that disagrees with the leadership, Starmer just looks more centre ground and less scary
How do you know they don't understand that?
Because they keep doing it?
Maybe that's exactly what they want you to think...
Because the people that are in charge of the angry unions are nuts
I mean, I think that, even though I don't necessarily agree they are actively stupid.
I'm just surprised that you do.
Why are you surprised? Do you read my posts much?
Dude, you've posted twenty thousand times in three years. That's 18 posts a day on average. Everyone on this board has no choice but to "read your posts much", unless they've got an extension that somehow filters them out.
Who is opening up to the idea of Truss being PM? Seems like we're at where Labour was in 2015, most are saying it's a terrible idea, a few true believers are going all in
My expectations of Truss are so low that if the whole country isn't on fire in the style of thisisfine.jpg by mid October, I'd say she'll have surprised to the upside.
There is consensus here. Lefties of course say she's bad, centrists do, anti-Brexiteers do of course but also plenty of Tories?
It's only Bart that thinks she's good? Am I wrong?
She could well surprise to the upside but this feels an awful lot like 2015 Corbyn
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?
No, but I also don’t think “liking BDSM” is the sex scandal that one camp might be worried about.
It isn't. And before anyone starts shrieking about "slut shaming" I know that I don't care who she is doing or how she is doing them. Frankly if she is a fetlifer I'm more impressed than I otherwise would have been. I assume @leon is of a similar mindset.
But - and its a big but - supposedly there are scandal materials being held back to "bring down the government". Liz doing Ms Whiplash on colleagues is their business. Until the the proof of live video gets used as blackmail by hostile powers. Which is what I assume the Finland (and onwards to Russia) angle relates to...
I didn't pick up anything like this last night during the debate. And I was watching her very closely.
Its the necklace. If she was miss innocent then perhaps she saw it ebay and thought "thats a nice necklace" and has no idea what it is.
But she isn't. So she does. Good for her!
And the dress. This was the same outfit she wore last night. Check the lacing
You and I know this world. We know what this says
Now, is this prurient and sordid speculation which demeans PB?
Yes
Does it matter?
Also yes
I know enough to know that you are correct. It's an amusing story, rather than an actual scandal though.
Yes, absolutely not a scandal in itself. Tho there is apparently a sex scandal floating around out there, according to @bondegezou
As others have said, this makes me warm to Truss, somewhat. She is at ease with herself, and not shy about it. Good for her
I sent you a PM.
What a tease.
In any case, if it means what you and @Leon say it means then she is pretty much out there in every sense because in that case every single item of clothing she is wearing is an indicator.
Or perhaps once more it is her taking us for fools that we wouldn't spot it.
I think she's just very much at ease with herself.
But what a strange (as in why choose it) part of her life to display to all and sundry.
How many retired colonels are there who have both a vote and a Gin and Jesus view of the world.
Surely a risky strategy?
Soldiers are hardly monks. TBH, I think that most people who'd have been upset about it have died off.
They’ve been thinking about if for years. 2020 was the original end of life for the station. NASA extended it.
The problem for the Russians leaving is that the Chinese probably don’t want them involved in their station. The orbital inclination would make it very tough to get Soyuz there.
The Russians can’t afford to build their own station. The debacle with the last module just shows how bad thing have gotten for therm. They can’t actually detach their modules from the ISS anyway - the hardware for detachment was removed years back and dumped.
Without a station, Soyuz can only free fly for a short time - it has been adapted over the years for quick rendezvous with the station. Plus there is nearly no room inside, unlike Dargon or Starliner - both of which can support free flying ops.
The commercial space stations that are in the works won’t want the Russians - not after Ukraine and the sanctions.
So the end of ISS means the end of Russian manned space flight. Apart from maybe take Soyuz on a half dozen orbits every now and again.
The small market they had left, was for rich joyriders to actually go to orbit, but SpeceX is doing that now, for less money, and without the hassle of learning the language and getting the money past sanctions.
The Amercians were talking about keeping ISS aloft until 2030, but it’s not going to happen without Russian collaboration.
A sad end for the single most expensive object created by humans, but even 24 years as the world’s most famous laboratory (except for maybe the one in Wuhan!) is more than they originally expected.
The challenge now, is to get everyone (except Russia and North Korea) on board with the replacement.
#StarmerOut is trending on Twitter, with about 5,000 mentions. When will the Corbynistas realise that 5,000 people on Twitter isn't an important movement of people?
The Unions don't seem to understand that every time they bring out a statement that disagrees with the leadership, Starmer just looks more centre ground and less scary
How do you know they don't understand that?
Because they keep doing it?
Maybe that's exactly what they want you to think...
Because the people that are in charge of the angry unions are nuts
I mean, I think that, even though I don't necessarily agree they are actively stupid.
I'm just surprised that you do.
Why are you surprised? Do you read my posts much?
Dude, you've posted twenty thousand times in three years. That's 18 posts a day, every day. Everyone on this board has no choice but to "read your posts much", unless they've got an extension that somehow filters them out.
Well then you'll know I'm not particularly pro union.
I am sure there is a filter that can get rid of them if you so wish. Good day
I think the PB Tories are just trying to rationalise an inevitable bad decision in the same way that Corbyn’s opponents (myself included) did in the aftermath of 2015. Fair play, but it’s not going to help, and the rest of us think you’re bonkers.
I don't think I ever managed to rationalise Corbyn. In his defence he wasn't as bad as I thought he was going to be. Maybe it will be the same for Truss - a pleasant surprise every time she manages to tie her own shoelaces.
To be fair, I think she’ll be terrible but in the envelope of standard UK political terribleness rather than the “trips over own cock and face plants into a mound of empty Prosecco bottles” terrible that Johnson exemplified.
I think the PB Tories are just trying to rationalise an inevitable bad decision in the same way that Corbyn’s opponents (myself included) did in the aftermath of 2015. Fair play, but it’s not going to help, and the rest of us think you’re bonkers.
The difference is, in 2015 there were reasons that Corbyn would be bad that were both obvious and simple to express - problems with antisemitism and past history of dislike for the West in general and the UK in particular.
For all that Truss's opponents are saying she'll be an obvious disaster, I haven't seen any reasons expressed so clearly.
Anti-Semitism was not clear in 2015, this is revisionism to the extreme. Rest of your post fine
How is Truss going to get us out of the economic black hole? We are ranked LOWEST in the G7!
So what you're saying is things can only get better?
If she wins, implements her plan, reverses tax hikes and the economy grows so that we're not "the LOWEST in the G7!" then will you give her some credit?
I think the PB Tories are just trying to rationalise an inevitable bad decision in the same way that Corbyn’s opponents (myself included) did in the aftermath of 2015. Fair play, but it’s not going to help, and the rest of us think you’re bonkers.
The difference is, in 2015 there were reasons that Corbyn would be bad that were both obvious and simple to express - problems with antisemitism and past history of dislike for the West in general and the UK in particular.
For all that Truss's opponents are saying she'll be an obvious disaster, I haven't seen any reasons expressed so clearly.
Anti-Semitism was not clear in 2015, this is revisionism to the extreme. Rest of your post fine
It may not have been clear to you, but Corbyn's antisemitism was clear to others even before 2015. Its part of why there was such shock at him being elected, even if it was dismissed as "right wing attacks" until the truth was unavoidable.
I think the PB Tories are just trying to rationalise an inevitable bad decision in the same way that Corbyn’s opponents (myself included) did in the aftermath of 2015. Fair play, but it’s not going to help, and the rest of us think you’re bonkers.
The difference is, in 2015 there were reasons that Corbyn would be bad that were both obvious and simple to express - problems with antisemitism and past history of dislike for the West in general and the UK in particular.
For all that Truss's opponents are saying she'll be an obvious disaster, I haven't seen any reasons expressed so clearly.
Anti-Semitism was not clear in 2015, this is revisionism to the extreme. Rest of your post fine
It was clear to me, but then I guess I've been alert to the antisemitism of the left for much longer than most people. I even paid my £3 to vote against him, for all the good it did anyone.
I think the PB Tories are just trying to rationalise an inevitable bad decision in the same way that Corbyn’s opponents (myself included) did in the aftermath of 2015. Fair play, but it’s not going to help, and the rest of us think you’re bonkers.
The difference is, in 2015 there were reasons that Corbyn would be bad that were both obvious and simple to express - problems with antisemitism and past history of dislike for the West in general and the UK in particular.
For all that Truss's opponents are saying she'll be an obvious disaster, I haven't seen any reasons expressed so clearly.
Anti-Semitism was not clear in 2015, this is revisionism to the extreme. Rest of your post fine
It may not have been clear to you, but Corbyn's antisemitism was clear to others even before 2015. Its part of why there was such shock at him being elected, even if it was dismissed as "right wing attacks" until the truth was unavoidable.
I was far more engaged than you would have been and it was not.
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?
No, but I also don’t think “liking BDSM” is the sex scandal that one camp might be worried about.
It isn't. And before anyone starts shrieking about "slut shaming" I know that I don't care who she is doing or how she is doing them. Frankly if she is a fetlifer I'm more impressed than I otherwise would have been. I assume @leon is of a similar mindset.
But - and its a big but - supposedly there are scandal materials being held back to "bring down the government". Liz doing Ms Whiplash on colleagues is their business. Until the the proof of live video gets used as blackmail by hostile powers. Which is what I assume the Finland (and onwards to Russia) angle relates to...
I didn't pick up anything like this last night during the debate. And I was watching her very closely.
Its the necklace. If she was miss innocent then perhaps she saw it ebay and thought "thats a nice necklace" and has no idea what it is.
But she isn't. So she does. Good for her!
And the dress. This was the same outfit she wore last night. Check the lacing
You and I know this world. We know what this says
Now, is this prurient and sordid speculation which demeans PB?
Yes
Does it matter?
Also yes
I know enough to know that you are correct. It's an amusing story, rather than an actual scandal though.
Yes, absolutely not a scandal in itself. Tho there is apparently a sex scandal floating around out there, according to @bondegezou
As others have said, this makes me warm to Truss, somewhat. She is at ease with herself, and not shy about it. Good for her
I sent you a PM.
What a tease.
In any case, if it means what you and @Leon say it means then she is pretty much out there in every sense because in that case every single item of clothing she is wearing is an indicator.
Or perhaps once more it is her taking us for fools that we wouldn't spot it.
I think she's just very much at ease with herself.
But what a strange (as in why choose it) part of her life to display to all and sundry.
How many retired colonels are there who have both a vote and a Gin and Jesus view of the world.
Surely a risky strategy?
Soldiers are hardly monks. TBH, I think that most people who'd have been upset about it have died off.
0.5% growth next year will have to be factored into my next election thoughts. If it pans out, a Labour government looks value. Any bounce won't last long. Despite Starmer.
I think the PB Tories are just trying to rationalise an inevitable bad decision in the same way that Corbyn’s opponents (myself included) did in the aftermath of 2015. Fair play, but it’s not going to help, and the rest of us think you’re bonkers.
The difference is, in 2015 there were reasons that Corbyn would be bad that were both obvious and simple to express - problems with antisemitism and past history of dislike for the West in general and the UK in particular.
For all that Truss's opponents are saying she'll be an obvious disaster, I haven't seen any reasons expressed so clearly.
Anti-Semitism was not clear in 2015, this is revisionism to the extreme. Rest of your post fine
It may not have been clear to you, but Corbyn's antisemitism was clear to others even before 2015. Its part of why there was such shock at him being elected, even if it was dismissed as "right wing attacks" until the truth was unavoidable.
Johnson's crapness and Islamophobia was clear to all in 2019 when he was elected as party leader, you voted for him anyway.
I don't think your judgment is as good as you think it was. We both done fucked up
I think the PB Tories are just trying to rationalise an inevitable bad decision in the same way that Corbyn’s opponents (myself included) did in the aftermath of 2015. Fair play, but it’s not going to help, and the rest of us think you’re bonkers.
The difference is, in 2015 there were reasons that Corbyn would be bad that were both obvious and simple to express - problems with antisemitism and past history of dislike for the West in general and the UK in particular.
For all that Truss's opponents are saying she'll be an obvious disaster, I haven't seen any reasons expressed so clearly.
Anti-Semitism was not clear in 2015, this is revisionism to the extreme. Rest of your post fine
It may not have been clear to you, but Corbyn's antisemitism was clear to others even before 2015. Its part of why there was such shock at him being elected, even if it was dismissed as "right wing attacks" until the truth was unavoidable.
I was far more engaged than you would have been and it was not.
You were too "engaged", you were blinkered.
Its OK, but him being an antisemite who hated Israel was known back in the 90s to those who paid attention with a more critical eye.
Either way though, its done now. I've been asking for a while why people hate Truss - other than she speaks a little bit weirdly sometimes, and that she is a Conservative wants to cut taxes (oh, the horror!) I've yet to hear anyone specify a specific reason they can't stand her.
How is Truss going to get us out of the economic black hole? We are ranked LOWEST in the G7!
So what you're saying is things can only get better?
If she wins, implements her plan, reverses tax hikes and the economy grows so that we're not "the LOWEST in the G7!" then will you give her some credit?
If we rise above Italy I'll give her some credit, but it's easy to say that.
On topic, "mansplaining" is one of those words that wokeist types have been using indiscriminately for long enough that the in-use definition has broadened to the point where the word is now largely meaningless ("fascist" is another good example).
The original meaning is very specific to a man explaining something to a woman that she already understands, often as well (or better) than the man. It seems to be being used in this case to mean a mixture of Sunak speaking over Truss, being dismissive of what she was saying, and generally being aggressive in his manner.
None of which is necessarily unreasonable in context (and in any event seems to have done Sunak some damage). The interesting question for me is this: is the argument that Sunak would have been more deferential to a male opponent, or is it that he wouldn't have been, but should have showed a female opponent more respect? If it's the former, then that feels like a legitimate argument about implicit sexism. If it's the latter, then the argument is anti-equality rather than pro-.
What I find interesting is that "mansplaining" a la Rishi is basically just talking over people in a loud public school voice, which has been the default mode of communication for most prominent Tories, and indeed a good share of those who have been to public school, since time immemorial. It is how Boris Johnson has always communicated with everyone. It is odd that it has only become seen as problematic when he does it.
Not true; Johnson routinely got pulled up for this*. He was quite lucky that he never faced a female LotO, and that his main challengers as Tory leader were male (the second time; he was knifed too early the first time for it to be relevant). And before him Cameron got into trouble a few times for related issues**.
I think the PB Tories are just trying to rationalise an inevitable bad decision in the same way that Corbyn’s opponents (myself included) did in the aftermath of 2015. Fair play, but it’s not going to help, and the rest of us think you’re bonkers.
The difference is, in 2015 there were reasons that Corbyn would be bad that were both obvious and simple to express - problems with antisemitism and past history of dislike for the West in general and the UK in particular.
For all that Truss's opponents are saying she'll be an obvious disaster, I haven't seen any reasons expressed so clearly.
She has a vast amount of experience filling a chair and no achievements to speak of that a generic replacement couldn’t have managed better, she’s pitching an unsound economic policy to appeal to a small in-group, she is obsessed with an extreme interpretation of free market economics forty years after its heyday when the world is substantially different and she is unfortunately gaffe prone on the world stage. I doubt she’s going to start posting racist pictures on her instagram, but she might blow up my pocket book and public services. In that respect the two are similar, the ideological event horizons are just in different places.
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?
No, but I also don’t think “liking BDSM” is the sex scandal that one camp might be worried about.
It isn't. And before anyone starts shrieking about "slut shaming" I know that I don't care who she is doing or how she is doing them. Frankly if she is a fetlifer I'm more impressed than I otherwise would have been. I assume @leon is of a similar mindset.
But - and its a big but - supposedly there are scandal materials being held back to "bring down the government". Liz doing Ms Whiplash on colleagues is their business. Until the the proof of live video gets used as blackmail by hostile powers. Which is what I assume the Finland (and onwards to Russia) angle relates to...
I didn't pick up anything like this last night during the debate. And I was watching her very closely.
Its the necklace. If she was miss innocent then perhaps she saw it ebay and thought "thats a nice necklace" and has no idea what it is.
But she isn't. So she does. Good for her!
And the dress. This was the same outfit she wore last night. Check the lacing
You and I know this world. We know what this says
Now, is this prurient and sordid speculation which demeans PB?
Yes
Does it matter?
Also yes
I know enough to know that you are correct. It's an amusing story, rather than an actual scandal though.
Yes, absolutely not a scandal in itself. Tho there is apparently a sex scandal floating around out there, according to @bondegezou
As others have said, this makes me warm to Truss, somewhat. She is at ease with herself, and not shy about it. Good for her
I sent you a PM.
What a tease.
In any case, if it means what you and @Leon say it means then she is pretty much out there in every sense because in that case every single item of clothing she is wearing is an indicator.
Or perhaps once more it is her taking us for fools that we wouldn't spot it.
I think she's just very much at ease with herself.
But what a strange (as in why choose it) part of her life to display to all and sundry.
How many retired colonels are there who have both a vote and a Gin and Jesus view of the world.
Surely a risky strategy?
Soldiers are hardly monks. TBH, I think that most people who'd have been upset about it have died off.
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?
No, but I also don’t think “liking BDSM” is the sex scandal that one camp might be worried about.
It isn't. And before anyone starts shrieking about "slut shaming" I know that I don't care who she is doing or how she is doing them. Frankly if she is a fetlifer I'm more impressed than I otherwise would have been. I assume @leon is of a similar mindset.
But - and its a big but - supposedly there are scandal materials being held back to "bring down the government". Liz doing Ms Whiplash on colleagues is their business. Until the the proof of live video gets used as blackmail by hostile powers. Which is what I assume the Finland (and onwards to Russia) angle relates to...
I didn't pick up anything like this last night during the debate. And I was watching her very closely.
Its the necklace. If she was miss innocent then perhaps she saw it ebay and thought "thats a nice necklace" and has no idea what it is.
But she isn't. So she does. Good for her!
And the dress. This was the same outfit she wore last night. Check the lacing
You and I know this world. We know what this says
Now, is this prurient and sordid speculation which demeans PB?
Yes
Does it matter?
Also yes
I know enough to know that you are correct. It's an amusing story, rather than an actual scandal though.
Yes, absolutely not a scandal in itself. Tho there is apparently a sex scandal floating around out there, according to @bondegezou
As others have said, this makes me warm to Truss, somewhat. She is at ease with herself, and not shy about it. Good for her
These predictions are decidedly “brave” given that parts of the EU are slipping into recession right now and Germany is facing an energy crisis which could wipe 12% off its GDP
“Germany’s economy faces losing around 12 per cent of its annual output — some €429bn — if Russian natural gas supplies stopped abruptly, according to a new study by an adviser to the government.”
I think the PB Tories are just trying to rationalise an inevitable bad decision in the same way that Corbyn’s opponents (myself included) did in the aftermath of 2015. Fair play, but it’s not going to help, and the rest of us think you’re bonkers.
The difference is, in 2015 there were reasons that Corbyn would be bad that were both obvious and simple to express - problems with antisemitism and past history of dislike for the West in general and the UK in particular.
For all that Truss's opponents are saying she'll be an obvious disaster, I haven't seen any reasons expressed so clearly.
She has a vast amount of experience filling a chair and no achievements to speak of that a generic replacement couldn’t have managed better, she’s pitching an unsound economic policy to appeal to a small in-group, she is obsessed with an extreme interpretation of free market economics forty years after its heyday when the world is substantially different and she is unfortunately gaffe prone on the world stage. I doubt she’s going to start posting racist pictures on her instagram, but she might blow up my pocket book and public services. In that respect the two are similar, the ideological event horizons are just in different places.
I think the PB Tories are just trying to rationalise an inevitable bad decision in the same way that Corbyn’s opponents (myself included) did in the aftermath of 2015. Fair play, but it’s not going to help, and the rest of us think you’re bonkers.
The difference is, in 2015 there were reasons that Corbyn would be bad that were both obvious and simple to express - problems with antisemitism and past history of dislike for the West in general and the UK in particular.
For all that Truss's opponents are saying she'll be an obvious disaster, I haven't seen any reasons expressed so clearly.
She has a vast amount of experience filling a chair and no achievements to speak of that a generic replacement couldn’t have managed better, she’s pitching an unsound economic policy to appeal to a small in-group, she is obsessed with an extreme interpretation of free market economics forty years after its heyday when the world is substantially different and she is unfortunately gaffe prone on the world stage. I doubt she’s going to start posting racist pictures on her instagram, but she might blow up my pocket book and public services. In that respect the two are similar, the ideological event horizons are just in different places.
I think the PB Tories are just trying to rationalise an inevitable bad decision in the same way that Corbyn’s opponents (myself included) did in the aftermath of 2015. Fair play, but it’s not going to help, and the rest of us think you’re bonkers.
The difference is, in 2015 there were reasons that Corbyn would be bad that were both obvious and simple to express - problems with antisemitism and past history of dislike for the West in general and the UK in particular.
For all that Truss's opponents are saying she'll be an obvious disaster, I haven't seen any reasons expressed so clearly.
She has a vast amount of experience filling a chair and no achievements to speak of that a generic replacement couldn’t have managed better, she’s pitching an unsound economic policy to appeal to a small in-group, she is obsessed with an extreme interpretation of free market economics forty years after its heyday when the world is substantially different and she is unfortunately gaffe prone on the world stage. I doubt she’s going to start posting racist pictures on her instagram, but she might blow up my pocket book and public services. In that respect the two are similar, the ideological event horizons are just in different places.
#StarmerOut is trending on Twitter, with about 5,000 mentions. When will the Corbynistas realise that 5,000 people on Twitter isn't an important movement of people?
They’ll get there in the end. Thankfully, Labour MPs have now learned how their leadership selection system works, so the 5,000 will have no-one to vote for when there’s next a vacancy.
I think the PB Tories are just trying to rationalise an inevitable bad decision in the same way that Corbyn’s opponents (myself included) did in the aftermath of 2015. Fair play, but it’s not going to help, and the rest of us think you’re bonkers.
The difference is, in 2015 there were reasons that Corbyn would be bad that were both obvious and simple to express - problems with antisemitism and past history of dislike for the West in general and the UK in particular.
For all that Truss's opponents are saying she'll be an obvious disaster, I haven't seen any reasons expressed so clearly.
She has a vast amount of experience filling a chair and no achievements to speak of that a generic replacement couldn’t have managed better, she’s pitching an unsound economic policy to appeal to a small in-group, she is obsessed with an extreme interpretation of free market economics forty years after its heyday when the world is substantially different and she is unfortunately gaffe prone on the world stage. I doubt she’s going to start posting racist pictures on her instagram, but she might blow up my pocket book and public services. In that respect the two are similar, the ideological event horizons are just in different places.
So, basically, "she's right wing"?
Is that what the new Tory coalition wants?
Lower taxes and aspiration?
I hope so.
I want to see how Truss performs in the seats the Tories won in 2019 that have trended strongly to Labour.
These predictions are decidedly “brave” given that parts of the EU are slipping into recession right now and Germany is facing an energy crisis which could wipe 12% off its GDP
“Germany’s economy faces losing around 12 per cent of its annual output — some €429bn — if Russian natural gas supplies stopped abruptly, according to a new study by an adviser to the government.”
This is a good example of when it might be a good idea to have £30bn spare on your financial targets rather than spent on tax cuts. There is a real and substantial risk that disruption of this type could turn a relatively modest downturn into something a whole lot worse.
On topic, "mansplaining" is one of those words that wokeist types have been using indiscriminately for long enough that the in-use definition has broadened to the point where the word is now largely meaningless ("fascist" is another good example).
The original meaning is very specific to a man explaining something to a woman that she already understands, often as well (or better) than the man. It seems to be being used in this case to mean a mixture of Sunak speaking over Truss, being dismissive of what she was saying, and generally being aggressive in his manner.
None of which is necessarily unreasonable in context (and in any event seems to have done Sunak some damage). The interesting question for me is this: is the argument that Sunak would have been more deferential to a male opponent, or is it that he wouldn't have been, but should have showed a female opponent more respect? If it's the former, then that feels like a legitimate argument about implicit sexism. If it's the latter, then the argument is anti-equality rather than pro-.
What I find interesting is that "mansplaining" a la Rishi is basically just talking over people in a loud public school voice, which has been the default mode of communication for most prominent Tories, and indeed a good share of those who have been to public school, since time immemorial. It is how Boris Johnson has always communicated with everyone. It is odd that it has only become seen as problematic when he does it.
Not true; Johnson routinely got pulled up for this*. He was quite lucky that he never faced a female LotO, and that his main challengers as Tory leader were male (the second time; he was knifed too early the first time for it to be relevant). And before him Cameron got into trouble a few times for related issues**.
Yeah maybe it's just odd to hear Tories criticising him for it, like when Cameron complained about getting monstered by the Daily Mail in 2016. I have always found this kind of behaviour horrible.
I think the PB Tories are just trying to rationalise an inevitable bad decision in the same way that Corbyn’s opponents (myself included) did in the aftermath of 2015. Fair play, but it’s not going to help, and the rest of us think you’re bonkers.
The difference is, in 2015 there were reasons that Corbyn would be bad that were both obvious and simple to express - problems with antisemitism and past history of dislike for the West in general and the UK in particular.
For all that Truss's opponents are saying she'll be an obvious disaster, I haven't seen any reasons expressed so clearly.
Anti-Semitism was not clear in 2015, this is revisionism to the extreme. Rest of your post fine
It may not have been clear to you, but Corbyn's antisemitism was clear to others even before 2015. Its part of why there was such shock at him being elected, even if it was dismissed as "right wing attacks" until the truth was unavoidable.
I was far more engaged than you would have been and it was not.
You were too "engaged", you were blinkered.
Its OK, but him being an antisemite who hated Israel was known back in the 90s to those who paid attention with a more critical eye.
Either way though, its done now. I've been asking for a while why people hate Truss - other than she speaks a little bit weirdly sometimes, and that she is a Conservative wants to cut taxes (oh, the horror!) I've yet to hear anyone specify a specific reason they can't stand her.
Again, you voted for Johnson, despite all of his issues and we told you he was crap. I am happy to own my voting of Corbyn as bad but your judgment is no better bud.
Rishi falling into the "mansplaining" accusation trap is something I didn't expect him to do. Thought he'd be better advised. (Personally I don't think he was).
He wasn't. Quoting someone's own words and their advisors' words back to them is not Mansplaining. But after an initial 10 minutes where she was really tetchy and unhappy with being stopped from just saying any old guff unchallenged, that position reversed.
Sunak feels like (a) he is on very solid ground factually logically and economically with his position and (b) Truss isn't. And he really isn't happy that they aren't listening to his fine reason logic and experience.
So just like Truss must have felt during the referendum...
Quoting someone's words etc when its your turn to talk is not Mansplaining.
Trying not to let a woman get a word in edgewise on the other hand . . .
Thats rude, yes. But not mansplaining as it is missing the explaining element.
The problem is that the Trusster's plan is bonkers. The other problem is that she apparently is going to win, and Sunak feels like Egon as Walter Peck orders the guy to shut down the containment grid.
Let me be clear about this. I very much prefer Rishi's position on economic policy and I worry about the lack of margin for error that Truss's plans leave (basically zero). So many things have gone unexpectedly wrong in recent years this seems very unwise to me.
But it is worth noting that the UK economy has a GDP approaching £3trn. Her "wild" tax plans amount to about £30bn or round about 1% of GDP. Government spending this year is edging towards £1,100bn making £30bn something like 2.7% of government spending or, if you want to look at it another way, just under 10 days of spending out of the year.
If you take inflation into account it is more likely that these numbers will come down rather than up. Like most modern politics this is the law of relatively small differences writ large. The gap between her and Sunak is a bit more than a rounding error but its not much more.
It makes you wonder why Sunak is so adamant about this. It is what is killing him.
Flippant answer: he’s been totally captured by the Treasury Blob, the WEF and the Net Zero zealots.
Slightly less flippant answer: he actually has no idea of what the finances of an average family looks like, the pressure they are under at the moment and the hell that is coming with energy prices in the winter.
"I would legislate to make sure there are essential services on our railways."
Tory leadership hopeful Liz Truss says those who work on the railways are "well rewarded" and "wrong to hold the travelling public to ransom" with strike action.
Pretty sure that Truss's Chancellor will be Simon Clarke, currently Chief Secretary to the Treasury and a prominent supporter of hers. I hear that he is a very clever chap.
Did you hear that from Simon Clarke? He is a beanpole unpopular with the rest of the Teesside Tories (who have a proud track record of ousting colleagues who cross them). He gets wheeled out onto the media as moron meat to say whatever crap is the Downing Street spin line, with a painful track record of the thing he sincerely insisted was God's honest truth being revealed to be a pack of lies that everyone knew was a lie by lunchtime.
If nothing else a very clever chap would keep the local associations on side and not make a spectacle of oneself on the telly. Then again they are talking him up as Chancellor so maybe he has been clever.
Can you imagine it though? He'll be out trying to explain why the IMF and OBR are wrong about the disastrous impact of borrowing to cut taxes, and be undermined to a stand by the Treasury mandarins who take short shrift with being blamed for not being insane like their political masters.
Allegedly only sent to the Treasury to troll Sunak with his height (6'7")
I think the PB Tories are just trying to rationalise an inevitable bad decision in the same way that Corbyn’s opponents (myself included) did in the aftermath of 2015. Fair play, but it’s not going to help, and the rest of us think you’re bonkers.
The difference is, in 2015 there were reasons that Corbyn would be bad that were both obvious and simple to express - problems with antisemitism and past history of dislike for the West in general and the UK in particular.
For all that Truss's opponents are saying she'll be an obvious disaster, I haven't seen any reasons expressed so clearly.
She has a vast amount of experience filling a chair and no achievements to speak of that a generic replacement couldn’t have managed better, she’s pitching an unsound economic policy to appeal to a small in-group, she is obsessed with an extreme interpretation of free market economics forty years after its heyday when the world is substantially different and she is unfortunately gaffe prone on the world stage. I doubt she’s going to start posting racist pictures on her instagram, but she might blow up my pocket book and public services. In that respect the two are similar, the ideological event horizons are just in different places.
So, basically, "she's right wing"?
I’m glad you agree that right wing economics is unsound.
More seriously, no. She has precisely the same issues as Corbyn. She’s a lightweight that’s pedalling a view of the world which only has appeal to the hard extreme of her party. Many of Corbyn’s ideas wouldn’t have worked (even though I saw the same “you don’t like him because he’s actually left wing” defences trotted out) and would likely have been counterproductive. Many Tories on here pointed that out in 2015. I have the same view of Truss. You’re at liberty not to agree but I think of all the candidates she’s only marginally better than the hang-em shoot-em brigade. If you want my assessment of who the right should have backed, it should have been Badenoch.
Rishi falling into the "mansplaining" accusation trap is something I didn't expect him to do. Thought he'd be better advised. (Personally I don't think he was).
He wasn't. Quoting someone's own words and their advisors' words back to them is not Mansplaining. But after an initial 10 minutes where she was really tetchy and unhappy with being stopped from just saying any old guff unchallenged, that position reversed.
Sunak feels like (a) he is on very solid ground factually logically and economically with his position and (b) Truss isn't. And he really isn't happy that they aren't listening to his fine reason logic and experience.
So just like Truss must have felt during the referendum...
Quoting someone's words etc when its your turn to talk is not Mansplaining.
Trying not to let a woman get a word in edgewise on the other hand . . .
Thats rude, yes. But not mansplaining as it is missing the explaining element.
The problem is that the Trusster's plan is bonkers. The other problem is that she apparently is going to win, and Sunak feels like Egon as Walter Peck orders the guy to shut down the containment grid.
Let me be clear about this. I very much prefer Rishi's position on economic policy and I worry about the lack of margin for error that Truss's plans leave (basically zero). So many things have gone unexpectedly wrong in recent years this seems very unwise to me.
But it is worth noting that the UK economy has a GDP approaching £3trn. Her "wild" tax plans amount to about £30bn or round about 1% of GDP. Government spending this year is edging towards £1,100bn making £30bn something like 2.7% of government spending or, if you want to look at it another way, just under 10 days of spending out of the year.
If you take inflation into account it is more likely that these numbers will come down rather than up. Like most modern politics this is the law of relatively small differences writ large. The gap between her and Sunak is a bit more than a rounding error but its not much more.
It makes you wonder why Sunak is so adamant about this. It is what is killing him.
He thought the contest would be framed as moving on from Boris, and he can't accept that the dominant theme is moving on from Sunak's tax increases.
He should have pinned the blame for the tax increases on Boris and repudiated them himself.
Rishi falling into the "mansplaining" accusation trap is something I didn't expect him to do. Thought he'd be better advised. (Personally I don't think he was).
He wasn't. Quoting someone's own words and their advisors' words back to them is not Mansplaining. But after an initial 10 minutes where she was really tetchy and unhappy with being stopped from just saying any old guff unchallenged, that position reversed.
Sunak feels like (a) he is on very solid ground factually logically and economically with his position and (b) Truss isn't. And he really isn't happy that they aren't listening to his fine reason logic and experience.
So just like Truss must have felt during the referendum...
Quoting someone's words etc when its your turn to talk is not Mansplaining.
Trying not to let a woman get a word in edgewise on the other hand . . .
They both talked over each other.
It's pretty sexist to assume that different rules of debate apply to cabinet colleagues simply because they are of different sex.
The whole 'mansplaining' spin is pretty pathetic - though clearly effective with its target market.
Rishi falling into the "mansplaining" accusation trap is something I didn't expect him to do. Thought he'd be better advised. (Personally I don't think he was).
He wasn't. Quoting someone's own words and their advisors' words back to them is not Mansplaining. But after an initial 10 minutes where she was really tetchy and unhappy with being stopped from just saying any old guff unchallenged, that position reversed.
Sunak feels like (a) he is on very solid ground factually logically and economically with his position and (b) Truss isn't. And he really isn't happy that they aren't listening to his fine reason logic and experience.
So just like Truss must have felt during the referendum...
Quoting someone's words etc when its your turn to talk is not Mansplaining.
Trying not to let a woman get a word in edgewise on the other hand . . .
Thats rude, yes. But not mansplaining as it is missing the explaining element.
The problem is that the Trusster's plan is bonkers. The other problem is that she apparently is going to win, and Sunak feels like Egon as Walter Peck orders the guy to shut down the containment grid.
Let me be clear about this. I very much prefer Rishi's position on economic policy and I worry about the lack of margin for error that Truss's plans leave (basically zero). So many things have gone unexpectedly wrong in recent years this seems very unwise to me.
But it is worth noting that the UK economy has a GDP approaching £3trn. Her "wild" tax plans amount to about £30bn or round about 1% of GDP. Government spending this year is edging towards £1,100bn making £30bn something like 2.7% of government spending or, if you want to look at it another way, just under 10 days of spending out of the year.
If you take inflation into account it is more likely that these numbers will come down rather than up. Like most modern politics this is the law of relatively small differences writ large. The gap between her and Sunak is a bit more than a rounding error but its not much more.
So if it was a Labour chancellor proposing to borrow £30bn to spend on a pet project you would be making similar excuses? John McDonnell perhaps?
The reason why we have a budget is because we can't just print money forever. Truss is proposing to inflate the national debt to give tax cuts to her friends and patrons. If Labour were proposing to borrow £30bn to pay for a giveaway to their friends and patrons you would be going up the bloody wall.
Rishi falling into the "mansplaining" accusation trap is something I didn't expect him to do. Thought he'd be better advised. (Personally I don't think he was).
He wasn't. Quoting someone's own words and their advisors' words back to them is not Mansplaining. But after an initial 10 minutes where she was really tetchy and unhappy with being stopped from just saying any old guff unchallenged, that position reversed.
Sunak feels like (a) he is on very solid ground factually logically and economically with his position and (b) Truss isn't. And he really isn't happy that they aren't listening to his fine reason logic and experience.
So just like Truss must have felt during the referendum...
Quoting someone's words etc when its your turn to talk is not Mansplaining.
Trying not to let a woman get a word in edgewise on the other hand . . .
Thats rude, yes. But not mansplaining as it is missing the explaining element.
The problem is that the Trusster's plan is bonkers. The other problem is that she apparently is going to win, and Sunak feels like Egon as Walter Peck orders the guy to shut down the containment grid.
Let me be clear about this. I very much prefer Rishi's position on economic policy and I worry about the lack of margin for error that Truss's plans leave (basically zero). So many things have gone unexpectedly wrong in recent years this seems very unwise to me.
But it is worth noting that the UK economy has a GDP approaching £3trn. Her "wild" tax plans amount to about £30bn or round about 1% of GDP. Government spending this year is edging towards £1,100bn making £30bn something like 2.7% of government spending or, if you want to look at it another way, just under 10 days of spending out of the year.
If you take inflation into account it is more likely that these numbers will come down rather than up. Like most modern politics this is the law of relatively small differences writ large. The gap between her and Sunak is a bit more than a rounding error but its not much more.
So if it was a Labour chancellor proposing to borrow £30bn to spend on a pet project you would be making similar excuses? John McDonnell perhaps?
The reason why we have a budget is because we can't just print money forever. Truss is proposing to inflate the national debt to give tax cuts to her friends and patrons. If Labour were proposing to borrow £30bn to pay for a giveaway to their friends and patrons you would be going up the bloody wall.
And so would Bart.
I am the one who should be in favour of Truss's policies!
I think the PB Tories are just trying to rationalise an inevitable bad decision in the same way that Corbyn’s opponents (myself included) did in the aftermath of 2015. Fair play, but it’s not going to help, and the rest of us think you’re bonkers.
The difference is, in 2015 there were reasons that Corbyn would be bad that were both obvious and simple to express - problems with antisemitism and past history of dislike for the West in general and the UK in particular.
For all that Truss's opponents are saying she'll be an obvious disaster, I haven't seen any reasons expressed so clearly.
She has a vast amount of experience filling a chair and no achievements to speak of that a generic replacement couldn’t have managed better, she’s pitching an unsound economic policy to appeal to a small in-group, she is obsessed with an extreme interpretation of free market economics forty years after its heyday when the world is substantially different and she is unfortunately gaffe prone on the world stage. I doubt she’s going to start posting racist pictures on her instagram, but she might blow up my pocket book and public services. In that respect the two are similar, the ideological event horizons are just in different places.
So, basically, "she's right wing"?
Is that what the new Tory coalition wants?
Lower taxes and aspiration?
I hope so.
You missed a comma. Unless you want lower aspiration.
Rishi falling into the "mansplaining" accusation trap is something I didn't expect him to do. Thought he'd be better advised. (Personally I don't think he was).
He wasn't. Quoting someone's own words and their advisors' words back to them is not Mansplaining. But after an initial 10 minutes where she was really tetchy and unhappy with being stopped from just saying any old guff unchallenged, that position reversed.
Sunak feels like (a) he is on very solid ground factually logically and economically with his position and (b) Truss isn't. And he really isn't happy that they aren't listening to his fine reason logic and experience.
So just like Truss must have felt during the referendum...
Quoting someone's words etc when its your turn to talk is not Mansplaining.
Trying not to let a woman get a word in edgewise on the other hand . . .
Thats rude, yes. But not mansplaining as it is missing the explaining element.
The problem is that the Trusster's plan is bonkers. The other problem is that she apparently is going to win, and Sunak feels like Egon as Walter Peck orders the guy to shut down the containment grid.
Let me be clear about this. I very much prefer Rishi's position on economic policy and I worry about the lack of margin for error that Truss's plans leave (basically zero). So many things have gone unexpectedly wrong in recent years this seems very unwise to me.
But it is worth noting that the UK economy has a GDP approaching £3trn. Her "wild" tax plans amount to about £30bn or round about 1% of GDP. Government spending this year is edging towards £1,100bn making £30bn something like 2.7% of government spending or, if you want to look at it another way, just under 10 days of spending out of the year.
If you take inflation into account it is more likely that these numbers will come down rather than up. Like most modern politics this is the law of relatively small differences writ large. The gap between her and Sunak is a bit more than a rounding error but its not much more.
It makes you wonder why Sunak is so adamant about this. It is what is killing him.
He wants/needs to paint her as irresponsible. And he wants to debate economics which is a strong point for him rather than , say, the finer points of the Australia free trade treaty. But he blew it.
Rishi falling into the "mansplaining" accusation trap is something I didn't expect him to do. Thought he'd be better advised. (Personally I don't think he was).
He wasn't. Quoting someone's own words and their advisors' words back to them is not Mansplaining. But after an initial 10 minutes where she was really tetchy and unhappy with being stopped from just saying any old guff unchallenged, that position reversed.
Sunak feels like (a) he is on very solid ground factually logically and economically with his position and (b) Truss isn't. And he really isn't happy that they aren't listening to his fine reason logic and experience.
So just like Truss must have felt during the referendum...
Quoting someone's words etc when its your turn to talk is not Mansplaining.
Trying not to let a woman get a word in edgewise on the other hand . . .
Thats rude, yes. But not mansplaining as it is missing the explaining element.
The problem is that the Trusster's plan is bonkers. The other problem is that she apparently is going to win, and Sunak feels like Egon as Walter Peck orders the guy to shut down the containment grid.
Let me be clear about this. I very much prefer Rishi's position on economic policy and I worry about the lack of margin for error that Truss's plans leave (basically zero). So many things have gone unexpectedly wrong in recent years this seems very unwise to me.
But it is worth noting that the UK economy has a GDP approaching £3trn. Her "wild" tax plans amount to about £30bn or round about 1% of GDP. Government spending this year is edging towards £1,100bn making £30bn something like 2.7% of government spending or, if you want to look at it another way, just under 10 days of spending out of the year.
If you take inflation into account it is more likely that these numbers will come down rather than up. Like most modern politics this is the law of relatively small differences writ large. The gap between her and Sunak is a bit more than a rounding error but its not much more.
So if it was a Labour chancellor proposing to borrow £30bn to spend on a pet project you would be making similar excuses? John McDonnell perhaps?
The reason why we have a budget is because we can't just print money forever. Truss is proposing to inflate the national debt to give tax cuts to her friends and patrons. If Labour were proposing to borrow £30bn to pay for a giveaway to their friends and patrons you would be going up the bloody wall.
How is reversing the unjustifiable National Insurance hike a "giveaway to friends and patrons?" 🤦♂️
I think the PB Tories are just trying to rationalise an inevitable bad decision in the same way that Corbyn’s opponents (myself included) did in the aftermath of 2015. Fair play, but it’s not going to help, and the rest of us think you’re bonkers.
The difference is, in 2015 there were reasons that Corbyn would be bad that were both obvious and simple to express - problems with antisemitism and past history of dislike for the West in general and the UK in particular.
For all that Truss's opponents are saying she'll be an obvious disaster, I haven't seen any reasons expressed so clearly.
She has a vast amount of experience filling a chair and no achievements to speak of that a generic replacement couldn’t have managed better, she’s pitching an unsound economic policy to appeal to a small in-group, she is obsessed with an extreme interpretation of free market economics forty years after its heyday when the world is substantially different and she is unfortunately gaffe prone on the world stage. I doubt she’s going to start posting racist pictures on her instagram, but she might blow up my pocket book and public services. In that respect the two are similar, the ideological event horizons are just in different places.
So, basically, "she's right wing"?
I’m glad you agree that right wing economics is unsound.
More seriously, no. She has precisely the same issues as Corbyn. She’s a lightweight that’s pedalling a view of the world which only has appeal to the hard extreme of her party. Many of Corbyn’s ideas wouldn’t have worked (even though I saw the same “you don’t like him because he’s actually left wing” defences trotted out) and would likely have been counterproductive. Many Tories on here pointed that out in 2015. I have the same view of Truss. You’re at liberty not to agree but I think of all the candidates she’s only marginally better than the hang-em shoot-em brigade. If you want my assessment of who the right should have backed, it should have been Badenoch.
So... I think she's nothing like Corbyn for two reasons.
Firstly, she's a woman who has held the highest offices of State.
Secondly, Corbyn's views are the same today as when he was 17 years old. Whatever you want to say about Truss, her views have changed and evolved.
Rishi falling into the "mansplaining" accusation trap is something I didn't expect him to do. Thought he'd be better advised. (Personally I don't think he was).
He wasn't. Quoting someone's own words and their advisors' words back to them is not Mansplaining. But after an initial 10 minutes where she was really tetchy and unhappy with being stopped from just saying any old guff unchallenged, that position reversed.
Sunak feels like (a) he is on very solid ground factually logically and economically with his position and (b) Truss isn't. And he really isn't happy that they aren't listening to his fine reason logic and experience.
So just like Truss must have felt during the referendum...
Quoting someone's words etc when its your turn to talk is not Mansplaining.
Trying not to let a woman get a word in edgewise on the other hand . . .
Thats rude, yes. But not mansplaining as it is missing the explaining element.
The problem is that the Trusster's plan is bonkers. The other problem is that she apparently is going to win, and Sunak feels like Egon as Walter Peck orders the guy to shut down the containment grid.
Let me be clear about this. I very much prefer Rishi's position on economic policy and I worry about the lack of margin for error that Truss's plans leave (basically zero). So many things have gone unexpectedly wrong in recent years this seems very unwise to me.
But it is worth noting that the UK economy has a GDP approaching £3trn. Her "wild" tax plans amount to about £30bn or round about 1% of GDP. Government spending this year is edging towards £1,100bn making £30bn something like 2.7% of government spending or, if you want to look at it another way, just under 10 days of spending out of the year.
If you take inflation into account it is more likely that these numbers will come down rather than up. Like most modern politics this is the law of relatively small differences writ large. The gap between her and Sunak is a bit more than a rounding error but its not much more.
So if it was a Labour chancellor proposing to borrow £30bn to spend on a pet project you would be making similar excuses? John McDonnell perhaps?
The reason why we have a budget is because we can't just print money forever. Truss is proposing to inflate the national debt to give tax cuts to her friends and patrons. If Labour were proposing to borrow £30bn to pay for a giveaway to their friends and patrons you would be going up the bloody wall.
Cancelling the NI rise is a giveaway to "friends and patrons"?
Rishi falling into the "mansplaining" accusation trap is something I didn't expect him to do. Thought he'd be better advised. (Personally I don't think he was).
He wasn't. Quoting someone's own words and their advisors' words back to them is not Mansplaining. But after an initial 10 minutes where she was really tetchy and unhappy with being stopped from just saying any old guff unchallenged, that position reversed.
Sunak feels like (a) he is on very solid ground factually logically and economically with his position and (b) Truss isn't. And he really isn't happy that they aren't listening to his fine reason logic and experience.
So just like Truss must have felt during the referendum...
Quoting someone's words etc when its your turn to talk is not Mansplaining.
Trying not to let a woman get a word in edgewise on the other hand . . .
They both talked over each other.
It's pretty sexist to assume that different rules of debate apply to cabinet colleagues simply because they are of different sex.
The whole 'mansplaining' spin is pretty pathetic - though clearly effective with its target market.
I wonder if this "mansplaining" meme will survive week after week of Starmer mansplaining at PMQs.
Could a serious case now be made for keeping Boris on? 'Ousting him was all a bit heat of the moment', 'Do we really want to foisted with Rishi Washi or Beth Bondage?' etc. I mean: if the 1922 can change the rules to get rid of him, then surely they can manipulate things to put him back. Boris would be receptive. I'm just not now seeing it as the most outlandish possibility.
As Johnson hasn't resigned
He has. We went through this earlier in the thread.
Do you have a pointer to the relevant part of the thread? Thanks.
These predictions are decidedly “brave” given that parts of the EU are slipping into recession right now and Germany is facing an energy crisis which could wipe 12% off its GDP
“Germany’s economy faces losing around 12 per cent of its annual output — some €429bn — if Russian natural gas supplies stopped abruptly, according to a new study by an adviser to the government.”
By even publishing stuff like that in the FT, you’re giving Putin ideas. He **IS** going to spend this winter playing games with the gas supply, for no reason other than that he can.
Which is why *everyone* needs to be onboard, with smacking the sh!t out of his army in Ukraine this summer.
Rishi falling into the "mansplaining" accusation trap is something I didn't expect him to do. Thought he'd be better advised. (Personally I don't think he was).
He wasn't. Quoting someone's own words and their advisors' words back to them is not Mansplaining. But after an initial 10 minutes where she was really tetchy and unhappy with being stopped from just saying any old guff unchallenged, that position reversed.
Sunak feels like (a) he is on very solid ground factually logically and economically with his position and (b) Truss isn't. And he really isn't happy that they aren't listening to his fine reason logic and experience.
So just like Truss must have felt during the referendum...
Quoting someone's words etc when its your turn to talk is not Mansplaining.
Trying not to let a woman get a word in edgewise on the other hand . . .
Thats rude, yes. But not mansplaining as it is missing the explaining element.
The problem is that the Trusster's plan is bonkers. The other problem is that she apparently is going to win, and Sunak feels like Egon as Walter Peck orders the guy to shut down the containment grid.
Let me be clear about this. I very much prefer Rishi's position on economic policy and I worry about the lack of margin for error that Truss's plans leave (basically zero). So many things have gone unexpectedly wrong in recent years this seems very unwise to me.
But it is worth noting that the UK economy has a GDP approaching £3trn. Her "wild" tax plans amount to about £30bn or round about 1% of GDP. Government spending this year is edging towards £1,100bn making £30bn something like 2.7% of government spending or, if you want to look at it another way, just under 10 days of spending out of the year.
If you take inflation into account it is more likely that these numbers will come down rather than up. Like most modern politics this is the law of relatively small differences writ large. The gap between her and Sunak is a bit more than a rounding error but its not much more.
So if it was a Labour chancellor proposing to borrow £30bn to spend on a pet project you would be making similar excuses? John McDonnell perhaps?
The reason why we have a budget is because we can't just print money forever. Truss is proposing to inflate the national debt to give tax cuts to her friends and patrons. If Labour were proposing to borrow £30bn to pay for a giveaway to their friends and patrons you would be going up the bloody wall.
How is reversing the unjustifiable National Insurance hike a "giveaway to friends and patrons?" 🤦♂️
Because that isn't what she is doing, nor was it unjustifiable. Specifically raised to fund the NHS and release funds for social care. You may disagree with spending on health and social care but unjustified it was not.
Rishi falling into the "mansplaining" accusation trap is something I didn't expect him to do. Thought he'd be better advised. (Personally I don't think he was).
He wasn't. Quoting someone's own words and their advisors' words back to them is not Mansplaining. But after an initial 10 minutes where she was really tetchy and unhappy with being stopped from just saying any old guff unchallenged, that position reversed.
Sunak feels like (a) he is on very solid ground factually logically and economically with his position and (b) Truss isn't. And he really isn't happy that they aren't listening to his fine reason logic and experience.
So just like Truss must have felt during the referendum...
Quoting someone's words etc when its your turn to talk is not Mansplaining.
Trying not to let a woman get a word in edgewise on the other hand . . .
They both talked over each other.
It's pretty sexist to assume that different rules of debate apply to cabinet colleagues simply because they are of different sex.
The whole 'mansplaining' spin is pretty pathetic - though clearly effective with its target market.
I wonder if this "mansplaining" meme will survive week after week of Starmer mansplaining at PMQs.
I'm thinking not.
Somehow I doubt Starmer would be talking over the Prime Minister while she's speaking at PMQs, in the same way as Starmer was repeatedly talking over Truss last night.
Rishi falling into the "mansplaining" accusation trap is something I didn't expect him to do. Thought he'd be better advised. (Personally I don't think he was).
He wasn't. Quoting someone's own words and their advisors' words back to them is not Mansplaining. But after an initial 10 minutes where she was really tetchy and unhappy with being stopped from just saying any old guff unchallenged, that position reversed.
Sunak feels like (a) he is on very solid ground factually logically and economically with his position and (b) Truss isn't. And he really isn't happy that they aren't listening to his fine reason logic and experience.
So just like Truss must have felt during the referendum...
Quoting someone's words etc when its your turn to talk is not Mansplaining.
Trying not to let a woman get a word in edgewise on the other hand . . .
Thats rude, yes. But not mansplaining as it is missing the explaining element.
The problem is that the Trusster's plan is bonkers. The other problem is that she apparently is going to win, and Sunak feels like Egon as Walter Peck orders the guy to shut down the containment grid.
Let me be clear about this. I very much prefer Rishi's position on economic policy and I worry about the lack of margin for error that Truss's plans leave (basically zero). So many things have gone unexpectedly wrong in recent years this seems very unwise to me.
But it is worth noting that the UK economy has a GDP approaching £3trn. Her "wild" tax plans amount to about £30bn or round about 1% of GDP. Government spending this year is edging towards £1,100bn making £30bn something like 2.7% of government spending or, if you want to look at it another way, just under 10 days of spending out of the year.
If you take inflation into account it is more likely that these numbers will come down rather than up. Like most modern politics this is the law of relatively small differences writ large. The gap between her and Sunak is a bit more than a rounding error but its not much more.
So if it was a Labour chancellor proposing to borrow £30bn to spend on a pet project you would be making similar excuses? John McDonnell perhaps?
The reason why we have a budget is because we can't just print money forever. Truss is proposing to inflate the national debt to give tax cuts to her friends and patrons. If Labour were proposing to borrow £30bn to pay for a giveaway to their friends and patrons you would be going up the bloody wall.
Cancelling the NI rise is a giveaway to "friends and patrons"?
Taxes are at their highest ever. She isn't stopping at reversing the NI rise. Which has already largely been reversed. She is going after income and corporation tax cuts now.
Rishi falling into the "mansplaining" accusation trap is something I didn't expect him to do. Thought he'd be better advised. (Personally I don't think he was).
He wasn't. Quoting someone's own words and their advisors' words back to them is not Mansplaining. But after an initial 10 minutes where she was really tetchy and unhappy with being stopped from just saying any old guff unchallenged, that position reversed.
Sunak feels like (a) he is on very solid ground factually logically and economically with his position and (b) Truss isn't. And he really isn't happy that they aren't listening to his fine reason logic and experience.
So just like Truss must have felt during the referendum...
Quoting someone's words etc when its your turn to talk is not Mansplaining.
Trying not to let a woman get a word in edgewise on the other hand . . .
Thats rude, yes. But not mansplaining as it is missing the explaining element.
The problem is that the Trusster's plan is bonkers. The other problem is that she apparently is going to win, and Sunak feels like Egon as Walter Peck orders the guy to shut down the containment grid.
Let me be clear about this. I very much prefer Rishi's position on economic policy and I worry about the lack of margin for error that Truss's plans leave (basically zero). So many things have gone unexpectedly wrong in recent years this seems very unwise to me.
But it is worth noting that the UK economy has a GDP approaching £3trn. Her "wild" tax plans amount to about £30bn or round about 1% of GDP. Government spending this year is edging towards £1,100bn making £30bn something like 2.7% of government spending or, if you want to look at it another way, just under 10 days of spending out of the year.
If you take inflation into account it is more likely that these numbers will come down rather than up. Like most modern politics this is the law of relatively small differences writ large. The gap between her and Sunak is a bit more than a rounding error but its not much more.
So if it was a Labour chancellor proposing to borrow £30bn to spend on a pet project you would be making similar excuses? John McDonnell perhaps?
The reason why we have a budget is because we can't just print money forever. Truss is proposing to inflate the national debt to give tax cuts to her friends and patrons. If Labour were proposing to borrow £30bn to pay for a giveaway to their friends and patrons you would be going up the bloody wall.
How is reversing the unjustifiable National Insurance hike a "giveaway to friends and patrons?" 🤦♂️
Rishi falling into the "mansplaining" accusation trap is something I didn't expect him to do. Thought he'd be better advised. (Personally I don't think he was).
He wasn't. Quoting someone's own words and their advisors' words back to them is not Mansplaining. But after an initial 10 minutes where she was really tetchy and unhappy with being stopped from just saying any old guff unchallenged, that position reversed.
Sunak feels like (a) he is on very solid ground factually logically and economically with his position and (b) Truss isn't. And he really isn't happy that they aren't listening to his fine reason logic and experience.
So just like Truss must have felt during the referendum...
Quoting someone's words etc when its your turn to talk is not Mansplaining.
Trying not to let a woman get a word in edgewise on the other hand . . .
Thats rude, yes. But not mansplaining as it is missing the explaining element.
The problem is that the Trusster's plan is bonkers. The other problem is that she apparently is going to win, and Sunak feels like Egon as Walter Peck orders the guy to shut down the containment grid.
Let me be clear about this. I very much prefer Rishi's position on economic policy and I worry about the lack of margin for error that Truss's plans leave (basically zero). So many things have gone unexpectedly wrong in recent years this seems very unwise to me.
But it is worth noting that the UK economy has a GDP approaching £3trn. Her "wild" tax plans amount to about £30bn or round about 1% of GDP. Government spending this year is edging towards £1,100bn making £30bn something like 2.7% of government spending or, if you want to look at it another way, just under 10 days of spending out of the year.
If you take inflation into account it is more likely that these numbers will come down rather than up. Like most modern politics this is the law of relatively small differences writ large. The gap between her and Sunak is a bit more than a rounding error but its not much more.
So if it was a Labour chancellor proposing to borrow £30bn to spend on a pet project you would be making similar excuses? John McDonnell perhaps?
The reason why we have a budget is because we can't just print money forever. Truss is proposing to inflate the national debt to give tax cuts to her friends and patrons. If Labour were proposing to borrow £30bn to pay for a giveaway to their friends and patrons you would be going up the bloody wall.
Cancelling the NI rise is a giveaway to "friends and patrons"?
Taxes are at their highest ever. She isn't stopping at reversing the NI rise. Which has already largely been reversed. She is going after income and corporation tax cuts now.
0.5% growth next year will have to be factored into my next election thoughts. If it pans out, a Labour government looks value. Any bounce won't last long. Despite Starmer.
UK GDP growth in 1991 was -1.1% considerably worse than +0.5%
I think Starmer is more Kinnock than Blair or Wilson. People say good things about Rachel Reeves, but she's no mid-90s Gordon Brown.
Rishi falling into the "mansplaining" accusation trap is something I didn't expect him to do. Thought he'd be better advised. (Personally I don't think he was).
He wasn't. Quoting someone's own words and their advisors' words back to them is not Mansplaining. But after an initial 10 minutes where she was really tetchy and unhappy with being stopped from just saying any old guff unchallenged, that position reversed.
Sunak feels like (a) he is on very solid ground factually logically and economically with his position and (b) Truss isn't. And he really isn't happy that they aren't listening to his fine reason logic and experience.
So just like Truss must have felt during the referendum...
Quoting someone's words etc when its your turn to talk is not Mansplaining.
Trying not to let a woman get a word in edgewise on the other hand . . .
Thats rude, yes. But not mansplaining as it is missing the explaining element.
The problem is that the Trusster's plan is bonkers. The other problem is that she apparently is going to win, and Sunak feels like Egon as Walter Peck orders the guy to shut down the containment grid.
Let me be clear about this. I very much prefer Rishi's position on economic policy and I worry about the lack of margin for error that Truss's plans leave (basically zero). So many things have gone unexpectedly wrong in recent years this seems very unwise to me.
But it is worth noting that the UK economy has a GDP approaching £3trn. Her "wild" tax plans amount to about £30bn or round about 1% of GDP. Government spending this year is edging towards £1,100bn making £30bn something like 2.7% of government spending or, if you want to look at it another way, just under 10 days of spending out of the year.
If you take inflation into account it is more likely that these numbers will come down rather than up. Like most modern politics this is the law of relatively small differences writ large. The gap between her and Sunak is a bit more than a rounding error but its not much more.
So if it was a Labour chancellor proposing to borrow £30bn to spend on a pet project you would be making similar excuses? John McDonnell perhaps?
The reason why we have a budget is because we can't just print money forever. Truss is proposing to inflate the national debt to give tax cuts to her friends and patrons. If Labour were proposing to borrow £30bn to pay for a giveaway to their friends and patrons you would be going up the bloody wall.
How is reversing the unjustifiable National Insurance hike a "giveaway to friends and patrons?" 🤦♂️
Because that isn't what she is doing, nor was it unjustifiable. Specifically raised to fund the NHS and release funds for social care. You may disagree with spending on health and social care but unjustified it was not.
The NHS is funded by general taxation, semi-hypothecation is ignorant nonsense and always has been.
You can't just say "for the NHS" and magically make everything you do OK.
If the NHS needs funding then fund it, but there's no reason why taxes on people who work should be the only ones going up, while taxes on people who don't should go down.
I think the PB Tories are just trying to rationalise an inevitable bad decision in the same way that Corbyn’s opponents (myself included) did in the aftermath of 2015. Fair play, but it’s not going to help, and the rest of us think you’re bonkers.
The difference is, in 2015 there were reasons that Corbyn would be bad that were both obvious and simple to express - problems with antisemitism and past history of dislike for the West in general and the UK in particular.
For all that Truss's opponents are saying she'll be an obvious disaster, I haven't seen any reasons expressed so clearly.
She has a vast amount of experience filling a chair and no achievements to speak of that a generic replacement couldn’t have managed better, she’s pitching an unsound economic policy to appeal to a small in-group, she is obsessed with an extreme interpretation of free market economics forty years after its heyday when the world is substantially different and she is unfortunately gaffe prone on the world stage. I doubt she’s going to start posting racist pictures on her instagram, but she might blow up my pocket book and public services. In that respect the two are similar, the ideological event horizons are just in different places.
So, basically, "she's right wing"?
I’m glad you agree that right wing economics is unsound.
More seriously, no. She has precisely the same issues as Corbyn. She’s a lightweight that’s pedalling a view of the world which only has appeal to the hard extreme of her party. Many of Corbyn’s ideas wouldn’t have worked (even though I saw the same “you don’t like him because he’s actually left wing” defences trotted out) and would likely have been counterproductive. Many Tories on here pointed that out in 2015. I have the same view of Truss. You’re at liberty not to agree but I think of all the candidates she’s only marginally better than the hang-em shoot-em brigade. If you want my assessment of who the right should have backed, it should have been Badenoch.
I'm pretty sure that you equate right wing economics with being unsound, whether I do or not...
You're trying to draw a parallel with Corbyn, but with Corbyn the problems that were clear in 2015 were nothing to do with economics and, really, not much to do with policy.
Rishi falling into the "mansplaining" accusation trap is something I didn't expect him to do. Thought he'd be better advised. (Personally I don't think he was).
He wasn't. Quoting someone's own words and their advisors' words back to them is not Mansplaining. But after an initial 10 minutes where she was really tetchy and unhappy with being stopped from just saying any old guff unchallenged, that position reversed.
Sunak feels like (a) he is on very solid ground factually logically and economically with his position and (b) Truss isn't. And he really isn't happy that they aren't listening to his fine reason logic and experience.
So just like Truss must have felt during the referendum...
Quoting someone's words etc when its your turn to talk is not Mansplaining.
Trying not to let a woman get a word in edgewise on the other hand . . .
Thats rude, yes. But not mansplaining as it is missing the explaining element.
The problem is that the Trusster's plan is bonkers. The other problem is that she apparently is going to win, and Sunak feels like Egon as Walter Peck orders the guy to shut down the containment grid.
Let me be clear about this. I very much prefer Rishi's position on economic policy and I worry about the lack of margin for error that Truss's plans leave (basically zero). So many things have gone unexpectedly wrong in recent years this seems very unwise to me.
But it is worth noting that the UK economy has a GDP approaching £3trn. Her "wild" tax plans amount to about £30bn or round about 1% of GDP. Government spending this year is edging towards £1,100bn making £30bn something like 2.7% of government spending or, if you want to look at it another way, just under 10 days of spending out of the year.
If you take inflation into account it is more likely that these numbers will come down rather than up. Like most modern politics this is the law of relatively small differences writ large. The gap between her and Sunak is a bit more than a rounding error but its not much more.
So if it was a Labour chancellor proposing to borrow £30bn to spend on a pet project you would be making similar excuses? John McDonnell perhaps?
The reason why we have a budget is because we can't just print money forever. Truss is proposing to inflate the national debt to give tax cuts to her friends and patrons. If Labour were proposing to borrow £30bn to pay for a giveaway to their friends and patrons you would be going up the bloody wall.
Cancelling the NI rise is a giveaway to "friends and patrons"?
If the forthcoming Cost of Living issues are going to impact those who earn less than £30,000 - reversing the NI cut doesn't help them...
I have a new word to offer: Prattsplaining. This is posting a strawman argument in a particularly sneering way then ending the sentence with an emoji of a person with their hand over their face like thus: 🤦♂️
Rishi falling into the "mansplaining" accusation trap is something I didn't expect him to do. Thought he'd be better advised. (Personally I don't think he was).
He wasn't. Quoting someone's own words and their advisors' words back to them is not Mansplaining. But after an initial 10 minutes where she was really tetchy and unhappy with being stopped from just saying any old guff unchallenged, that position reversed.
Sunak feels like (a) he is on very solid ground factually logically and economically with his position and (b) Truss isn't. And he really isn't happy that they aren't listening to his fine reason logic and experience.
So just like Truss must have felt during the referendum...
Quoting someone's words etc when its your turn to talk is not Mansplaining.
Trying not to let a woman get a word in edgewise on the other hand . . .
Thats rude, yes. But not mansplaining as it is missing the explaining element.
The problem is that the Trusster's plan is bonkers. The other problem is that she apparently is going to win, and Sunak feels like Egon as Walter Peck orders the guy to shut down the containment grid.
Let me be clear about this. I very much prefer Rishi's position on economic policy and I worry about the lack of margin for error that Truss's plans leave (basically zero). So many things have gone unexpectedly wrong in recent years this seems very unwise to me.
But it is worth noting that the UK economy has a GDP approaching £3trn. Her "wild" tax plans amount to about £30bn or round about 1% of GDP. Government spending this year is edging towards £1,100bn making £30bn something like 2.7% of government spending or, if you want to look at it another way, just under 10 days of spending out of the year.
If you take inflation into account it is more likely that these numbers will come down rather than up. Like most modern politics this is the law of relatively small differences writ large. The gap between her and Sunak is a bit more than a rounding error but its not much more.
So if it was a Labour chancellor proposing to borrow £30bn to spend on a pet project you would be making similar excuses? John McDonnell perhaps?
The reason why we have a budget is because we can't just print money forever. Truss is proposing to inflate the national debt to give tax cuts to her friends and patrons. If Labour were proposing to borrow £30bn to pay for a giveaway to their friends and patrons you would be going up the bloody wall.
Cancelling the NI rise is a giveaway to "friends and patrons"?
When the NI rise was announced, it was derided as being a bung to the client vote pensioners. Now that someone proposes to scrap it, it’s described as a giveaway to their friends and patrons.
Tory MPs really do have the biggest egos in the world, which is proved by the fact they put Sunak through to face the membership even though all the objective evidence showed he would lose against all the other candidates.
I think the PB Tories are just trying to rationalise an inevitable bad decision in the same way that Corbyn’s opponents (myself included) did in the aftermath of 2015. Fair play, but it’s not going to help, and the rest of us think you’re bonkers.
The difference is, in 2015 there were reasons that Corbyn would be bad that were both obvious and simple to express - problems with antisemitism and past history of dislike for the West in general and the UK in particular.
For all that Truss's opponents are saying she'll be an obvious disaster, I haven't seen any reasons expressed so clearly.
She has a vast amount of experience filling a chair and no achievements to speak of that a generic replacement couldn’t have managed better, she’s pitching an unsound economic policy to appeal to a small in-group, she is obsessed with an extreme interpretation of free market economics forty years after its heyday when the world is substantially different and she is unfortunately gaffe prone on the world stage. I doubt she’s going to start posting racist pictures on her instagram, but she might blow up my pocket book and public services. In that respect the two are similar, the ideological event horizons are just in different places.
So, basically, "she's right wing"?
I’m glad you agree that right wing economics is unsound.
More seriously, no. She has precisely the same issues as Corbyn. She’s a lightweight that’s pedalling a view of the world which only has appeal to the hard extreme of her party. Many of Corbyn’s ideas wouldn’t have worked (even though I saw the same “you don’t like him because he’s actually left wing” defences trotted out) and would likely have been counterproductive. Many Tories on here pointed that out in 2015. I have the same view of Truss. You’re at liberty not to agree but I think of all the candidates she’s only marginally better than the hang-em shoot-em brigade. If you want my assessment of who the right should have backed, it should have been Badenoch.
So... I think she's nothing like Corbyn for two reasons.
Firstly, she's a woman who has held the highest offices of State.
Secondly, Corbyn's views are the same today as when he was 17 years old. Whatever you want to say about Truss, her views have changed and evolved.
Rishi falling into the "mansplaining" accusation trap is something I didn't expect him to do. Thought he'd be better advised. (Personally I don't think he was).
He wasn't. Quoting someone's own words and their advisors' words back to them is not Mansplaining. But after an initial 10 minutes where she was really tetchy and unhappy with being stopped from just saying any old guff unchallenged, that position reversed.
Sunak feels like (a) he is on very solid ground factually logically and economically with his position and (b) Truss isn't. And he really isn't happy that they aren't listening to his fine reason logic and experience.
So just like Truss must have felt during the referendum...
Quoting someone's words etc when its your turn to talk is not Mansplaining.
Trying not to let a woman get a word in edgewise on the other hand . . .
Thats rude, yes. But not mansplaining as it is missing the explaining element.
The problem is that the Trusster's plan is bonkers. The other problem is that she apparently is going to win, and Sunak feels like Egon as Walter Peck orders the guy to shut down the containment grid.
Let me be clear about this. I very much prefer Rishi's position on economic policy and I worry about the lack of margin for error that Truss's plans leave (basically zero). So many things have gone unexpectedly wrong in recent years this seems very unwise to me.
But it is worth noting that the UK economy has a GDP approaching £3trn. Her "wild" tax plans amount to about £30bn or round about 1% of GDP. Government spending this year is edging towards £1,100bn making £30bn something like 2.7% of government spending or, if you want to look at it another way, just under 10 days of spending out of the year.
If you take inflation into account it is more likely that these numbers will come down rather than up. Like most modern politics this is the law of relatively small differences writ large. The gap between her and Sunak is a bit more than a rounding error but its not much more.
So if it was a Labour chancellor proposing to borrow £30bn to spend on a pet project you would be making similar excuses? John McDonnell perhaps?
The reason why we have a budget is because we can't just print money forever. Truss is proposing to inflate the national debt to give tax cuts to her friends and patrons. If Labour were proposing to borrow £30bn to pay for a giveaway to their friends and patrons you would be going up the bloody wall.
Cancelling the NI rise is a giveaway to "friends and patrons"?
If the forthcoming Cost of Living issues are going to impact those who earn less than £30,000 - reversing the NI cut doesn't help them...
How do you figure? People earning less than £30k are paying NI.
Rishi falling into the "mansplaining" accusation trap is something I didn't expect him to do. Thought he'd be better advised. (Personally I don't think he was).
He wasn't. Quoting someone's own words and their advisors' words back to them is not Mansplaining. But after an initial 10 minutes where she was really tetchy and unhappy with being stopped from just saying any old guff unchallenged, that position reversed.
Sunak feels like (a) he is on very solid ground factually logically and economically with his position and (b) Truss isn't. And he really isn't happy that they aren't listening to his fine reason logic and experience.
So just like Truss must have felt during the referendum...
Quoting someone's words etc when its your turn to talk is not Mansplaining.
Trying not to let a woman get a word in edgewise on the other hand . . .
Thats rude, yes. But not mansplaining as it is missing the explaining element.
The problem is that the Trusster's plan is bonkers. The other problem is that she apparently is going to win, and Sunak feels like Egon as Walter Peck orders the guy to shut down the containment grid.
Let me be clear about this. I very much prefer Rishi's position on economic policy and I worry about the lack of margin for error that Truss's plans leave (basically zero). So many things have gone unexpectedly wrong in recent years this seems very unwise to me.
But it is worth noting that the UK economy has a GDP approaching £3trn. Her "wild" tax plans amount to about £30bn or round about 1% of GDP. Government spending this year is edging towards £1,100bn making £30bn something like 2.7% of government spending or, if you want to look at it another way, just under 10 days of spending out of the year.
If you take inflation into account it is more likely that these numbers will come down rather than up. Like most modern politics this is the law of relatively small differences writ large. The gap between her and Sunak is a bit more than a rounding error but its not much more.
So if it was a Labour chancellor proposing to borrow £30bn to spend on a pet project you would be making similar excuses? John McDonnell perhaps?
The reason why we have a budget is because we can't just print money forever. Truss is proposing to inflate the national debt to give tax cuts to her friends and patrons. If Labour were proposing to borrow £30bn to pay for a giveaway to their friends and patrons you would be going up the bloody wall.
Cancelling the NI rise is a giveaway to "friends and patrons"?
When the NI rise was announced, it was derided as being a bung to the client vote pensioners. Now that someone proposes to scrap it, it’s described as a giveaway to their friends and patrons.
Sunak has already bunged back the NI. We are talking about her forthcoming Income and Corporation Tax cuts.
Rishi falling into the "mansplaining" accusation trap is something I didn't expect him to do. Thought he'd be better advised. (Personally I don't think he was).
He wasn't. Quoting someone's own words and their advisors' words back to them is not Mansplaining. But after an initial 10 minutes where she was really tetchy and unhappy with being stopped from just saying any old guff unchallenged, that position reversed.
Sunak feels like (a) he is on very solid ground factually logically and economically with his position and (b) Truss isn't. And he really isn't happy that they aren't listening to his fine reason logic and experience.
So just like Truss must have felt during the referendum...
Quoting someone's words etc when its your turn to talk is not Mansplaining.
Trying not to let a woman get a word in edgewise on the other hand . . .
They both talked over each other.
It's pretty sexist to assume that different rules of debate apply to cabinet colleagues simply because they are of different sex.
The whole 'mansplaining' spin is pretty pathetic - though clearly effective with its target market.
I wonder if this "mansplaining" meme will survive week after week of Starmer mansplaining at PMQs.
I'm thinking not.
I don't think it will last behind the leadership vote. But it will have served its purpose.
These predictions are decidedly “brave” given that parts of the EU are slipping into recession right now and Germany is facing an energy crisis which could wipe 12% off its GDP
“Germany’s economy faces losing around 12 per cent of its annual output — some €429bn — if Russian natural gas supplies stopped abruptly, according to a new study by an adviser to the government.”
Everywhere that is an energy importer (unlike they've been taking advantage of cheap Russian LNG cargoes, *cough* Japan *cough*), is going to see very severe impacts from rising commodity prices.
I suspect (unless the war ends soon) that the UK, Italy and Germany will all be in recession by year end, and that France will only avoid it by a whisker.
Rishi falling into the "mansplaining" accusation trap is something I didn't expect him to do. Thought he'd be better advised. (Personally I don't think he was).
He wasn't. Quoting someone's own words and their advisors' words back to them is not Mansplaining. But after an initial 10 minutes where she was really tetchy and unhappy with being stopped from just saying any old guff unchallenged, that position reversed.
Sunak feels like (a) he is on very solid ground factually logically and economically with his position and (b) Truss isn't. And he really isn't happy that they aren't listening to his fine reason logic and experience.
So just like Truss must have felt during the referendum...
Quoting someone's words etc when its your turn to talk is not Mansplaining.
Trying not to let a woman get a word in edgewise on the other hand . . .
Thats rude, yes. But not mansplaining as it is missing the explaining element.
The problem is that the Trusster's plan is bonkers. The other problem is that she apparently is going to win, and Sunak feels like Egon as Walter Peck orders the guy to shut down the containment grid.
Let me be clear about this. I very much prefer Rishi's position on economic policy and I worry about the lack of margin for error that Truss's plans leave (basically zero). So many things have gone unexpectedly wrong in recent years this seems very unwise to me.
But it is worth noting that the UK economy has a GDP approaching £3trn. Her "wild" tax plans amount to about £30bn or round about 1% of GDP. Government spending this year is edging towards £1,100bn making £30bn something like 2.7% of government spending or, if you want to look at it another way, just under 10 days of spending out of the year.
If you take inflation into account it is more likely that these numbers will come down rather than up. Like most modern politics this is the law of relatively small differences writ large. The gap between her and Sunak is a bit more than a rounding error but its not much more.
It makes you wonder why Sunak is so adamant about this. It is what is killing him.
He wants/needs to paint her as irresponsible. And he wants to debate economics which is a strong point for him rather than , say, the finer points of the Australia free trade treaty. But he blew it.
What strikes me about the Sunak campaign (and hence the attitude of his backers in parliament and the treasury), is the total and complete absence of any self analysis or self examination of their conduct since the end of 2019 whatever.
They are always right, absolutely right, and any criticism whatever is automatically classed as stupidity or lack of understanding.
I think the PB Tories are just trying to rationalise an inevitable bad decision in the same way that Corbyn’s opponents (myself included) did in the aftermath of 2015. Fair play, but it’s not going to help, and the rest of us think you’re bonkers.
The difference is, in 2015 there were reasons that Corbyn would be bad that were both obvious and simple to express - problems with antisemitism and past history of dislike for the West in general and the UK in particular.
For all that Truss's opponents are saying she'll be an obvious disaster, I haven't seen any reasons expressed so clearly.
She has a vast amount of experience filling a chair and no achievements to speak of that a generic replacement couldn’t have managed better, she’s pitching an unsound economic policy to appeal to a small in-group, she is obsessed with an extreme interpretation of free market economics forty years after its heyday when the world is substantially different and she is unfortunately gaffe prone on the world stage. I doubt she’s going to start posting racist pictures on her instagram, but she might blow up my pocket book and public services. In that respect the two are similar, the ideological event horizons are just in different places.
So, basically, "she's right wing"?
I’m glad you agree that right wing economics is unsound.
More seriously, no. She has precisely the same issues as Corbyn. She’s a lightweight that’s pedalling a view of the world which only has appeal to the hard extreme of her party. Many of Corbyn’s ideas wouldn’t have worked (even though I saw the same “you don’t like him because he’s actually left wing” defences trotted out) and would likely have been counterproductive. Many Tories on here pointed that out in 2015. I have the same view of Truss. You’re at liberty not to agree but I think of all the candidates she’s only marginally better than the hang-em shoot-em brigade. If you want my assessment of who the right should have backed, it should have been Badenoch.
So... I think she's nothing like Corbyn for two reasons.
Firstly, she's a woman who has held the highest offices of State.
Secondly, Corbyn's views are the same today as when he was 17 years old. Whatever you want to say about Truss, her views have changed and evolved.
I don’t see why that invalidates my comparison. You can have a malignant appeal to the baser instincts of your party regardless of whether you got there via trenchant adherence to a teenage dogma or via the zealotry of the serial convert.
As to the great offices of state, there have been plenty of seat-fillers, yes-men and rogues in those offices. Including a certain Alexander B Johnson. She might not literally be Corbyn in blue (and I don’t believe I argued as such), but the political silhouette looks very similar.
Tory MPs really do have the biggest egos in the world, which is proved by the fact they put Sunak through to face the membership even though all the objective evidence showed he would lose against all the other candidates.
All the objective evidence evidence being a series of polls from Yougov?
Rishi falling into the "mansplaining" accusation trap is something I didn't expect him to do. Thought he'd be better advised. (Personally I don't think he was).
He wasn't. Quoting someone's own words and their advisors' words back to them is not Mansplaining. But after an initial 10 minutes where she was really tetchy and unhappy with being stopped from just saying any old guff unchallenged, that position reversed.
Sunak feels like (a) he is on very solid ground factually logically and economically with his position and (b) Truss isn't. And he really isn't happy that they aren't listening to his fine reason logic and experience.
So just like Truss must have felt during the referendum...
Quoting someone's words etc when its your turn to talk is not Mansplaining.
Trying not to let a woman get a word in edgewise on the other hand . . .
Thats rude, yes. But not mansplaining as it is missing the explaining element.
The problem is that the Trusster's plan is bonkers. The other problem is that she apparently is going to win, and Sunak feels like Egon as Walter Peck orders the guy to shut down the containment grid.
Let me be clear about this. I very much prefer Rishi's position on economic policy and I worry about the lack of margin for error that Truss's plans leave (basically zero). So many things have gone unexpectedly wrong in recent years this seems very unwise to me.
But it is worth noting that the UK economy has a GDP approaching £3trn. Her "wild" tax plans amount to about £30bn or round about 1% of GDP. Government spending this year is edging towards £1,100bn making £30bn something like 2.7% of government spending or, if you want to look at it another way, just under 10 days of spending out of the year.
If you take inflation into account it is more likely that these numbers will come down rather than up. Like most modern politics this is the law of relatively small differences writ large. The gap between her and Sunak is a bit more than a rounding error but its not much more.
So if it was a Labour chancellor proposing to borrow £30bn to spend on a pet project you would be making similar excuses? John McDonnell perhaps?
The reason why we have a budget is because we can't just print money forever. Truss is proposing to inflate the national debt to give tax cuts to her friends and patrons. If Labour were proposing to borrow £30bn to pay for a giveaway to their friends and patrons you would be going up the bloody wall.
Cancelling the NI rise is a giveaway to "friends and patrons"?
When the NI rise was announced, it was derided as being a bung to the client vote pensioners. Now that someone proposes to scrap it, it’s described as a giveaway to their friends and patrons.
Sunak has already bunged back the NI. We are talking about her forthcoming Income and Corporation Tax cuts.
NI hasn't been "bunged back" its had the starting rate fiddled with but the higher rate is still there bumping up the real marginal tax rate of everyone who earns past the starting rate.
Sunak is the one who is saying he'll cut Income Tax, despite many on Income Tax not paying the increased tax rate.
Comments
How many retired colonels are there who have both a vote and a Gin and Jesus view of the world.
Surely a risky strategy?
There is a running theme of making sure everything is securely tied up here.
Disappointed I won't get my £5k bet coming in but I've managed to cash out a decent chunk of it now at decent odds, so I win either way, so can't complain.
For all that Truss's opponents are saying she'll be an obvious disaster, I haven't seen any reasons expressed so clearly.
It's only Bart that thinks she's good? Am I wrong?
She could well surprise to the upside but this feels an awful lot like 2015 Corbyn
The Amercians were talking about keeping ISS aloft until 2030, but it’s not going to happen without Russian collaboration.
A sad end for the single most expensive object created by humans, but even 24 years as the world’s most famous laboratory (except for maybe the one in Wuhan!) is more than they originally expected.
The challenge now, is to get everyone (except Russia and North Korea) on board with the replacement.
I am sure there is a filter that can get rid of them if you so wish. Good day
If she wins, implements her plan, reverses tax hikes and the economy grows so that we're not "the LOWEST in the G7!" then will you give her some credit?
Its not as if supranational institutions despise Brexit Britain at all.
"I'm Not a Lesbian Alcoholic" Says Alabama Governor".
If it pans out, a Labour government looks value. Any bounce won't last long.
Despite Starmer.
I don't think your judgment is as good as you think it was. We both done fucked up
Its OK, but him being an antisemite who hated Israel was known back in the 90s to those who paid attention with a more critical eye.
Either way though, its done now. I've been asking for a while why people hate Truss - other than she speaks a little bit weirdly sometimes, and that she is a Conservative wants to cut taxes (oh, the horror!) I've yet to hear anyone specify a specific reason they can't stand her.
They have been known to be wrong.
* eg here: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/08/boris-johnson-delivers-20-minute-barrage-of-mansplaining-and-manspreading
**eg remember this? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13211577
"France's Gustav McKeon becomes youngest man to score a T20I century"
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/france-batter-gustav-mckeon-tops-hazratullah-zazai-to-become-youngest-man-to-score-a-t20i-century-1326253
“Germany’s economy faces losing around 12 per cent of its annual output — some €429bn — if Russian natural gas supplies stopped abruptly, according to a new study by an adviser to the government.”
I hope so.
Slightly less flippant answer: he actually has no idea of what the finances of an average family looks like, the pressure they are under at the moment and the hell that is coming with energy prices in the winter.
"I would legislate to make sure there are essential services on our railways."
Tory leadership hopeful Liz Truss says those who work on the railways are "well rewarded" and "wrong to hold the travelling public to ransom" with strike action.
More seriously, no. She has precisely the same issues as Corbyn. She’s a lightweight that’s pedalling a view of the world which only has appeal to the hard extreme of her party. Many of Corbyn’s ideas wouldn’t have worked (even though I saw the same “you don’t like him because he’s actually left wing” defences trotted out) and would likely have been counterproductive. Many Tories on here pointed that out in 2015. I have the same view of Truss. You’re at liberty not to agree but I think of all the candidates she’s only marginally better than the hang-em shoot-em brigade. If you want my assessment of who the right should have backed, it should have been Badenoch.
He should have pinned the blame for the tax increases on Boris and repudiated them himself.
It's pretty sexist to assume that different rules of debate apply to cabinet colleagues simply because they are of different sex.
The whole 'mansplaining' spin is pretty pathetic - though clearly effective with its target market.
The reason why we have a budget is because we can't just print money forever. Truss is proposing to inflate the national debt to give tax cuts to her friends and patrons. If Labour were proposing to borrow £30bn to pay for a giveaway to their friends and patrons you would be going up the bloody wall.
I am the one who should be in favour of Truss's policies!
According to all the weather forecasts from yesterday it was supposed to be about 22C today. It's actually 18C (and feels a bit cooler).
Firstly, she's a woman who has held the highest offices of State.
Secondly, Corbyn's views are the same today as when he was 17 years old. Whatever you want to say about Truss, her views have changed and evolved.
I'm thinking not.
Which is why *everyone* needs to be onboard, with smacking the sh!t out of his army in Ukraine this summer.
*Everyone* includes you, Herr Sholz.
Should have been done 3 or 4 decades ago
(a) there are very substantial local variations (and it's quite possible where you are runs 1-3 degrees cooler than other nearby places)
(b) weather forecasting gets better every year, but it's not perfect
(c) extreme predictions get more publicity, and therefore we tend to remember them more
(For the avoidance of doubt, that is a joke.)
I think Starmer is more Kinnock than Blair or Wilson. People say good things about Rachel Reeves, but she's no mid-90s Gordon Brown.
You can't just say "for the NHS" and magically make everything you do OK.
If the NHS needs funding then fund it, but there's no reason why taxes on people who work should be the only ones going up, while taxes on people who don't should go down.
You're trying to draw a parallel with Corbyn, but with Corbyn the problems that were clear in 2015 were nothing to do with economics and, really, not much to do with policy.
Prattsplaining. This is posting a strawman argument in a particularly sneering way then ending the sentence with an emoji of a person with their hand over their face like thus: 🤦♂️
But it will have served its purpose.
I suspect (unless the war ends soon) that the UK, Italy and Germany will all be in recession by year end, and that France will only avoid it by a whisker.
ROFL the Tories have lost it!
Under New Labour the NHS had its highest satisfaction ratings, ever.
In those years we me the European average for funding.
Coincidence? I think not
(of course there is much more we must do)
They are always right, absolutely right, and any criticism whatever is automatically classed as stupidity or lack of understanding.
As to the great offices of state, there have been plenty of seat-fillers, yes-men and rogues in those offices. Including a certain Alexander B Johnson. She might not literally be Corbyn in blue (and I don’t believe I argued as such), but the political silhouette looks very similar.
Sunak is the one who is saying he'll cut Income Tax, despite many on Income Tax not paying the increased tax rate.